DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 
LIBRARY 


treasure  %oorn 


/ 


TOEASURr  ROOM 


« 


TREASUR:  ^OOM 

REGISTER  OE  THE  DEBATES 


AND 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  YA.  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


WM.  G.  BISHOP,  OFFICIAL  REPORTER.. 


RO.  H.  GALLAHER,  PUBLISHER. 


RICHMOND  REPUBLICAN  EXTRA— JANUARY,  1851. 


MONDAY,  January  6,  1851. 
At  12  o'clock  this  day,  pursuant  to  the  adjournment 
of  the  4th 'November,  1850,  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  revise  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  assembled 
in  the  chamber  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  in  the  capi- 
tol  at  Ri'ihmond. 

.  ^i  t/bLnvention  was  called  to  order  bj  the  President, 
t*?^  ta.  JOHN  Y.  MASON,  and  the  roll  being  called  by 
the"  t  ^KEtary,  S.  D.  WHITTLE,  Esq.,  a  quorum  was 
fount,  y>  be  present. 

RESIGNATION  OF  MEMBERS. 

The  PRESIDENT  announced  that  during  the  recess  of 
the  Convention,  communications  had  been  received  by 
liim,  as  the  presiding  officer  of  the  body,  from  GEORGE 
W.  HOPKINS,  Esq.,  and  GREEN  B.  SAMUELS,  Esq., 
resigning  their  seats  as  members  of  the  Convention,  and 
that  writs  of  election,  according  to  law,  had  been  issued 
by  him  in  each  case  to  supply  the  vacancies  thus  created. 

The  communications,  which  are  as  follow,  were  di- 
rected to  be  entered  upon  the  journal : 

House  of  Delegates,  ) 
Richmond,  December  3,  1850.  ) 
Hon.  John  Y.  Mason,  President  of  the  Convention: 

Sir — Having  been  chosen  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  of  Virginia,  I  beg  leave  to  resign  the  seat 
which  I  have  occupied  in  the  Virginia  State  Convention. 

I  am,  Sir,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
G.  W.  Hopkins. 

Woodstock,  Dec.  10,  1850. 
Sir — I  am  informed  by  private  advices  from  Rich- 
mond, that  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  have  elect- 
ed me  to  the  Judgeship  of  the  Fourteenth  Judicial  Cir- 
cuit— an  office  which  I  have  determined  to  accept.  Re- 
garding the  office  to  which  I  am  just  elected  as  incom- 
patible with  that  which  I  now  hold  as  delegate  in  the 
Convention,  1  deem  it  proper  to  resign  my  place  as  del- 
egate, which  I  now  do.  Allow  me  to  express  the  hope 
that  the  deliberations  of  the  body  over  which  you  pre- 
side, may  result  in  the  preservation  of  harmony  and 
good  feeling  between  all  portions  of  the  Commonwealth 
— a  state  of  things  at  all  times  to  be  desired,  but  indis- 
pensable to  our  safety  in  the  time  of  trouble  and  danger 
which,  I  fear,  we  must  pass  through. 

Respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  B.  Samuels. 
Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason,  President  of  the  Virginia  Conven- 
tion. 

place  of  meeting. 
The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention  the  fol- 
lowing communications  addressed  to  him  as  the  Presid- 
ing Officer  of  the  body,  which  were  read  by  the  Secre- 
tary : 


City  of  Norfolk,  to  wit : — 

At  a  meeting  of  the  select  and  common  councils  of 
the  city  of  Norfolk,  on  the  12th  of  December,  1850 — 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Bowden,  the  following  pream- 
ble and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted,  viz  : 

Whereas,  the  citizens  of  Norfolk  would  be  much  grat- 
ified if  the  Convention  of  Virginia,  which  adjourned  to 
meet  in  Richmond  on  the  first  Monday  in  January  next, 
would  select  this  city  for  the  discharge  of  its  important 
duties :  and  the  councils  of  the  city,  representing  the 
feelings  and  wishes  of  their  constituents  upon  this  sub- 
ject, do  most  respectfully  and  cordially  tender  to  the 
Convention  an  invitation  to  assemble  here  at  such  time 
as  may  suit  its  convenience,  with  the  assurance  that 
every  desirable  arrangement  shall  be  made  for  its  accom- 
modation. 

Therefore,  be  it  Resolved,  That  the  city  hall  be,  and 
it  is  hereby,  offered  to  the  Convention  of  Virginia  as  a 
suitable  place  for  its  deliberations  and  action,  and  that 
the  councils  of  the  city  will  afford  every  facility  in 
their  power  during  its  session,  and  the  citizens  general- 
ly will  be  proud  to  contribute  to  the  pleasure  and  re- 
creation of  the  members  individually. 

Resolved,  That  the  Presidents  of  the  select  and  com- 
mon -councils  forward  a  copy  of  theee  resolutions  to  the 
Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason,  with  the  request  that  he  will  lay 
the  same  before  the  distinguished  body  over  which  he 
presides. 

A  copy — Teste,  Jos.  H.  Robertson, 

Register  city  of  Norfolk. 

Corporation  of  Alexandria, 

In  Council,  Dec.  27,  1850. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  Convention,  on 
behalf  of  this  corporation,  invite  the  Convention  to  re- 
vise the  Constitution  of  the  State,  to  hold  their  sessions 
in  the  town  of  Alexandria,  and  that  the  most  ample  ac- 
commodations be  provided  for  them,  in  case  this  invita- 
tion be  accepted. 

Teste,  R.  Johnston,  C.  C. 

Alexandria,  Va.,  Dec.  31st,  1850. 
Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason,  President  of  the  Convention 

to  revise  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 
Sir — Prefixed  you  will  find  an  attested  copy  of  a  res- 
olution passed  unanimously  by  our  town  council,  on 
the  27th  inst.  I  have  only  to  add,  that  if  it  shall  please 
the  Convention  to  accept  the  invitation,  a  spacious  hall 
can  be  furnished  capable  of  seating  a  thousand  persons, 
and  I  shall  have  great  pleasure  in  aiding  to  carry  out  the 
spirit  of  the  resolution. 

With  great  respect, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

RriRT.  .Tatwiksov. 


Z  £  3  o  I 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


in  behalf  of  the  committee,  that  they  had  been  una- 
ble to  procure  any  other  place  than  the  hall  in  which 
the  body  were  then  assembled.  They  had  presumed  it 
would  answer  the  purpose,  at  least  until  the  Convention 
should  take  some  further  action  in  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject. He  presented  the  following  report  on  the  subject, 
which  was  read  by  the  Secretary  : 

The  special  committee  to  take  into  consideration  the 
propriety  of  providing  accommodations  for  the  Conven- 
tion, have  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  beg 
leave  to  report,  that  the  committee  appointed  by  the 
Convention  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  hall  for  its 
sessions  when  it  re-assemblies,  having  announced  that 
fitting  accommodations  cannot  otherwise  be  obtained, 
your  committee  with  entire  disposition  to  afford  the 
Convention  every  facility  for  the  convenient  and  expe- 
ditious dispatch  of  the  important  duties  which  devolve 
(-n  that  body,  conceiving  the  discharge _  of  the  duties 
incumbent  on  the  Legislature,  without  interruption  or 
delay,  to  be  paramount  to  other  considerations,  feel  con- 
strained only  to  advise  the  offer  of  the  hall  of  the  house 
of  Delegates  to  the  Convention,  with  the  limitations  set 
forth  in  the  following  resolution,  which  they  respectful- 
ly recommend  for  adoption : 

Resolved,  That  the  use  of  the  hall  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  be  tendered  to  the  Convention  of  Virginia, 
when  it  re-assembles  on  Monday,  the  6th  of  January 
next,  from  12  to  1  o'clock;  and  thereafter  the  daily  use 
from  4  o'clock  P.  M.  until  the  meeting  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  on  the  succeeding  day.    (Laid  on  the  table.) 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  sub- 
mitting a  proposition  touching  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee which  has  just  been  made.  I  humbly  conceive 
that  whatever  we  do  in  reference  to  this  matter  should 
be  done  to-day,  for  to  be  well  done,  "  'twere  well  if  'twere 
done  quickly,"  inasmuch  as  by  the  favor  of  those  whose 
peculiar  privilege  it  is  to  occupy  these  seats,  we  are  allow- 
ed to  be  here  at  present  just  60  minutes,  about  15  minutes 
of  which  have  by  this  time  elapsed,  I  move  that  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  be  laid  on  the  table  and  that  the 
following  resolution  be  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  procure  a  suitable  building  (or  room) 
in  which  the  Convention  may  hold  its  sittings,  and  they 
have  the  necessary  accommodations  prepared  therein  as 
speedily  as  practicable  and  make  report  thereof. 

The  motion  to  lay  the  report  on  the  table  was  agreed 

to 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by 
inserting  after  the  word  "  room  "  the  words  "  in  the  city 
of  Richmond." 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    "  Oh  no." 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  move  to  amend  the  amendment  by 
adding  to  it  the  words  "  or  elsewhere."  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.    I  do  not  accept  the  amendment. 

A  division  was  then  had,  and  the  ayes  were  55. 

Mr.  FINNEY.  Is  it  too  late  to  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is,  the  house  being  now  divi- 
ded. 

The  noes  were  then  counted,  and  there  were,  noes  28 
^— so  the  amendment  to  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  apprehend  it  is  not  con- 
templated by  any  considerable  portion  of  this  body  to 
transfer  our  sessions  to  any  other  point  than  this  city. — 
The  most  regular  mode  of  proceeding,  in  my  opinion, 
will  be  for  the  Convention  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
make  application  to  the  General  Assembly  to  cause  some 
suitable  room  to  be  fitted  up  at  once  for  the  use  of  this 
body.    By  the  law  under  which  this  Convention  is  con- 


churches  in  this  city.  No  question  I  apprehend,  was 
made  then,  no  useful  question  could  have  been  made  af- 
terwards, as  to  its  authority  to  do  so,  but  it  does  seem  to 
me  that  the  most  regular  mode  of  proceeding  will  be  to 
appoint  a  committee  as  I  have  suggested,  so  that  we  may 
cause  a  suitable  room  to  be  prepared  under  proper  legal 
authority.  We  have  no  power  to  appropriate  money,  and 
therefore  no  power  to  provide  for  the  compensation  that 
may  be  charged  for  the  use  of  any  building  here  or  else- 
where, that  authority  being  confined  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  State.  I  regret  that  the  chairman  of  the  select  commit- 
tee appointed  in  reference  to  this  subject  is  not  present, 
but  I  have  understood,  and  I  doubt  not  correctly,  that  the 
proper  authorities  have  tendered  to  the  Convention 
through  that  committee,  the  use  of  La  Fayette  hall  in 
this  city,  a  public  building  not  commonly  occupied,  vacant 
at  present,  and  of  dimensions  as  I  am  informed,  amply 
sufficient  to  accommodate  the  members  of  the  Convention 
and  a  reasonable  number  of  auditors.  Our  Skgeant-at- 
Arms  this  morning  exhibited  to  me  a  plan  of  thstdiall,  by 
which  it  is  demonstrated  that  it  is  of  this  sufhV  "  t  ca- 
pacity. To  fit  it  up  suitably  and  comfortably  wily  uire 
a  considerable  expenditure  of  money,  and  that  £  ^  >ins 
to  me,  had  better  be  made  under  legislative  authority  tihasn 
by  any  action  of  the  Convention  itself.  If  we  act  our- 
selves, and  cause  this  hall  to  be  fitted  up  for  our  use,  any 
expense  consequent  thereupon  must  in  the  end  be  de- 
frayed by  the  Legislature  and  cannot  be  provided  for  by 
us.  I  undertake  to  say  that  upon  such  a  communication 
being  made  to  the  General  Assembly,  that  body  will, 
without  a  moment's  delay,  take  the  necessary  steps  to  pro- 
vide the  room  for  the  use  of  the  Convention.  It  does 
seem  to  me  that  while  the  Legislature  is  in  session,  and 
is  to  occupy  these  seats  within  a  few  minutes  of  the  time 
in  which  I  now  speak,  that  we  should  proceed  more  prop- 
erly and  regularly  if  we  adopt  the  course  that  I  have  indi- 
cated, and  in  order  to  test  the  sense  of  the  Convention, 
I  will  propose  the  following  substitute  for  the  resolution 
now  pending : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  to 
make  application  to  the  General  Assembly  to  have  La 
Fayette  hall,  fitted  up  for  the  accommodation  of  this 
body. 

This  work  of  preparation  will  occupy  some  seven  or 
ten  days,  during  which  time  I  apprehend  the  Convention 
will  have  but  little  occasion  for  the  use  of  any  hall.  At 
any  rate  we  can  occupy  this  hall  during  the  early  part 
of  the  session,  either  between  the  hours  of  9  and  1 2,  or  in 
the  evening  after  4  o'clock. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  It  seems  to  me  better  that  the  Conven- 
tion should  adopt  the  proposition  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Essex,  (Mr.  Garnett,)  as  proposed  to  be  amend- 
ed, rather  than  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.)  The  only  difficulty  suggest- 
ed by  the  last  gentleman  in  reference  to  the  direct  action 
of  the  Convention  on  this  subject,  arises  out  of  the  ina- 
bility of  this  Convention  to  make  appropriations  of  pub- 
lic money.  Now  I  take  it  for  granted  that  we  had  better 
make  a  selection  of  a  room  under  the  management  of  our 
own  committee,  than  under  the  management  of  a  com- 
mittee of  another  body,  to  whom  we  are  in  no  degree  re- 
sponsible, and  which  heretofore  has  entirely  failed  to 
make  any  suitable  arrangement  for  our  accommodation. 
I  impute  no  design,  no  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Le- 
gislature not  to  make  proper  arrangements  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  the  Convention,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
that  body  supposed  we  could  very  easily  and  convey 
niently  discharge  our  duties  at  a  time  of  day,  when  I 
believe  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  is  not  generally  very 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


appropriation  to  defray  the  expense,  after  a  committee 
of  the  Convention  shall  have  provided  a  room,  and  this 
I  take  it  for  granted  the  Legislature  will  not  hesitate 
for  one  moment  to  do,  unless  they  should  think  the  Con- 
vention had  been  too  extravagant  in  its  action.  I  sup- 
pose that  the  Legislature  have  no  more  power  to  direct 
where  we  shall  hold  our  sittings  than  we  have  our- 
selves. The  Legislature  has  no  control  over  the  Conven- 
tion, and  we  clearly  have  the  best  right  to  say  where  we 
shall  meet.  Certainly  it  will  not  be  contended  that  the 
Legislature  have  the  power  to  force  us  to  meet  in  a  hall 
which  will  not  accommodate  us.  And  if  we  should  go 
and  select  and  fit  up  some  suitable  place,  I  repeat  I  do 
not  believe  the  Legislature  will  hesitate  for  one  moment 
to  make  the  appropriation  requisite  to  defray  the  ex- 
pense thereby  incurred.  Besides,  I  would  not  limit  the 
committee  to  the  city  of  Richmond  in  their  search  for 
a  suitable  hall.  I  prefer  to  remain  here,  I  believe  a 
large  majority  of  the  Convention  entertain  the  same 
preference,  and  I  am  sure  we  shall  remain  here  if  a  suit- 
able room  can  be  provided  for  us,  but  we  are  not  cer- 
tain that  such  a  place  can  be  provided.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  a  committee  will  select  some  room  here  if 
possible,  but  I  would  leave  them  some  discretion  in  the 
matter,  so  that  if  no  suitable  room  can  be  found  here,  they 
may  go  elsewhere,  or  accept  the  very  liberal  proposi- 
tions made  to  us  by  other  cities.  This  Convention  ought 
not  to  be  trammelled  in  its  deliberations  for  the  want  of 
a  suitable  room  in  which  to  hold  its  sessions.  It  seems 
to  me  that  no  inconvenience  can  result  from  the  resolu- 
tion as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M. 
Garnett,)  while  great  inconvenience  may  result  from  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.)  Suppose  the  Legislature 
shall  say  that  we  shall  not  sit  in  this  hall  ?  Then  we 
will  all  take  it  for  granted  that  we  have  the  right  to  go 
somewhere  else.  Suppose  it  fails  entirely  to  make  suit- 
able provision  for  us,  or  makes  selection  of  a  room  un- 
suitable to  us?  Why,  the  Convention  certainly  is  not 
to  be  compelled  to  accept  of  the  arrangement.  I  shall 
•sustain  the  resolution  as  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Essex,  and  as  proposed  to  be  amended. 

Mr.  COCKE.  As  a  member  of  the  Legislature  as  well 
as  of  this  body>  I  feel  that  some  of  the  remarks  just  made 
by  my  friend  and  colleague  require  some  explanation. — 
It  will  be  remembered  by  the  Convention,  that  on  the 
day  before  the  last  of  the  previous  session,  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  make  suitable  arrangements  for  its  re 
assembling.  That  committee  reported  to  the  Legislature 
that  a  suitable  room,  with  proper  accommodations  for  vis- 
itors, could  not  be  found  within  the  city  of  Richmond.  A 
committee  was  then  appointed  on  behalf  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, to  confer  and  consult  with  the  committee  appointed 
by  the  Convention,  to  see  if  some  arrangement  could  not 
be  made  by  which  both  bodies  might  be  accommodated  in 
this  hall.  The  chairman  of  the  Legislative  committee — 
and  I  make  the  remark  because  some  intimation  has  been 
thrown  out  that  the  Legislature  was  not  ready  and  wil- 
ling to  afford  every  accommodation  in  their  power  to  the 
Convention — suggested  the  adoption  of  the  very  resolu- 
tion proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  or  in 
substance  the  same,  and  expressed  his  willingness,  and 
his  belief  in  the  willingness  of  the  Legislature,  to  vote 
for  fitting  up  any  hall  in  the  city  of  Richmond  that 
would  accommodate,  not  only  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention, but  such  visitors  as  might  choose  to  attend. 
The  result,  however,  of  the  conferences  between  the  two 
•committees  was  the  agreement  on  a  report  to  this  body, 
such  as  has  just  been  read,  viz :  that  the  Convention 
should  have  the  use  of  the  hall  of  delegates,  from  12  to 
1  o'clock  on  the  first  day  of  its  assembling,  and  after  that 
day,  from  4  o'clock  in  the  evening  until  12  o'clock  the 
next  day.  That  seemed  to  be  acceptable  to  the  commit- 
tee on  behalf  of  the  Convention  and  it  was  supposed 
Would  be  equally  acceptable  and  agreeable  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  some  fourteen  or  fifteen  of  whom 
were  fully  cognizant  of  the  arrangement.  I  have  said 
this  much  in  exoneration  of  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 


ture from  the  charge  of  any  unwillingness  on  their  part 
to  afford  such  accommodations  to  us  in  this  hall  as  they 
deemed  just  to  themselves  and  the  interests  which  they 
represent  on  this  floor.  And  what  is  the  question  now  ? 
For  myself,  I  believe  that  the  city  of  Richmond  is  the 
place  where  by  law,  the  people  of  Virginia  in  August 
last  elected  the  members  of  this  Convention  to  assemble. 
And  I  believe  this  is  the  house  and  this  the  hall  in  which 
we  are  to  assemble.  Sir,  what  are  the  objections  to  the 
report  of  the  committee  ?  We  are  offered  this  hall  from 
4  o'clock  P.  M.  to  12  the  next  day.  It  is  well  known  that 
for  four  or  five  weeks  no  place  will  be  needed  for  discus- 
sion for  more  than  two  hours  a  day,  as  it  will  take  that 
time  for  the  committees  to  prepare  business.  In  the 
meantime,  the  Legislature,  it  is  believed,  will  have  fin- 
ished their  business  in  committee,  and  will  be  very  near 
ready  to  leave.  Shall  it  be  said  that  this  Convention 
cannot  meet  at  4,  because  the  dinner  hour  has  intervened  ? 
I  scorn  such  an  idea.  Night  is  the  time  for  deliberation. 
I  believe  this  Convention  will  do  more,  and  do  it  better, 
after  that  time  than  before.  I  doubt  not  the  Legislature 
itself  will,  after  a  little  while,  meet  at  9  A.  M.  Let  us 
adopt  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier, 
and  see  if  the  result  be  not  as  I  have  stated. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  am  one  of  those  who  believed  at 
the  time  the  arrangement  was  entered  into  by  the  House 
of  Delegates,  tendering  the  use  of  tins  hall,  that  it  would 
not  be  satisfactory  to  this  body,  and  that  the  Convention 
would  not  be  willing  to  carry  on  its  deliberations  within 
the  hours  proposed ;  but,  as  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  I  voted  for  it,  supposing  that,  when  the  Con- 
vention met,  they  would  be  ready  to  make  some  other 
provision.  I  think  I  may  say  that  the  Legislature,  so 
far  as  I  know  its  sentiments,  is  ready  to  make  any  ap- 
propriation of  money  necessary  to  fit  up  a  proper  hall 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  Convention.  And  this  it 
seems  to  me,  whether  we  remain  in  Richmond  or  go 
elsewhere,  is  the  only  question  here,  and  that  question  I 
doubt  very  much  if  we  are  prepared  now  to  settle.  We 
ought  in  the  first  place  to  ascertain  whether  a  suitable  hall 
can  be  obtained  in  Richmond,  and  then  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  discuss  the  question  whether  we  shall  remain 
here  or  go  elsewhere.  In  order  that  we  may  hav©  time  to 
reflect  a  little  more  on  the  subjects  I  move  that  the  subject 
be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  really  do  not  know  what  is  to 
be  gained  by  that.  According  to  my  time,  which  per- 
haps is  not  as  good  as  that  "by  Shrewsbury  clock,"  we 
have  but  15  minutes  to  remain  here. 
#  The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  not  a  debateable  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  trust  the  matter  will  not  be 
laid  on  the  table, 

Mr.  LYONS.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  withdraw  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  We  certainly  can  dispose 
in  a  short  time  of  the  question,  which  I  suppose  is  as  to 
our  power  to  go  to  any  other  place.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  we  have  not  the  power. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  imagine  that  there  is  considera- 
ble difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  power  of  this 
Convention  to  leave  this  city.  I  have  no  doubt  of  our 
possessing  it,  but  Whether  we  shall  exercise  it  or  not,  lam 
not  prepared  to  say.  I  must  insist  on  my  motion  to  lay 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  merely  wish  to  say  that  if  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table  shall  be  voted  down,  I  shall 
offer  an  amendment  to  the  resolution,  giving  to  the  com- 
mittee somewhat  broader  powers  than  the  resolution  pro- 
poses. I  propose  not  to  limit  them  to  arrangements  for 
another  hall,  but  to  require  them  also  to  ascertain  wheth- 
er an  arrangement  cannot  be  made  with  the  House  of 
Delegates  by  which  this  hall  can  be  occupied  at  times 
which  will  accommodate  the  Convention  better  than 
those  proposed.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  such  an  ar- 
rangement might  be  effected — at  least  it  can  do  no  harm 
to  give  power  to  the  committee  to  ascertain. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  rejected. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.    I  do  not  myself,  nor  do  I  believe  that 


4 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


any  member  of  the  Convention  complains  of  any  want 
of  courtesy  to  us  in  the  course  pursued  by  the  Legisla- 
ture. It  has  been  explained  that  the  Legislature  has  done 
all  for  us  that  it  could  do,  and  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  I 
do  not  complain  that  they  have  not  yielded  their  hall  to 
us  every  day  at  12  o'clock ;  they  have  offered  us  all  they 
could  conveniently,  and  the  question  is,  can  we,  con- 
sistently with  our  duties,  accept  that  offer  ?  I 
say  we  cannot.  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr. 
Scott)  says  he  does  not  understand  that  it  is  seri- 
ously in  contemplation  for  this  Convention  to  hold  its 
sittings  elsewhere.  I  apprehend  it  is  seriously  in  con- 
templation by  this  Convention  to  have  a  room  in  this  city 
or  elsewhere"  where  they  can  hold  their  sittings  at  such 
times  as  they  please,  as  long  as  they  please,  and  do  their 
work  faithfully.  They  regard  it  as  more  important  to 
do  their  work"  faithfully,  than  where  they  do  it.  I  be- 
lieve that  with  one  accord  they  would  prefer  sitting  here, 
But  if  they  cannot  be  accommodated,  if  they  cannot 
have  the  exclusive  control  of  their  own  time  in  Rich- 
mond, then  I  apprehend,  it  will  be  found  that  they  are 
determined  to  go  elsewhere.  I  agree  also  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan,  that  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  ad- 
journ to  any  other  place  in  this  city  or  elsewhere.  When 
we  have  adopted  a  Constitution,  I  apprehend  there  will 
be  no  inquiry  among  the  people  when  it  is  submitted  to 
them,  as  to  where  it  was  made,  but  rather  what  is  there 
in  it  ;  and  when  they  have  adopted  it,  I  imagine  that  it 
will  be  in  vain  for  the  best  lawyer  in  the  Com- 
monwealth to  raise  his  voice  and  say  it  is  not  a 
legal  Constitution,  because  it  was  not  made  in  the  ca- 
pitol  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  The  law  under  which 
we  are  convened  required  us  to  assemble  in  this  hall, 
and  we  have  complied  with  that  law.  Did  it  require  us 
to  stay  here  ?  What  is  the  law  ?  Will  the  gentleman 
from  Richmond  please  read  it,  as  I  have  it  not  by  me. 

Mr.  LYONS.  The  10th  section  of  the  law  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

10.  The  persons  who  shall  be  elected  in  pursuance  of 
this  act  shall,  on  the  second  Monday  in  October  next, 
meet  and  assemble  at  the  capitol  in  the  city  of  Rich- 
mond, in  general  Convention,  to  consider,  discuss  and 
propose  a  new  Constitution,  or  alterations  and  amend- 
ments to  the  existing  Constitution  ol*  this  Commonwealth. 

Mr.  BO  COCK.  The  law  reads  as  I  expected.  It 
requires  us  to  assemble  in  the  capitol  at  Richmond.  We 
have  fully  complied  with  that  law.  We  have  assembled 
here,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  the  law  requires  us  to 
continue  here  all  the  time.  We  have  all  been  to  our 
homes  for  two  months  past,  I  trust  considering,  devising 
and  preparing  propositions  to  amend.  I  do  not  know  as 
I  desire  that  either,  because  we  have  had  no  lack  of  pro- 
positions to  amend  every  day,  and  I  could  scarcely  hope 
that  anything  should  have  happened  to  increase  the 
number.  [Laughter.]  But  I  have  no  idea,  to  be  serious, 
that  there  is  any  legal  restriction  upon  us  to  continue  in 
this  city.  And  if  there  is,  it  amounts  to  nothing,  be- 
cause, if  we  make  a  Constitution  that  the  people  like, 
they  will  take  it,  whether  it  is  made  here  or  elsewhere. 
And  if  we  make  one  that  they  do  not  like,  they  will  not 
accept  it,  let  it  be  made  where  it  will.  I  repeat  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  staying  here,  if  possible,  but  I  begin  to 
apprehend  we  cannot  be  accommodated  here.  The  Le- 
gislature have  done  all  they  could  do,  and  the  committee, 
which  we  left  here  two  months  ago  to  make  arrange- 
ments for  us,  have  found  the  best  thing  they  can  do  is  to 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  of  the  Le- 
gislature. That  proposition  is  not  good  uenough  for  us, 
and  I  apprehend  if  they  could  have  done  better,  they 
would  have  done  so.  I  for  one  am  utterly  against  it.  The 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  proposes  to  have  La  Fayette 
hall  fitted  up.  I  never  saw  the  hall,  and  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  suitable  or  not.  If  it  is,  however,  I  pre- 
sume the  committee,  who  had  full  power  in  the  matter, 
would  have  had  it  fitted  up.  I  am  for  giving  the  com 
mittee  full  power  over  the  subject. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  If  the  Convention  are  in  earnest 
in  thinking  of  leaving  the  city  of  Richmond,  I  am  exceed- 


ingly desirous  to  give  the  members  the  benefit  of  my 
experience  on  the  occasion  of  a  stampede  which  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  once  took. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for 
a  moment. 

Mr  CLAIBORNE.    I  shall  be  done  in  an  instant. 
Mr.  FERGUSON.    We  have  but  two  minutes  of  the 
session  left. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  shall  be  but  half  a  minute.  I 
merely  wish  to  say  that  if  it  has  been  determined  here 
or  out  of  the  house  to  go  to  another  place,  I  beg  gen- 
tlemen to  make  at  least  no  arrangement  a3  to  fixing  the 
price  of  board.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  FERGUSON.    I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  moving- 
Mr.  WOOLFOLK.    I  think  the  gentleman  has  had  the 
floor  twice. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  merely  wish  to  move  that,  when 
we  adjourn,  it  be  to  meet  again  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock. 
If  we  do  not  agree  upon  some  such  hour,  we  shall  come 
in  conflict  with  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  There  is  sufficient  time  for  that 
I  imagine  that  we  are  entitled  to  this  hall  by  law. 
[Laughter.]  The  House  of  Delegates  have  no  right  to 
it  whatever,  for  if  the  arguments  of  the  gentlemen  from 
Richmond  and  Fauquier  are  right,  they  have,  by  the  act 
convening  this  body,  given  it  to  us  exclusively.  If  their  ar- 
guments are  correct,  we  can  sit  no  where  else,  and  we  can- 
not therefore  move  to  La  Fayette  hall.  I  maintain,  then, 
that  we  ought  not  to  surrender  our  legal  rights  by  yielding 
to  the  House  of  Delegates.  The  lawgiving  us  that  right 
has  been  ratified  and  sanctioned  by  the  people,  and  the 
Legislature  cannot  repeal  it  or  any  portion  of  it,  any 
more  than  they  can  pass  a  law  dissolving  the  Conven- 
tion. If  the  construction  given  to  this  law  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Richmond  and  Fauquier  be  correct,  we 
are  entitled  to  this  hall  and  the  Legislature  have  the 
power  only  of  voting  themselves  into  another — in  the 
room  above  stairs,  perhaps.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  trust  the  resolution  will  be 
adopted  as  originally  reported — without  the  proposed 
amendment — giving  the  committee  simply  the  power  to 
select  a  room.    I  hope  there  will  be  no  further  debate. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  proposition  to  amend 
by  adding  the  words  "  Richmond  or  elsewhere, "  and  it 
was  adopted. 

The  question  was  then  announced  to  be  on  the  substi- 
tute for  the  resolution  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fau- 
quier. 

Mr.  SCOTT  of  Fauquier.  I  do  not  think  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Appomattox  (Mr.  Bocock)  met  the  difficulties 
which  I  sought  to  present.  I  did  not  suppose,  that,  in 
whatever  place  this  body  might  agree  upon  amendments 
to  the  present  Constitution,  it  would  enter  the  head  of  any 
man,  when  that  Constitution  came  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  to  object  to  it  because  the  Convention  which 
adopted  it  had  held  its  sessions  here  or  elsewhere.  I 
stated  that,  according  to  my  reading  of  the  law,  under 
the  authority  of  which  we  are  convened  here,  that  we 
had  no  power,  no  lawful  power,  to  transfer  our  sessions 
elsewhere.  And  if  I  can  understand  plain  English,  that 
is  the  result  of  the  statute  on  this  subject.  It  is  there- 
fore a  question  of  propriety  that  addresses  itself  to  this 
body — whether  we  will  seek  in  a  lawful  way  to  have 
competent  authority  conferred  upon  us  to  make  the 
change,  or,  to  make  the  change  without  authority.  To 
make  the  change  will  in  all  probability  require  an  expen- 
diture of  a  considerable  sum  of  money.  We  have  no  au- 
thority to  make  a  contract,  for  the  fitting  up  of  any  hall ; 
and  if  we  make  a  contract  we  have  no  authority  to  make 
an  appropriation  to  pay  the  expense.  I  have  not  the  least 
doubt  that  the  Legislature  will  make  the  necessary  ap- 
propriation, but  still  the  question  of  propriety  meets 
us.  Seeing  that  the  Legislature  is  here  assembled,  and 
is  ready  to  act, — when  this  body  can  be  subjected  to  no 
inconvenience  by  the  delay — is  it  not  respectful  to  that 
body  to  make  the  application  ?  I  prefer  this,  not  only 
because  it  seems  to  me  the  proper  mode  of  proceeding, 
but  because  it  will  furnish  evidence  to  the  Legislature 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


5 


the  limit  of  the  time  of  session,  which  its  res- 
on  proposes,  is  not  acceptable  to  this  body ;  and  it 
2:ive  them  an  opportunity  to  make  another.    I  am 
•  d  that  there  is  no  other  house,  either  in  this  city 
■  -where,  that  will  accommodate  our  sessions  as  well 
is  tiii.Il,  and  for  one  I  am  extremely  desirous  of 
'his  matter  so  arranged  as  to  accommodate  the 
of  the  Convention  as  well  as  of  the  House  of 
sgates.    There  are  twelve  hours  in  a  day.  The 
>use  of  Delegates  reserves  to  itself  only  three  hours  a 
day,  and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  a  division  of  time  may 
be  made  satisfactory  to  both  parties,  by  which  both  will 
be  enabled  to  hold  their  sessions  here.    Upon  appli- 
cation being  made  to  the  House  of  Delegates,  the  ques- 
tion will  be  open  for  that  body  to  propose  a  different  ar- 
rangement of  time.    If  they  adhere  to  their  former  de- 
termination, they  can  at  once,  by  joint  resolution,  with- 
out going  through  the  formality  of  a  regular  enactment, 
make  arrangements  to  have  La  Fayette  hall,  or  any  oth- 
er house  in  the  city  suitable  for  the  purpose,  fitted  up 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  am  disposed  to  vote  for  the  sub- 
stitute, with  some  slight  modifications.  I  move  to  amend 
it  by  striking  out  the  words  "La  Fayette,"  and  inserting 
the  words  "  a  suitable." 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  accept  of  that  modifica- 
tion. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  If  in  order,  I  move  that  the  Con- 
vention adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  1  o'clock. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  the  ordinary  motion 
for  adjournment,  and  cannot  be  entertained  until  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration  has  been  in  some  way  disposed 
oi 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  move  then  that  the  resolution 
and  amendments  be  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

The  motion  was  rejected — a  division  being  had — ayes 
38,  noes  51. 

There  was  some  conversation  as  to  the  effect  of  an  ad- 
journment without  fixing  a  specific  time  to  re-assemble, 
the  rules  of  the  Convention  requiring  that  body  to  as- 
semble daily  at  12  o'clock,  at  which  hour  the  House  of 
Delegates  would  be  in  the  occupancy  of  the  hall,  when 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier,  the  Conven- 
tion took  a  recess  until  4  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Evening  Session. 
The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

CONTRACT  FOR  THE  REPORTING. 

The  PRESIDENT  submitted  to  the  Convention  a 
communication  from  the  Secretary  in  regard  to  the  re- 
porting and  printing  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Convention,  as  follows  : 

Richmond,  January  6,  1851. 

Hon.  John  Y.  Mason. 

Sir  :  By  a  resolution  of  the  Convention,  adopted  on 
the  4th  day  of  November  last,  I  was  required  under  the 
direction  of  the  President  to  contract  with  some  compe- 
tent and  responsible  reporter  to  furnish  full  reports  of 
the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  Contention.  I  have 
accordingly  entered  into  a  contract  with  Mr.  Wm,  G.  Bish- 
op, and  herewith  transmit  the  contract  and  the  bond  for 
its  faithful  execution. 

I  was  also  required  by  the  same  resolution  to  receive 
proposals  from  the  conductors  of  the  different  newspa- 
pers in  the  city  of  Richmond  for  publishing  the  proceed- 
ings and  debates,  and  enclose  herein  the  proposals  which 
have  been  made  to  me. 

Very  repectfuly,  your  ob't  serv't, 

S.  D.  Whittle,  Secretary. 

This  agreement  entered  into  by  "Wm.  G-.  Bishop,  of  the 
first  part  and  S.  D.  Whittle,  Clerk  of  the  Convention  of 
Virginia,  held  under  the  authority  of  an  act  of  Assembly 

of  Virginia,  passed  the  of  ,  1850,  the  said 

S.  D.  Whittle,  acting  for,  and  in  behalf  of  the  said  Con- 
vention, and  by  authority  of  a  resolution  of  the  said  Con- 
vention, iu  the  following;  words,  viz :  "  Resolved,  Ti^at  the 


clerk  of  this  Convention,  under  the  direction  of  the  Presi- 
dent, contract  with  some  competent  and  responsible  re- 
porter to  furnish  full  reports  of  the  proceedings  and  de- 
bates of  this  Convention,  reserving  to  the  Convention  the 
right  at  any  time  to  annul  said  contract  in  case  the  report- 
ing shall  not  be  satisfactorily  performed,  and  requiring 
such  reporter  to  afford  facilities  to  editors  of  newspapers 
in  the  city  of  Richmond  for  copying  the  reports  " — of  the 
second  part — witnesseth  that  the  said  S.  D.  Whittle  has 
under  the  authority  of  the  said  resolution,  and  under  the 
direction  of  J ohn  Y.  Mason,  President  of  the  said  Con- 
vention, entered  into  a  contract  with  Wm.  G.  Bishop  as 
follows : 

The  said  Wm.  G.  Bishop,  on  his  part,  undertakes  and 
agrees  by  himself,  and  his  assistants  as  he  may  furnish, 
to  report  fully  and  accurately  all  the  proceedings  and 
debates  of  the  Convention,  from  the  first  Monday  in  Jan- 
uary next  to  the  close  of  the  Convention — to  deliver 
the  reports  of  each  day's  proceedings  and  debates,  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Convention  within  a  reasonable  time, 
and  also  to  afford  to  the  editors  of  the  newspapers  of  the 
city  of  Richmond,  such  facilities  for  copying  the  reports 
as  the  said  Secretary  may  direct. 

On  the  part  of  the  Convention,  the  said  S.  D.  Whittle 
stipulates,  that  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  shall  pay 
the  said  Wm.  G.  Bishop  weekly  if  required  by  him,  for  the 
reports,  at  the  rate  of  five  dollars  per  column,  each  col- 
umn to  be  equal  to  one  column  brevier  type  of  the  Na- 
tional Intelligencer,  published  in  the  city  of  Washington, 
but  the  entire  compensation  paid,  is  not  to  exceed  the 
sum  of  $250  per  week  for  each  week  of  the  session 
of  the  Convention,  and  if  in  any  one  week  the  amount 
due  for  reporting  at  $5  per  column  exceeds  $250, 
the  surplus  shall  remain  in  the  treasury  until  the  re- 
porting is  completed,  or  this  contract  terminated,  when 
so  much  thereof  shall  be  paid  the  said  William  G. 
Bishop  as  may  be  necessary  to  raise  the  aggregate 
sum  paid  him  to  $250  per  week  ;  but,  in  no  event  is  a 
higher  sum  than  $250  per  week  to  be  paid  the  said  Wm. 
G.  Bishop.  It  is  further  agreed  by  and  between  the  par- 
ties hereunto  that  the  Convention  may  at  any  tine  ter- 
minate this  contract,  in  case  the  reporting  shall  not  be 
satisfactorily  performed.  The  said  Wm.  G.  Bishop  also 
agrees  to  give  bond  and  security  in  the  penalty  of  one 
thousand  dollars  for  the  performance  of  this  contract  on 
his  part :  In  testimony  whereof  the  parties  hereunto 
have  set  their  hands,  this  seventh  day  of  November, 
1850.  Wm.  G.  Bishop, 

S.  D.  Whittle, 
Scc'ty  of  Convention. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Proposals  for  Publishing  and  Distributing  the  Debates 
and  Proceedings  of  the  Virginia  Reform  Convention. 

Richmond,  Jan.  6, 1850. 
To  the  Secretary  of  the  Va.  Reform  Convention  : 

Sir  :  In  response  to  your  invitation  to  the  Editors  of 
the  several  political  papers  of  Richmond,  to  submit  pro- 
posals for  publishing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the 
State  Convention  to  re-assemble  this  day,  I  herewith 
hand  you,  with  the  concurrence  of  my  cotempora- 
ries,  a  proposition  to  spread  before  the  subscribers 
of  our  respective  journals,  the  full  debates  and  proceed 
ings  of  the  Convention,  as  reported  and  written  out  by 
the  official  reporter. 

The  terms  upon  which  I  propose  to  publish  these  de- 
bates, <fec.  have  been  estimated  so  as  to  cover  all  inciden- 
tal expenses  which  may  be  incurred  by  the  different  par- 
ties in  mailing  and  distributing  the  supplemental  sheets 
to  their  subscribers. 

Very  respectfully, 

Ro.  H.  Gallaher. 

The  subscriber,  with  the  concurrence  of  his  cotempo- 
raries  of  the  Enquirer,  Whig,  Examiner,  Times  and  Re- 
publican Advocate,  hereby  agrees  to  publish,  in  a  sup- 
plemental sheet,  to  be  laid  before  the  subscribers  of  all 
of  our  papers,  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  Vir- 


6 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ginia  Reform  Convention  upon  the  following  terms,  to 
wit:  Composition  at  the  rate  of  sixty-five  cents  per 
thousand.  Press  work  at  sixty-five  cents  per  token, 
and  paper  at  an  average  cost  of  four  dollars  and  sixty 
cents  per  ream — the  sizes  of  the  paper  used  to  be  of  the 
dimensions  of  the  Whig  and  Republican  Advocate,  re- 
spectively. 

Should  this  proposition  be  accepted,  the  estimated 
cost  to  the  State,  for  a  session  of  ten  weeks — with  three 
columns  of  matter  per  day  as  an  average — is  five  thou- 
sand six  hundred  and  ninety-nine  dollars.  Extra  copies 
of  the  supplement  which  may  be  ordered  by  the  Con- 
vention, will  be  furnished  at  the  rate  of  two  dollars  per 
hundred  copies,  including  all  expenses  for  mailing,  (fee. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Ro.  H.  Gallaher. 

We  concur  in  the  above  proposal. 

Wm.  F.  &  Thos.  Ritchie,  Jr., 
DeWitt  &  Daniel, 
Dan'l  Woodson, 
Heath,  Elliott,  Scott  &  Co., 
Wm.  C.  Carrington. 

It  was  moved  that  the  communication  be  referred  to 
the  Select  Committee  raised  to  consider  the  question  of 
reporting  and  printing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Convention,  but  the  motion  was  rejected. 

The  communication  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  or 
dered  to  be  printed. 

PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  re- 
solution in  regard  to  the  place  of  meeting — the  question 
being  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Carlile  to  the 
substitute  proposed  by  Mr.  Scott,  of  Eauquier,  for  the  re- 
solution offered  by  Mr.  M.  Garnett. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT  asked  the  gentleman  from  Barbour 
(Mr.  Carlile)  to  withdraw  his  amendment,  with  a  view  to 
enable  him  to  offer  an  amendment  which  he  indicated. 

Mr.  CARLILE  assented  to  this  proposition  and  with- 
drew his  amendment  accordingly. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT  then  offered  the  following  amend- 
ment:— 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  members  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  chair,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  inquire 
and  report  to  the  Convention  upon  the  practicability  of 
procuring  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  or  elsewhere,  a  suita- 
ble place  for  holding  the  sessions  of  this  body,  until  the 
adjournment  of  the  General  Assembly. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  LYONS  proposed  the  following  substitute  for  the 
pending  resolutions : — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  this  Convention,  un- 
der the  law  convening  it,  to  hold  its  sessions  in  the  capi- 
tol  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  if  it  be  practicable  to  do  so, 
and  that  nothing  will  excuse  its  failure  to  do  so  but  a 
necessity  beyond  its  control. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  Convention  be  re- 
quested to  address  a  communication  to  the  Legislature, 
requesting  it  to  make  such  provision  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  this  Convention  during  its  s 


us  in  going  somewhere  else.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  if 
you  can  go  to  La  Fayette  hall,  you  can  go  to  Norfolk,  Alex- 
andria or  anywhere  else,  but  that  you  can  go  to  neither, 
except  in  such  a  case  as  renders  it  necessary  to  carry 
out  the  objects  of  the  law  by  which  we  were  convened. 
Now  I  cannot  agree  in  the  opinion  of  one  member, 
that  this  is  a  mere  formality.  There  ought  to  be  in  the 
proceedings  of  this  body  an  appearance  of  dignity  and 
order.  We  have,  it  is  well  known,  a  very  large  party 
ready  to  rejoice  in  every  false  step  we  may  take,  for  the 
purpose  of  breaking  down  the  Convention.  We  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  careful  to  give  them  no  occasion.  And 
although  it  may  be  true  that  a  Constitution  adopted  by 
this  Convention  at  any  place,  and  accepted  by  the  peo- 
ple, would  be  legal,  yet  I  believe  we  shall  not  make  such 
a  Constitution  as  will  command  the  respect  which  it 


ought  to  receive,  if  we  b( 


by 


:-dino;  the  law. — 


It  seems  to  me  it  is  not  proper  for  us,  in  respect  to  our- 
selves, in  respect  to  the  people  who  have  sent  us  here,  to 
get  up  and  to  go  to  some  other  place,  without  suitable  ef- 
forts to  provide  for  our  sessions  here.  It  is  our  duty  to 
hold  our  sessions  here,  unless  there  is  a  necessity  which 
we  cannot  control. 

Mr.  WHITTLE  read  a  resolution,  which  he  proposed 
to  offer,  but 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  that  it  would  not  be  in  order 
until  after  the  question  was  taken  on  the  amendment. 

Mr.  HOPKINS  made  some  statements  and  inquiries 
as  to  the  question  before  the  House. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the 
substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Scott  as  amended. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Then  all  who  have  propositions  to 
offer,  and  I  have  one  which  I  design  to  offer  myself,  must 
unite  in  voting  against  this  proposition  as  amended ;  for 
if  that  be  rejected,  the  question  will  be  on  the  resolution 
as  originally  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Essex, 
(Mr.  Garnett.) 

Mr.  DAVIS  asked  for  the  reading  of  the  original  pro- 
position with  the  amendments,  and  they  were  read  ac- 
cordingly. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  throw  out 
an  intimation,  as  did  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  I 
would  say,  that  those  who  think  that  this  Convention 
should  select  for  itself  some  suitable  place  for  its  delibe- 
rations, and  not  leave  to  the  General  Assembly  the  se- 
lection, should  vote  aye.  In  that  way  shall  my  vote 
be  recorded. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  I  move  the  indefinite  postponement 
of  this  whole  subject,  and  if  in  order,  will  submit  a  few 
observations  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  motion.  I 
agree  entirely  with  those  who  have  expressed  the 
opinion  that  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  this  Con- 
vention to  sit  where  it  now  does,  or  to  select  some 
other  place  for  its  sessions,  as  may  be  most  convenient, 
in  its  judgment.  Beyond  all  question  this  was  consider- 
ed by  the  Legislature,  under  whose  act  we  have  assem- 
bled, as  the  most  convenient  place  to  perform  the  duty 
which  has  been  assigned  us.  And  they  have  accordingly 
directed  us  to  assemble  here  upon  a  certain  day  for  the 
performance  of  that  duty.  We  have  assembled  here  on 
sessions,  as  will  enable  that  day  for  that  pm.p0se,  and  if  in  the  performance  of 
it  to  perform  its  duties  according  to  the  law  aforesaid.    \  that  duty  neCessity  requires  us  to  assemble  in  some  other 


The  PRESIDENT  ruled  that  the  substitute  was  not 
in  order,  inasmuch  as  there  was  one,  that  of  Mr.  Scott,  of 
Fauquier,  as  amended,  already  pending. 

Mr.  LYONS.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Legislature  to  make  provision  for  the  sessions  of  the 
Convention ;  a  Convention  which  is  in  session  according 
to  law.  And  while  1  do  not  mean  to  express  anything 
unkind  to  that  body,  still  I  am  free  to  confess  that 
the  Legislature  have  not  done  the  duty  which  they  ought 
to  have  done,  to  provide  for  the  sessions  of  this  body. — 
They  knew  that  it  was  our  duty  to  sit  in  this  city,  there- 
fore it  was  proper  that  the  Legislature  should  have  made, 
without  being  asked,  such  provision  as  would  be  necessa- 
ry. And  now  I  am  for  doing  nothing  more  than  to  ask 
them  to  make  such  provision  for  the  execution  of  that 
law,  and  if  they  refuse,  we  have  a  ease  that  will  justify 


place  in  Richmond  or  elsewhere  in  the  State,  I  consider 
that  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  And  conceding 
our  right  to  do  so  if  necessity  requires  it,  the  same  rea- 
sons would  authorize  us  to  do  so  if  convenience  required  it. 
While  this  is  my  opinion,  I  concur  with  the  Legislature 
in  believing  that  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  the  capi^ 
tol  of  Virginia,  and  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
is  the  most  convenient  place  for  holding  our  sessions,  and 
we  ought  to  sit  here,  not  only  because  it  has  been  appointed 
as  the  place  of  our  meeting,  but  also  because  it  is  the  most 
convenient  place  for  that  purpose,  if  we  can  sit  here  con- 
jointly with  the  House  of  Delegates.  I  think  we  can. 
It  has  been  said  here,  that  there  are  twelve  hours  of  the 
day,  and  that  they  are  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  both 
bodies.  Then  if  each  body  requires  five  hours  of  the  day, 
the  day  is  stili  long  eovugh  Uer  th,e  meeting  ©f  teth  i» 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


7 


this  hall.  It  is  most  convenient  for  us  in  every  way  to 
meet  here,  because  this  hall  has  been  fitted  up  for  the 
meeting  of  such  a  body  as  this,  and  because  this  building 
has  every  convenience  for  the  performance  of  our  duties. 
For  the  meeting  of  our  committees,  there  are  committee 
rooms  in  this  capitol,  and  there  is  the  public  library. 
Every  thing  requires  that  we  should  meet  here,  if  we 
can  conveniently  do  so,  and  I  think  the  hall  affords  ac- 
commodation for  both  bodies.  The  only  question,  there- 
fore, is,  whether  or  not  the  House  of  Delegates  has  done  as 
much  for  us  as  it  could  and  ought  to  have  done  ?  I  think 
it  has.  I  think  the  resolution  which  has  been  already 
adopted  by  the  House,  is  sufficient  for  our  accommoda- 
tion. It  was  a  resolution  adopted  upon  due  deliberation, 
adopted  too  upon  the  concurrent  opinion  of  a  committee 
of  this  body  and  of  the  House.  It  allots  to  the  House 
but  three  of  the  twelve  hours,  and  it  gives  to  us  nine 
out  of  the  twelve  or  twenty-four  as  you  please.  Are 
these  nine  hours  at  such  inconvenient  seasons  of  the  day 
as  that  we  cannot  avail  ourselves  of  them  ?  I  do  not 
think  they  are.  I  think  when  we  are  allowed  to  meet 
here  at  4  o'clock,  and  to  sit  as  long  in  the  evening  as  our 
duties  require  us  to  sit,  and  to  meet  here  at  9  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  and  sit  until  12  o'clock,  and  when  we  are  al- 
lowed the  use  of  the  committee  rooms  from  12  until  3 
o'clock,  that  we  have  ample  time  and  every  convenience 
for  the  discharge  of  our  duties.  Where  is  the  objection 
to  this  arrangement  ?  The  House  of  Delegates  have  cho- 
sen but  three  hours  of  the  day,  and  it  has  located  these  three 
hours  between  12  and  3  o'clock.  Why  should  we  object 
to  that  location  ?  Why  should  we  claim  that  portion  of 
the  day  any  more  than  the  House  of  Delegates  ?  In  all 
human  probability  for  some  time  to  come — perhaps  dur- 
ing the  whole  session  of  the  Legislature — the  three  hours  of 
the  morning  which  we  will  have,  from  9  to  12  o'clock,  will 
be  ample  for  the  sessions  of  this  body.  And  we  shall 
have  from  12  until  night  for  the  sessions  of  our  commit- 
tees, which  will  afford  them  ample  time  for  the  prepara- 
tion of  their  reports.  Then  when  the  Legislature  ad- 
journs, we  shall  have  the  full  use  of  the  hall  during  the 
whole  day.  Suppose  these  three  hours  are  not  sufficient,  can 
not  we  take  a  recess  and  meet  again  at  4  o'clock  ?  Where 
is  the  objection  to  that  course  ?  And  when  we  meet 
again  at  4,  if  our  duties  require  us,  we  can  dip  a  little  into 
the  night.  Where  is  the  objection  to  that  ?  The  night 
is  long,  and  we  can  sit  until  9  or  12  o'clock  even,  and  still 
have  time  enough  for  rest.  I  think  this  to  be  the  most 
convenient  place  for  the  performance  of  our  duties^ — pre- 
cisely where  we  now  are,  in  this  hall,  and  in  this  capitol. 
1  think  the  day  is  ample  for  the  accommodation  of  both 
bodies.  I  know  it  would  be  more  convenient  and  desira- 
ble to  have  the  entire  use  of  this  hall,  if  circumstances 
would  allow  it,  but  they  do  not,  and  we  must  make  the 
best  arrangement  we  can.  But  I  think  even  dividing  the 
use  of  the  hall  with  the  House  of  Delegates,  it  is  still  the 
most  convenient  place  in  the  Commonwealth  for  our  meet- 
ing, and  that  we  ought  to  remain  here.  I  think  the  ar- 
rangement that  has  been  made  between  the  committees 
of  the  two  bodies  is  as  convenient  an  one  as  we  could  ex- 
pect, and  I  hope  the  whole  subject  will  be  postponed,  and 
that  we  shall  at  once  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  our  im- 
portant duties. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  concur  perfectly  with  the 
gentleman  from  Stafford  (Mr.  Moncure)  in  the  opinion  that 
the  law  under  which  we  have  assembled,  is  not  mandatory 
upon  us.  I  can  see  nothing  in  the  law  which  requires  the 
Convention  to  continue  its  sessions  in  this  capitol,  or  in  the 
city  of  Richmond  But  I  differ  altogether  from  him  in 
the  opinion  he  expressed,  that  we  ought  to  accept  the  Le- 
gislative proposition.  With  respect  to  the  argument  that 
the  law  is  mandatory,  what  is  there  in  it  which  requires 
the  Conventign  to  continue  to  hold  its  sessions  in  this 
hall,  or  in  the  city  of  Richmond  ?  What  is  the  language 
of  the  law  ?  It  is  that  the  Convention  shall  assemble 
in  the  capitol  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  to  consider, 
discuss  and  propose  amendments  to  the  existing  Con- 
stitution of  Virginia.  Well,  is  not  that  law  perfect- 
ly complied  with  when  we  assemble  here  to  consider 


amendments  to  the  Constitution  ?  Unquestionably  it 
is.  Circumstances  might  occur  which  would  render  a 
continued  session  in  this  city  indiscreet  and  impro- 
per. Some  sudden  calamity,  some  fatal  disease,  might 
render  it  inconvenient  or  dangerous.  The  Legislature 
considered  these  things,  and  therefore,  in  my  judgment, 
most  wisely  committed  the  entire  subject  to  the  discre- 
tion of  this  Convention.  A  wise  and  sound  discretion  is 
to  be  exercised  in  reference  to  the  continuance  of  our  ses- 
sions here.  I  have  no  particular  objection  to  continue  the 
sessions  of  the  Convention  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  I 
concur  with  the  gentleman  from  Stafford  (Mr.  Moncure  ) 
in  the  opinions  he  has  expressed  in  regard  to  the  conve- 
nience of  this  place.  But  still  I  maintain  that  the  Legis- 
lature intended  to  submit  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  Con- 
vention, because  circumstances  might  occur  in  the  pro- 
gress of  our  deliberations,  which  would  render  it  exceed- 
ingly indiscreet  to  continue  our  sessions  here.  But  I  may 
be  permitted  to  disagree  with  the  gentleman  from  Staf- 
ford, that  it  would  be  either  wise  or  prudent  to  accept  the 
Legislative  proposition.  We  are  to  meet  at  4  o'clock,  we 
are  then  to  have  long  night  sessions  of  this  body.  My 
experience  justifies  me  in  the  opinion  that  nothing  is 
more  objectionable  than  the  night  sessions  of  any  delib- 
erative assembly  whatever.  I  have  had  some  little  expe- 
rience on  the  subject,  and  you  sir,  have  had  that  experi- 
ence also,  and  you  know,  and  I  know  that  it  is  improper 
that  any  body  should  meet  and  continue  its  session  until 
nightfall,  or  during  the  night.  I  was  very  much  aston- 
ished to  hear  the  remark  of  the  gentleman  from  Fluvan- 
na (Mr  Cocke)  that  the  night  was  the  most  seasonable 
hour  for  deliberation.  The  night  is  the  most  season- 
able hour  for  excitement,  not  for  deliberation.  We  take 
our  dinners,  and  we  come  here,  and  we  are  sometimes — I 
presume  the  members  of  this  Convention  are  not  unlike 
the  members  of  any  other  deliberative  assembly — but 
illy  qualified  for  the  performance  of  our  duty.  I  do  not 
mean  to  make  any  improper  intimations  against  the 
members  here,  but  like  other  men  they  are  fallible  men, 
and  I  can  only  say  from  my  own  experience,  that  it  is 
improper,  extremely  improper,  to  hold  our  sessions  after 
nightfall,  and  therefore  for  this  reason,  I  shall  oppose  the 
acceptance  of  the  very  kind,  generous  and  liberal  offer 
made  to  us  by  the  House  of  Delegates.  Very  liberal  sir ! 
They  Jiave  reserved  the  better  portion  of  the  day  to 
themselves,  and  they  have  given  the  latter  part  of  it  to 
this  Convention— I  know  not  on  what  principle,  except 
it  be  that  their  duties  are  more  important  than  ours. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  I  wish  to  ask  at  what  time  I  may  in- 
troduce a  proposition  ? 

The  PRESIPENT.  The  motion  now  pending  is  to 
postpone  indefinitely — if  it  be  decided  in  the  affirmative, 
it  will  be  in  order  to  bring  forward  a  new  proposition. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  I  beg  leave  now  merely  to  remark, 
that  I  concur  in  the  very  clear  opinion  expressed  as  to 
the  legality  of  changing  our  place  of  meeting,  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Lyons)  and  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott).  We  sit  here,  as  it  were,  under  a  power  of 
attorney — under  a  grant  of  power  to  do  particular  things, 
which  grant  of  power  is  expressed  in  certain  words  by 
the  granting  power.  We  cannot  by  our  action  add  to 
or  subtract  in  any  respect  from  the  extent  of  power  con- 
ferred upon  us  by  this  grant — the  act  of  Assembly  which 
is  our  power  of  attorney.  That  act  says  our  meeting 
must  take  place  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  it  therefore 
precludes  the  possibility  of  any  other  place  of  meeting. 
They  wisely  confined  us  to  the  capitol,  and  there  is  not, 
in  my  view  of  this  question,  the  slightest  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  the  proper  performance  of  their  duties  on 
the  part  of  the  Legislature,  and  en  the  part  of  this  body 
in  this  hall.  The  Legislature  never  sits  more  than  four 
hours  a  day,  except  under  most  extraordinary  circumstan- 
ces, and  that  number  of  hours  may  be  assumed  as  the  pe- 
riod of  time  adequate  for  the  performance  of  their  duty. 
Giving  them  four  hours  and  reserving  four  to  ourselves, 
say,  for  one,  from  9  to  1  o'clock,  and  for  the  other,  from  1 
to  5  o'clock,  P.  M.-^and  ample  time  will  be  afforded  both 
bodies  for  the  proper  discharge  of  their  several  duties, 


8 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


We  have  made  but  one  attempt  in  relation  to  the  divi- 
sion of  time  -with  the  House,  and  probably  on  its  being 
suggested  that  the  present  division  does  not  suit  our  pur- 
pose, they  may  agree  to  such  an  one  as  will.  There 
is  a  consideration  that  weighs  with  me,  and  weighs  hea- 
vily, in  favor  of  meeting  here  in  the  capitol.  If  any 
other  place  was  selected,  it  would  put  it  out  of  the  pow- 
er of  those  members  who  hold  seats  in  both  bodies  to  at- 
tend to  both.  Justice  to  their  constituents  demands  that 
we  should  make  such  arrangements  as  will  make  it  pos- 
sible for  them  to  fulfil  the  duties  devolving  upon  them. 
These  views  may  have  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  Le- 
gislature when  they  passed  this  bill.  These  views  may 
have  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  people  when  they 
approved  of  that  law.  They  may  have  selected  the  ca- 
pitol, in  the  city  of  Richmond,  as  the  best  and  the  only 
place  where  the  meeting  of  this  body  should  be  held. — 
These  schemes  also  carry  us  away  from  the  public  re- 
cords, the  public  library,  and  other  conveniences,  into 
places  where  no  legislative  body  ever  sat.  They  raise 
questions  such  as  that  of  mileage,  which  it  was  proba- 
bly the  intention  of  the  Legislature  in  appointing  this 
place  to  avoid.  The  resolution  which  I  desire  to  offer 
at  a  proper  time,  is  merely  the  embodiment  of  the  views 
I  have  here  expressed. 

The  PRESIDENT  here  stated  that  the  motion  for  in- 
definite postponement  would  not  reach  the  report  of  the 
select  committee,  and  that  it  would  be  in  the  power  of 
the  Convention  if  that  motion  was  adopted,  at  once  to 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  that  report. 

Mr.  ANDERSON".  I  differ  very  widely  with  my  friend 
from  Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Whittle)  in  the  remark  that  we 
sit  here  under  a  power  of  attorney  from  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Virginia.  We  have  a  power  of  attorney  from  a 
much  higher  source  than  the  Legislature  of  Virginia, 
however  respectable  it  may  be.  We  sit  here  under  a 
power  of  attorney  from  the  people  of  Virginia  to  re- 
vise and  form  for  them  a  Constitution. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  I  said  that  the  people  at  the  polls, 
when  they  voted  on  the  question  of  Convention  or  no 
Convention,  adopted  the.  bill  of  the  Legislature,  and 
that,  therefore,  jn  that  way  they  conferred  the  power 
of  attorney  upon  us  themselves. 

Mr.  ANDERSON".  I  do  not  deny  that  the  people, 
when  they  adopted  the  law  calling  this  Convention  did 
by  their  vote,  to  some  extent,  give  their  sanction  to  that 
law.  But  the  vote  of  the  people  alone  authorized  this 
Convention  to  be  called.  And  hence  being  elected  by 
them,  when  they  had  determined,  by  th^ir  votes,  that 
the  Convention  should  be  called,  we  assembled  here,  not 
under  any  warrant  from  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  but 
under  a  warrant  from  the  people  themselves.  I  cannot 
agree,  then,  in  the  construction  which  gentlemen,  have 
given  to  the  act  under  which  we  are  assembled.  I  think 
they  have  given  a  much  wider  construction  to  it  than  it 
will  bear.  I  acknowledge  that  it  was  our  duty  to  assem- 
ble here  ;  but,  if  a  suitable  hall  could  not  be  obtained 
here,  we  have  power  to  procure  one  wherever  it  can  be 
obtained.  I  was  therefore  prepared  to  vote  for  the  pro- 
position of  my  friend  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott.)  But 
the  gentleman  from  Stafford  (Mr.  Moncure)  has  moved 
the  indefinite  postponement  on  the  ground  that  the  Le- 
gislature has  provided  for  us.  I  think  the  gentleman 
has  misunderstood  the  case.  When  he  properly  under- 
stands it,  I  think  he  will  agree  with  me,  that  he  has,  con- 
trary to  what  he  is  wont  to  do,  gone  off  half-cocked.— 
[Laughter.]  I  understand  that  the  Legislature  have  ap- 
propriated to  themselves  all  the  time  in  the  early  part 
of  the  day  up  to  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  that 
they  have  left  us  only  the  rest  of  the  day.  You  know 
that  it  is  contended  that  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature 
after  4  o'clock  have  been  detestable,  and  that  the  mem- 
bers are  not  fife  for  legislation  after  that  hour.  I  think 
then  they  have  assumed  that  we  are  able  to  do  what 
they  cannot  do^-we  are  complimented  as  being  able  to 
do  what  the  Legislature  could  not  do — but  I  fear  that 
the  compliment  is  not  deserved. 

Mr.  JANNEY.    When  it  shall  become  absolutely  ne- 


cessary to  decide  this  question,  about  which  learned  gen- 
tlemen differ,  I  shall  be  ready  to  take  my  share  of  the  re- 
sponsibility, but  1  do  not  think  that  time  has  come,  and 
if  I  had  the  same  object  in  view  that  is  proposed  by 
the  gentlemen  from  Pittsylvania,  from  Richmond,  and 
from  Stafford,  I  should  vote  for  this  proposition.  What 
does  the  resolution  propose  ?  Simply,  that  five  mem  • 
bers  be  appointed  by  the  Chair,  as  a  committee  to  pro- 
vide some  suitable  place  in  this  city  or  elsewhere,  for 
the  sessions  of  this  Convention,  till  such  time  as  the  Le- 
gislature may  adjourn.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
mond (Mr.  Lyons)  know  that  this  committee  may  not 
report  that  this  place  can  be  obtained  ?  Does  the 
gentleman  from  Stafford  (Mr.  Moxcure)  know  that  the 
Legislature  will  not  propose  any  other  time  for  our 
meeting  in  this  hall  than  they  have  ?  This  committee 
will  be  authorized  to  receive  proposals  from  the  different 
congregations,  and  the  different  halls,  and  from  the  Le- 
gislature themselves.  When  that  committee  report  to 
us  that  this  hall  cannot  be  obtained,  then  the  legal  ques- 
tion will  properly  come  up,  and  not  before. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  I  had  hoped  some  gentle- 
man had  been  informed  in  regard  to  what  had  been  done 
on  the  part  of  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  would  have  com- 
municated it  to  the  Convention  before  the  vote  was  taken 
on  this  subject.  I  feel  it  my  duty  before  the  vote  is  ta- 
ken, to  state  the  fact,  that  there  are  in  the  city  of  Rich- 
mond two  halls  much  better  calculated  to  accommodate 
this  Convention  than  this  one,  and  that  one  of  these  at 
least  has  been  tendered  to  the  Commonwealth  by  the 
city  council  of  Richmond,  I  allude  to  La" -Fayette  hall, 
and  I  believe  that  it  can  be  made  to  accommodate  this 
Convention  much  better  than  this  hall,  with  a  very  lit- 
tle expense.  And  since  the  adjournment  of  this  Conven- 
tion, a  church,  not  the  African  church,  to  which  some  of 
my  Western  friends  might  not  be  willing  to  go — not  a 
church  connected  with  the  "mixed  basis" — but  the  Uni- 
tarian church  has  been  offered  to  us,  and  with  some  400 
or  500  dollars  expense — an  expense  that  we  have  incur- 
red in  the  discussion  of  this  very  grave  and  important 
question — it  will  accommodate  us  better  than  this  house, 
I  go  against  the  indefinite  postponement,  for  I  have  no 
idea  of  being  cooped  up  here  after  4  o'clock  lantil  12 
o'clock  at  night.  I  should  much  prefer  the  resolution 
which  proposes  to  appoint  a  committee  of  five  to  provide 
a  room,  and  I  think  we  had  better  settle  the  question  at 
once. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Gentlemen  have  said  that  we 
were  likely  to  lose  our  influence  over  those  who  have 
sent  us  here,  by  our  actions.  It  is  astonishing  to  me 
that  the  venerable  gentlemen  here  assembled  should  nev- 
er be  able  to  agree  upon  anything,  even  to  the  election 
of  a  doorkeeper,  without  a  long  debate.  I  thought 
this  morning  that  we  would  spend  the  very  few 
moments  left  to  us,  in  the  appointment  of  this  com- 
mittee. I  think  the  very  worst  thing  we  can  do 
for  the  Commonwealth,  is  to  retard  the  labors  of  the 
Legislature.  I  want  the  Convention  to  be  careful  of  its> 
own  time.  I  ask  no  favors  at  the  hands  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. I  look  upon  it,  that  we  are  the  people — the  direct 
representatives  of  the  people — sent  here  by  the  people, 
and  if  they  sanction  our  doings,  we  have  nothing  to  fear 
from  the  Legislature.  What  are  we  asking  them  to  do  ? 
Why  the  very  same  thing  we  did  ask  them  to  do  at  the 
adjournment.  What  have  the  Legislature  done  ?  They 
have  offered  us  the  hall  for  sixty  minutes.  I  ask  the 
yeas  and  nays  on  the  motion  for  indefinite  postponement. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  the  question  be- 
ing taken,  there  were  yeas  8,  nays  89,  as  follows : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Banks,  Braxton,  Cocke,  Douglas,  Hays, 
Moncure,  Pendleton  and  Whittle — 8. 

Nays— Messrs.  Mason,  (President,)  Anderson,  Arm- 
strong, Arthur,  Barbour,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock,  Botts,  Bow- 
den,  Bowles,  Brown,  Byrd,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carlile, 
Chapman,  Cook,  Davis,  Deneale,  Edwards,  Faulkner, 
Ferguson,  Fisher,  Flood,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fuqua,  Gaily  v 
Garland,  Muscoe  Garnett,  Goode,  Hall,  Hill,  Hoge, 
Trigg,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Janney,  Johnson,  Jones, 


9 


Kenny,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Leake,  Letcher,  Ligon,  Lucas, 
Lynch,  Lyons,  McCamant,  McCandlish,  McComas,  Martin 
of  Marshall,  Martin  of  H.,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moore,  Nee- 
son,  Newman,  Price,  Rives,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of 
F.,  Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey, 
Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of  King  &  Queen,  Smith 
of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Stanard,  Stephen- 
son, Stewart  of  Morgan,  Straughan,  Stuart  of  Patrick, 
Summers,  Tate,  Turn  bull,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  Willey, 
Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wingfield,  Woolfolk,  Worsham  and 
Wysor— 89. 

So  the  motion  to  postpone  the  further  consideration  of 
the  subject  indefinitely  was  rejected. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  amendment  to  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  LYONS.  The  amendment  I  understand  to  be  a 
proposition  that  a  select  committee  shall  be  appointed  to 
inquire  whether  a  suitable  room  can  be  procured  in 
the  city  of  Richmond,  other  than  in  the  capitol,  for  the 
accommodation  of  this  Convention,  and  on  that  subject 
I  beg  leave  to  make  a  single  remark.  I  may  not,  as  my 
friend  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Sctot)  supposes,  regard  this 
question  correctly.  He  seems  disposed  to  consider  it  as 
making  a  mountain  out  of  a  mole-hill,  but  I  cannot  but 
consider  it  as  one  of  no  little  legal  importance.  We  are 
here  without  power  to  amend  or  pass  any  law  or  to 
make  any  contract.  According  to  my  understanding,  we 
are  here  with  no  more  authority  than  is  expressed  in  the 
precise  terms  of  the  act  under  which  we  are  convened,  and 
whether  it  be  called  a  large  or  a  small  question,  I  confess 
I  am  for  adhering  rigidly  to  the  terms  of  that  act.  And 
this  not  merely  because  of  the  legal  question  involved, 
but  because  I  think  it  more  becoming  the  dignity  of  this 
body  to  make  formal  application  to  the  Legislature  on 
this  subject,  than  at  once  to  assume  that  we  are  turned 
out  of  the  capitol,  and  send  a  committee  to  seek  some 
place  where  we  may  go.  La  Fayette  hall  has  been  sug- 
gested as  a  proper  place,  but  has  any  one  been  to  see  it  ? 
For  myself,  I  have  no  idea  that  the  Convention  can  be 
accommodated  there  with  any  comfort  at  all.  It  must 
cost  a  great  deal  to  make  it  in  any  way  convenient  or 
comfortable  for  our  use,  for  every  article  that  will  be 
needed  for  that  purpose  will  be  required  to  be  placed 
there.  And  can  the  Convention  contract  for  the  expen- 
diture of  a  single  dollar  for  such  a  purpose  ?  No  one 
will  contend  for  that ;  and  so,  even  if  we  go  on  and  fit 
up  the  room  as  i3  suggested,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  come 
to  the  Legislature  in  the  end  and  ask  them  to  defray  the 
expense.  I  think  it  far  preferable  and  far  more  in  accord- 
ance with  a  proper  regard  for  the  dignity  of  this  body,  to 
ask  the  Legislature  to  do  this  at  once,  rather  than  to  go  on 
and  make  a  contract  and  then  ask  them  to  pay  the  expense. 
Why,  the  Senate  chamber  can  be  fitted  up  for  us  at  one- 
half  the  cost  of  any  other  building,  and  for  one,  I  had 
much  rather  sit  there  than  here.  The  Senate  and  the 
House  of  Delegates  can  very  conveniently  divide  the  use 
of  this  hall  between  them,  and  thus  leave  to  us  the  use 
of  the  Senate  chamber.  Is  it  not  better  then,  I  ask,  to 
g©  at  once  to  the  Legislature,  and  to  say  to  them,  you 
are  the  law-making  power — while  we  have  no  power  to 
change  any  law,  you  have  the  power  to  change  every 
law  except  that  upon  which  the  people  have  passed  di- 
rectly— and  we  ask  you  to  make  provision  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  body  whom  the  people  have  sent  here 
fo  revise  and  amend  their  fundamental  and  organic  law  ? 
Should  they  see  proper  to  give  to  us  the  Senate  cham- 
ber, it  cau  easily  be  enlarged  for  our  use,  and  at  a  small 
cost.  It  is  only  a  wooden  partition  which  separates  it 
from  the  adjoining  room,  and  it  can  be  easily  removed 
and  the  two  rooms  thrown  into  one.  This  is  far  better 
than  for  us  to  assume  that  we  cannot  sit  here,  and  that 
^ve  are  turned  out  of  the  capitol.  The  law,  I  say,  re- 
quires us  to  sit  here,  and  if  we  can  go  anywhere  else  of 
our  own  motion,  why  we  can  go  to  any  quarter  of  the 
State  we  please,  as  it  suits  our  convenience.  And  if  we 
may  do  that,  what  is  to  prevent  us  from  holding  our  ses- 
sions even  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State,  if  we  please? 
If  our  convenience  is  to  be  the  only  rule  to  govern  us 


and  there  is  no  law  to  regulate  the  matter,  we  might 
find  it  more  agreeable  to  sit  in  New  York  or  Philadel- 
phia during  the  winter,  and  if  we  come  back  and  submit 
our  work  to  the  people,  I  ask,  to  use  the  argument  of  gen- 
tlemen here,  who  will  vote  against  the  Constitution,  if  it 
shall  be  a  good  one,  because  it  was  not  made  in  the  State  ? 
Gentlemen  say  that  this  body  is  above  the  Legislature  ; 
but  I  ask  how  is  it  above  that  body  ?  We  are  assembled 
here  by  direct  authority  of  the  people,  and  they  have  no 
control  over  us,  it  is  true  ;  but  we  are  not  a  law-making 
power,  nor  can  we  expend  a  single  dollar.  We  must  ask 
them  to  pay  any  debt  which  we  may  contract,  and  is  it 
not  better,  then,  to  put  upon  them  the  responsibility  of 
contracting  the  debt  in  the  first  instance — and  the  re- 
sponsibility, too,  of  saying  that,  which  by  my  vote  I  ne- 
ver will  say,  that  this  Convention  ought  not  to  sit  in  the 
capitol  here,  and  has  not  an  undoubted  right  to  sit  here. 
Put  upon  the  Legislature  the  responsibility  of  saying 
that  we  cannot  sit  here  ;  and  when  they  have  taken  that 
step,  let  them  take  the  additional  and  necessary  step  of 
providing  where  we  shall  sit.  I  do  hope,  then,  that  it 
will  not  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  assume  at 
once  that  we  are  to  go  out  of  the  capitol,  and  send  a  com- 
mittee to  find  a  hall,  or  some  place  in  the  town  where 
we  may  assemble,  when,  by  law,  we  are  expressly  com- 
manded to  come  here.  Let  us  not,  by  such  an  act,  place 
ourselves  in  a  position  inferior  to  the  Legislature,  a  bo- 
dy sent  here  to  pass  laws  one  day  which  they  can  repeal 
the  next,  while  our  duties  are  the  higher  ones  of  propo- 
sing provisions  which  shall  be  organic  and  permanent. 
I  am  not  willing  to  assume  that  we  are  to  leave  the  ca- 
pitol, and  it  will  be  time  enough  for  us  to  go  when  the 
Legislature  shall,  by  their  action,  turn  us  out.  By  no 
vote  of  mine  will  I  sanction  such  an  assumption. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  think  my  friend  is  mistaken  when  he 
says  the  Convention,  by  adopting  the  course  proposed, 
will  be  assuming  the  position  that  it  must  leave  the 
capitol,  and  that  we  are  not  forced  to  the  position 
which  we  now  occupy  by  the  action  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. When  the  proposition  was  first  made  to  the 
House  of  Delegates  to  give  the  use  of  this  hall  to  the 
Convention,  I  understand  that  that  body  refused  to  en- 
tertain the  proposition  at  all.  It  afterwards,  it  is  true, 
adopted  the  proposition  which  has  been  reported  to  us, 
which  gives  to  us  the  privilege  of  sitting  here  from  4 
o'clock  in  the  evening  until,  as  some  say,  12  o'clock  the 
next  day. 

Mr.  LYONS.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  I  will 
say  that  the  difference  between  us  is  merely  this :  the 
Convention  has  never  directly  applied  to  the  Legislature 
on  the  subject.  It  appointed  a  committee,  composed 
mainly  of  gentlemen  who  did  not  reside  on  the  spot,  and 
directed  them  to  make  the  very  inquiry  it  is  now  pro- 
posed another  committee  shall  be  raised  to  make,  but  no 
communication  has  been  made  directly  from  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  Legislature.  What  i  now  desire  is  that  the 
Convention,  as  the  Convention,  through  and  by  its  pre- 
siding officer,  shall  appeal  to  the  Legislature  as  the  Le- 
gislature, and  let  them  respond  in  that  character  to  a  call 
made  in  that  character. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  must  still  understand  my  friend  to 
be  mistaken  in  the  view  which  he  takes  of  this  matter. 
This  Convention,  before  the  recess,  appointed  a  commit- 
tee for  the  purpose  of  making  a  distinct  proposition  to 
the  Legislature  to  secure  the  use  of  this  hall  for  the  pur- 
pose of  holding  therein  its  deliberations.  That  committee 
made  a  proposition  accordingly  to  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, which  when  it  was  first  made  there  was  not  even 
entertained  by  that  body,  but  they  adopted  afterwards, 
as  I  understand,  a  proposition,  coming  from  a  committee 
of  their  own  body,  giving  to  us  the  use  of  the  hall  from 
4  o'clock  in  the  evening  until  it  should  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Legislature  to  meet  again  the  next  day.  It  was  not, 
as  is  supposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Stafford,  (Mr.  Mon- 
cure,)  that  we  should  have  the  use  of  the  hall  from  4 
o'clock  in  the  evening  until  12  o'clock  the  next  day,  but 
from  4  o'clock  in  the  evening  until  some  time  in  the 
night,  when  it  should  be  our  pleasure  to  go.    The  House 


10 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


of  Delegates  may  meet  themselves  at  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 
and  I  suppose  in  a  short  time  they  will  do  so.  I  am  un- 
willing that  it  shall  go  out  to  the  country  that  we  are  here 
assuming  a  fact  that  does  not  exist,  for  I  think  the  action 
of  the  Legislature  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  they  will 
not  give  to  us  the  use  of  this  hall  for  a  reasonable  por- 
tion of  the  day  for  our  deliberations.  I  take  it  for  grant- 
ed, from  the  expression  of  sentiment  which  has  been 
made  here  to-day,  that  the  Convention  is  unwilling  to 
hold  its  deliberations  after  4  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and 
I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  as  admitting 
that  it  is  not  right  and  proper  that  we  should  meet 
here  at  night.  I  ask,  then,  if  the  action  of  the  Legisla- 
ture ha9  not  forced  us  to  the  position  we  now  occupy, 
and  if  the  gentleman  is  not  mistaken  in  saying  that  we  are 
assuming  a  fact  which  does  not  exist. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  beg  leave  to  say  only  a 
word  in  explanation  of  the  action  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, because,  from  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  last 
up,  I  apprehend  there  is  some  misapprehension  in  regard 
to  it.  The  House  of  Delegates  never  has  denied  to*this 
body  the  use  of  this  hall,  but  when  it  was  announced 
that  the  Convention  had  appointed  a  committee  to  take 
action  upon  the  subject,  the  House  appointed  a  commit- 
tee on  their  part  to  confer  with  a  committee  of  this  Con- 
vention, and  the  report  which  was  submitted  to  the  Con- 
vention this  morning,  was  the  report  of  the  committee 
raised  by  the  House  to  the  House,  made  with  the  con- 
currence and  approbation  of  the  committee  of  this  body 
It  was  reported  to  the  House  as  an  arrangement  to  which 
the  committee  on  the  part  of  this  body  yielded  their  as- 
sent, and  as  such  was  adopted  with  scarcely  a  dissent- 
ing voice. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  to  inquire  of  him  whether  the  fact  is  not  that  be- 
fore this  committee  was  raised  the  House  of  Delegates 
refused  to  permit  the  use  of  this  hall  by  the  Convention 
at  all  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  was  not  in  the  House,  but 
I  understand  some  proposition  was  made  at  a  very  early 
period  of  the  session  by  some  member,  not  as  an  organ 
of  the  committee  of  this  body  or  as  one  having  authority 
to  apply  on  the  part  of  the  Convention  at  allfbut  of  his 
own  mere  volition.  When  it  was  announced  to  the 
House  that  the  Convention  had  taken  action  on  this  mat- 
ter and  had  appointed  a  committee,  the  proposition  was 
carried  at  once  and  a  committee  appointed  immediately 
on  the  part  of  the  House,  and  the^report  communicated 
to  us  this  morning  was  the  report  of  that  select  commit- 
tee to  the  House,  made  with  the  full  concurrence  of  the 
committee  of  this  body.  It  does  seem  to  me,  therefore 
since  the  Convention  is  dissatisfied  with  this  arran°-e- 
ment— since  it  chooses  to  repudiate  the  action  of  its  own 
committee— that  it  will  be  but  a  mark  of  respect  becoming 
one  body  to  the  other  to  communicate  their  disagreement 
to  the  House,  and  give  them  at  least  an  opportunity  to 
re-consider  their  action  and  determine  whether  they  "will 
not  make  some  other  distribution  of  time. 

Mr.  COCKE.  I  rise  simply  to  answer  the  question  of 
the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  which  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  was  not  able  to  answer,  because  he  was  not  in 
the  House  of  Delegates.  The  only  proposition  which 
was  made  to  the  Legislature  in  reference  to  any  accom- 
modation to  be  given  to  the  Convention,  was  one  made 
by  a  gentleman  whom  I  now  see  in  his  seat  from  Logan 
(Mr.  Feegusox,)  which  was,  if  I  remember  rightly  to 
tender  the  use  of  this  hall  to  the  Convention  after  a  'cer- 
tain hour  each  day,  without  reference  to  the  appointment 
of  any  committee  to  confer  with  the  committee  of  the 
Convention.  Then— the  gentleman  will  correct  me  if  I 
am  wrong— another  member  of  the  House,  and  also  of  the 
Convention,  now  absent,  went  to  him  and  proposed  a 
modification  of  his  resolution  so  as  to  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment^ a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  House  to 
confer  with  the  committee  of  the  Convention  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  that  modification  of  the  proposition  was  carried, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  says,  with 
scarcely  a  dissenting  voice.    The  gentlemau  from  Fau- 


quier, therefore,  is  correct  in  saying  that  the  House  of 
Delegates  has  never  yet  rejected  any  proposition  made 
by  the  committee  appointed  in  behalf  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.    If  my  recollection  is  correct,  the 
gentlemen  are  both  wrong  [laughter.]    Shortly  after  the 
meeting  of  the  Legislature,  knowing  the  wishes  of  the 
Convention,  and  that  a  committee  of  tins  body  had 
been  raised  to   procure   this   hall  for  our  use"  and 
if  they  could  not  succeed  in   that,  then  to  procure 
and  fit  up  some  other  hall ;  and  understanding  too,  that 
the  committee  had  made  no  arrangements  whatever  in 
regard  to  any  other  hail,  I  moved  in  the  House  of  De- 
legates a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  the  use  of  tins  hall 
be  tendered  to  the  Convention,  and  that  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  confer  with  the  committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  arrange  the  hours  of  meeting  for  the  respec- 
tive bodies.    This  was  the  substance,  if  not  indeed  the 
language  of  the  resolution.    The  suggestion  made  to  me, 
referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Fluvanna,  (Mr.  Cocke,) 
I  well  remember.    It  was  that  a  committee  should  be 
appointed  to  confer  with  the  committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  report  to  the  House.    I  did  not  accept  of  that 
proposition,  and  my  resolution  was  put  before  the  House, 
and  that  body,  by  a  decided  vote,  refused  to  tender  the 
use  of  the  hall  to  the  Convention  in  any  way.   The  mat- 
ter was  permitted  to  sleep  on  the  table  for  some  time, 
when  the  Delegate  from  Spottsylvania,  who  had  made 
strenuous  opposition  to  the  idea  of  the  Convention  oc- 
cupying this  hall  at  all,  finally  concluded  to  acquiesce  in 
some  arrangement  which  would  leave  the  House  ample 
time  to  do  its  business,  and  it  was  on  his  motion,  I  be- 
lieve, that  a  committee  was  finally  appointed  to  confer 
with  the  committee  appointed  by  the  Convention.  The 
result  of  the  deliberations  of  that  joint  committee  has 
been  this  day  reported  to  the  Convention.    I  wish  mere- 
ly to  add  to  this  statement  the  expression  of  my  wish, 
that  tins  Convention  should  select  its  own  place  of  meet- 
ing rather  than  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  to  do  it 
for  them.    I  am  opposed  also,  to  any  proposition  which 
looks  to  the  joint  occupancy  of  this  hall.    It  was  fitted 
up  expressly  for  the  Legislature,  and  I  am  satisfied  the 
experience  of  a  few  sittings  will  amply  demonstrate  to 
us  all  the  inconvenience  of  such  a  joint  occupation.  We 
have  an  instance  of  what  may  frequently  occur  in  the 
state  of  tilings  to-day.    When  the  appointed  hour  ar- 
rives for  the  meeting  of  one  body,  the  other  may  be  en- 
gaged in  taking  the  vote,  or  in  an  important  discussion, 
and  not  be  prepared  to  adjourn,  and  thus  one  body 
would  be  continually  trespassing  on  the  time  of  the 
other.    More  than  that,  it  will  take  full  half  an  hour  for 
one  body  to  get  out  and  the  other  to  get  into  the  hall, 
an  idle  consumption  of  useful  time.    And  here,  too,  are 
the  desks  in  which  each  member  of  the  House  has  his 
private  papers  and  documents  which  he  desires  to  lock 
up.    He  must  then  either  refuse  us  the  use  of  his  desk, 
or  else  he  must  leave  it  open,  to  the  consequent  confu- 
sion of  papers  and  documents  which  must  necessarily 
and  unavoidably  ensue.    This  is  a  great  inconvenience, 
and  one  very  strong  reason  which  requires  that  we 
should  have  our  own  hall.  But  it  seems  to  me,  the  most 
extraordinary  proposition  in  the  whole  course  of  this 
debate,  is  that  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Richmond, 
(Mr.  Lyons,)  that  we  shall  fit  up  the  Senate  chamber 
and  bring  the  Senate  here  into  the  hall  of  the  House  of 
Delegates.    What  would  be  the  consequence  ?  In  a  very 
short  time,  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  to  have  both 
the  Senate  and  the  House  in  session  at  the  same  time, 
and  I  should  suppose  that  the  gentleman's  own  expe- 
rience in  the  Legislature  would  have  satisfied  him  that 
it  was  impossible  for  both  bodies  to  meet  in  the  same 
hall.    They  would  have,  towards  the  close  of  the  ses- 
sion, to  interchange  messages,  some  15  or  20  times  a 
day,  and  thus  both  bodies  would  have  to  be  in  ses- 
sion at  the  same  time,  and  I  should  like  to  know  how 
the  gentleman  proposes  they  shall  get  along  in  that 
case  ?    Would  he  have  one  body  rise  and  go  out  to 
make  room  for  the  other,  whenever  an  interchange  of 
messages  was  necessary?    But  more  than  that,  the  con- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


II 


sent  of  the  Senate  to  give  up  their  hall,  and  subject  i  hall  for  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  :  Messrs.  M.  Gab.- 

themselves  to  this  inconvenience,  has  yet  to  be  obtained,  nett,  Claiborne,  Lyons,  Leake  and  Ferguson. 

I  trust  the  Convention  will  adopt  the  resolution  last  of- !  printing  the  rules. 

fered  by  the  gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr.  Garnett.)   It      m  HOPKINS  moved  the  printing  of  the  rules  of  the 

does  not  confine  the  committee  to  any  particular  place,  'Conyention  in  a  convenient  form  for  the  use  of  the  mem- 

and  allows  them  also  to  make  a  suitable  arrangement;^^     A°reed  to 

with  the  House  of  Delegates  for  the  use  of  this  hall,  if        '  VA°ANCIES  'IX  the  committee  on  the  basis. 
such  an  one  can  be  made.    I  undertake  to  sav,  hovrever,  j    _r    o^,,,,-^^  . 
from  my  knowledge  of  the  House,  that  they  can  make    .  ^  SL  MMERb.    There  were  two  instances  of  the  re- 
no  arrangement  which  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  Con-  Pp**10!1  01  ^embers  of  the  Convention  announced  by 
vention.  or  at  anv  rate,  satisfactory  to  me.    Satisfied  \x\e  lt  "  happens -that  both  of  the  gentlemen 

that  we  can  make  no  arrangement  for  the  occupation  of  j^o Jiaye  resigned,  belonged  to  the  committee  of  24  on 
this  hall  or  of  anv  other  room  in  the  capitol,  let  a  hall  the  bf 18  a1ud  apportionment  ot  representation.  I  move 
be  selected  in  Richmond,  if  possible,  if  not  elsewhere,  i  n°V^?i  ^  vacfncies  on  tlie  committee  thus  occasion- 
Igo  further  than  the  gentleman  from  Stafford,  (M^  :  f  d>  be  filled  oy  the  appointment  of  other  gentlemen  from 
Moncure,)  who  says  that  the  Convention  have  a  right  \th%: 5ame  d18*1"*8- 
to  meet  anv  ^vhere  its  necessities  or  convenience  may  j    2Je  ^°.nr^4=reed  ** 

require,  and  I  hold  that  it  may  meet  wherever  in-  ;  PREfelDE^NT  remarked ^  that  he  would  announce 

the  new  members  of  the  committee  to-morrow. 


ciination   mav  lead   them.     I  a°Tee  with  the  gen- 


tleman   from"  Richmond,  (Mr,  Lyons,)  that  this  bo- 1  .  The  Convention  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  mor- 

dy  is  above  the  Legislature  in  many  respects,  and  ;mn°'  at  10  ° ciockl   

that  the   Legislature    have   no    control   over   us. —  „,„_,07_    T^  . 

And  if  the  Legislature  were  to  pass  a  law  express-!    m    „       TUESDAY,  January  7th  1851. 

lv  forbidding  us  to  meet  any  where  else,  as  a  member  of  !    £he  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

this  Convention  I  should  have  no  hesitation  in  voting  to  j    The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap. 

remove  just  where  we  pleased,  in  the  face  of  such  a  law.  ;PrOTeo-. 

Suppose  the  law  does  require  us  to  meet  at  the  capitol  filling  of  vacancies  in  a  committee. 

—if  this  building  had  been  consumed  by  fire,  do  gentle- !    The  PRESIDENT  stated  that  in  pursuance  of  the  or- 

men  mean  to  contend  that  we  should  have  no  power  to  I  der  of  the  Convention  made  yesterday,  to  fill  the  vacan- 

meet  at  all  ?    No,  we  could  still  meet  somewhere  else,  i  cies  in  the  committee  of  24,  on  the  basis  and  apportion- 

and  we  can  do  it  with  just  as  much  propriety  now,  jment  of  representation,  he  had  appointed  Mr.  Seymour 

as  we  could  if  such  an  event  had  actually  occurred.    I|of  Hardy,  in  the  place  of  Green  B.  Samuels,  Esq., 

believe  that  when  the  Legislature  required  us  to  meet  resigned,  and  Mr.  Floyd  of  Wythe,  in  the  place  of  Geo. 

in  the  capitol,  it  did  not  require  us  to  remain  here,  j  W.  Hopkins,  Esq.,  also  resigned,  to  fill  the  vacancies 

They  did  not  give  us  the  power  to  take  a  recess,  and  yet  j  thereby  occasioned. 

we  have  taken  one,  and  thus  exercised  power  not  confer-  place  of  meeting. 

red  upon  us  by  law.    Yet  nobody  denied  our  right  to  j    The  PRESIDENT  communicated  to  the  Convention 

exercise  that  power.    I  trust  that  without  spending  a  the  following  telegraphic  dispatch  from  Andrew  Kev an, 

great  deal  more  time  on  this  subject,  as  it  is  so  apparent  jEsq.,  Mayor  of  Petersburg,  which  was  read  by  the  Secre- 

that  the  Convention  cannot  be  accommodated  in  this  {tart  : 

hall  that  we  shall  at  once  devise  some  plan  by  which  a  »  I  am  authorized  by  an  unanimous  vote  of  the  corn- 
proper  hall  can  be  secured.  mon  council  of  Petersburg,  to  invite  the  Convention  to 

Mr.  LYOXS.  In  reference  to  my  legislative  experi-  j  hold  its  sessions  here.  We  have  first  rate  accommoda- 
ence,  I  do  not  recollect  in  my  whole  service  in  the  Sen- ;  tions  to  offer  them.  Andrew  Kevan." 

ate  or  House,  an  instance,  except  when  proceeding  to  an  j  On  motion  of  Mr.  "WALLACE,  the  communication 
election  on  joint  ballot,  or  during  the  two  or  three  days  |waa  referred  to  the  Select-  Committee  raised  on  the  sub- 
just  before  the  close  of  the  session,  when  the  two  bodies  ject  0f  providing  a  place  of  meeting  for  the  Convention, 
-the  Senate  and  the  House— were  in  session  together,  j  printing  of  the  debates. 

It  is  a  verv  rare  thins;,    bills  are  passed  m  one  House  j      ^     ^T^^^TT^-0,T_,      *,.,,->.,■,  „ 
one  dav,  and.  sent  to  the  other  House  on  the  next  dav,      The  PRESIDENT  submitted  to  the  Convention  a 
but  there  is  no  necessitv  that  both  should  be  at  the  same  communication  from  Mr.  Wilham  CuUey^onthe  subject 
time  in  se-sion  °f  publishing  the  debates  of  the  Convention,  which  was 

The  amendment  to  the  amendment  was  then  agreed  |rea0^  as  follow*  : 
to,  as  was  the  resolution  as  amended.  _    „  „     .  ,   Richmond,  Jan.  6,  1851. 

Mr.  FERGUSOX  moved  that  when  the  Convention  R™-  Joh^  Y-Jf™™,  President  of  the Convention. 
adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morn- 
ing.   Agreed  to. 


TENDER  OF  A  PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

Mr,  MARTIN,  of  Marshall,  submitted  the  following 
communication,  which  was  read : 

Richmond,  Jan.  2,  1851. 


Sir — The  Convention  having  authorized  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  stenographer  to  report  the  debates,  I  respect- 
fully propose  to  print  the  same  in  an  octavo  form. 

I 'will  print  daily,  if  required,  5000  copies  of  a  Jour- 
nal of  Debates,  containing  as  much  matter  as  is  compris- 
ed in  eight  close  columns  of  the  Washington  LTnion  or 
National  Intelligencer,  for  the  sum  of  sixty -five  dollars, 
~  m'1      "TIiT  tt  "•'  "  "  v  "i  and  mail  2500  copies  per  dav,  to  such  persons  in  every 

Gentlemen :-We  are  willing  to  rent  the  tmversahst  j  f  he  gtat£  a/the  ^legates  of  the  Convention 
church,  on  Mayo  street,  for  the  use  of  the  Convention,  ;  designate,  without  additional  charge.  I  will  bind 
upon  such  terms  as  vou  may  deem  liberal,  allowing  you  the"rema^  25l  ,0  copies  at  the  ciose  0f  the  session  of  the 
to  make  such  alterations  and  changes  as  you  may  desire  Conventi^  for  twel/e  huudred  and  fifty  dollars.  If  a 
for  the  convenience  of  the  Convention.  I       ter  number  of  copies  should  be  ordered,  I  will  charge 

Jno.  W.  Mines  in  the  same  proportion  for  the  additional  copies.  The 

^  .    . .  ,       ,  *°r  ™e  commlttee-      ^ole  cost  of  printing  5000  copies  and  binding  2500  copies 

The  communication  was  referred  to  the  select  com-  U  ^  debatefof  the  entire  session,  if  it  does  not  last 

^V^n^p    011    I",     3f  '  +1  .    ..'  '   longer  than  fifteen  weeks,  will  not  exceed  $7,165,  provi- 

Mr  LETCHER  moved  to  refer  the  communications  Lf^  debates  do  not  aver  e  dalj  more  than  i/com_ 
from  the  councils  of  JNorfolk  and  Alexandria,  to  the  _  ■  ..i  ■     -..Li         ^i„mn^t  ti^^n/,  +,^.  ^fi,n  T:«;nn 


same  committee.    Agreed  to. 

SELECT    COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

The  PRESIDENT  announced  the  following  as  the  Se- 
lect Go^Bjaiittae  en  the  §ubje«t  of  proiurincj  a  proper 


prised  in  eight  solid  columns  of  the  fine  type  of  the  Union 
or  Intelligencer.  A  larger  sum  than  this  will  be  brought 
to  the  Treasury  of  the  State,  if  the  25U0  bound  volumes 
alone  should  be  sold  at  83  per  volume;  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  sueh  a  limited  number  could  be  disposed  of, 


12 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


I  propose  to  print  and  bind  the  debates  in  an  octavo 
form,  of  a  uniform  size  with  the  Journals  of  the  Con- 
vention and  the  General  Assembly ;  the  latter  body 
having  discarded  the  quarto  form  in  consequence  of  its 
unwieldy  proportions. 

The  plan  I  propose,  will  enable  the  members  of  the 
Convention  to  spread  before  their  constituents  in  every 
county  of  the  State,  from  day  to  day,  their  views  on  all 
matters  which  may  come  before  the  Convention,  and  at 
the  close  of  the  session,  to  furnish  the  debates  in  bound 
volumes,  and  in  a  durable  form,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
resent  and  future  generations.  This  mode,  I  trust,  will 
e  considered  better  calculated  to  promote  the  ends  of 
the  Convention,  than  to  print  the  debates  in  the  local 
newspapers  of  Richmond,  which,  however  useful  in  their 
character  as  chroniclers  of  the  news  of  the  day,  are  sel- 
dom preserved  for  future  reference.  It  would  avoid 
the  objection  which  is  often  urged  against  the  policy  of 
patronizing  the  newspapers  of  the  metropolis,  to  the  in- 
jury of  all  the  other  papers  in  the  State.  Besides,  the  news- 
papers of  the  metropolis  frequently  contain  pointed,  if 
not  severe  criticisms  upon  the  expressed  views  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention,  and  therefore,  the  debates 
would  not  go  before  the  people  free  from  bias  and  prejic 
dice.  They  certainly  would  not  be  printed  in  a  durable 
form,  so  that  they  could  be  rendered  useful  in  enlight- 
ening the  minds  of  posterity  in  the  science  of  govern- 
ment, and  in  supplying  the  places  of  the  present  with 
future  statesmen. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

¥m.  Culley. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  MARTIN",  of  Marshall,  the  com- 
munication was  referred  to  the  Select  Committee  raised 
on  the  subject ;  as  were  all  similar  communications  lying 
on  the  table  of  the  Convention. 

PER  DIEM  OF  MEMBERS. 

Mr.  BLUE  offered  the  following  resolution  : 
"  Resolved,  That  the  members  of  this  Convention  are 

not  entitled  to  their  per  diem  pay  during  the  recess  just 

taken." 

Mr.  FERGUSON".  I  should  like  to  know  of  the 
gentleman  who  offered  that  resolution,  why  it  is  neces- 
sary to  offer  it,  and  whether  there  is  a  member  of  the  Con- 
vention who  would  ask  his  per  diem  pay  during  the  re- 
cess ?  It  seems  to  me  that,  if  we  adopt  the  resolution, 
it  would  imply  that  a  portion  of  the  members  are  de- 
sirous of  charging  their  per  diem  while  they  were  at  home 
attending  to  their  own  business.  Unless  I  shall  be 
satisfied  that  members  are  desiring  to  cheat  the  Com- 
monwealth, I  shall  vote  for  no  such  resolution. 

Mr.  BLUE.  It  is  understood  in  the  country,  at 
least  among  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
that  we  are  to  receive  our  per  diem  during  the  recess. 
I  offered  that  resolution  in  order  to  settle  this  question. 
Some  think  that  we  are  entitled  to  our  per  diem,  others 
that  we  are  entitled  to  mileage — some  prefer  the  one, 
some  the  other  ;  and  in  order  to  settle  the  question,  and 
set  it  at  rest  at  once  and  enable  us  to  receive  one  or  the 
other,  I  offered  the  resolution. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  do  not  rise  to  discuss  the  pro- 
priety of  the  resolution,  but  simply  to  state  what  I 
have  learned  of  the  Clerk  of  this  Convention,  who,  in 
order  to  guide  his  course  in  settling  with  the  members, 
has  submitted  the  question  to  the  Attorney  General. 
That  officer  has  expressed  the  opinion,  that  members 
were  not  entitled  to  per  diem  during  the  recess,  but  that 
inasmuch  as  the  Convention  had  determined,  as  it  had  a 
right  to  determine,  to  adjourn  the  deliberations  of  this 
body,  so  as  to  compel  the  members  to  return  to  their 
homes  and  come  back  again  at  a  distant  period,  they 
would  be  entitled  to  their  mileage  ;  the  law  being  that 
the  members  of  the  Convention  are  entitled  to  the  same 
mileage  and  per  diem  as  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. It  has  been  decided  that  in  case  of  a  recess  of 
the  General  Assembly  no  per  diem  should  be  allowed  ; 
but  in  the  case  of  a  removal  to  another  point,  that  the 
mileage  conapensatipn  should  be  allowed  ;  the  law  being 


'  that  the  per  diem  compensation  should  be  for  the  actual 
attendance  of  members,  except  in  case  of  absence  created 
by  sickness — and  the  law  being,  further,  that  all  necessary 
travelling  expenses  incurred  in  going  to  and  returning 
from  the  sessions,  should  be  paid  by  the  Commonwealth. 
I  understand  that  this  is  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney 
General ;  and  I  presume  that  the  Clerk  will  be  governed 
by  the  decision  of  that  officer.  Such  being  the  case,  I 
presume  it  will  be  hardly  necessary  to  take  the  question 
on  the  resolution.  I  think  that  the  gentleman  from 
Hampshire,  (Mr.  Blue.)  under  these  circumstances,  will 
think  it  proper  to  withdraw  his  resolution. 

Mr.  BLUE.  There  is  an  impression  abroad  in  the 
Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  that  possibly  members  may 
have  received  their  per  diem.  It  was  charged  upon  me, 
when  I  got  home,  that  the  members  would  receive  their 
per  diem  and  mileage  while  at  home.  In  order  to  settle 
the  matter,  I  offered  the  resolution,  and  I  prefer  not  to 
withdraw  it. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Then  I  move  to  lay  the  resolution 
on  the  table. 

The  motion  to  lay  on,  the  table  was  agreed  to — a  count 
being  had, — ayes  5*7,  noes  27. 

mileage  of  members. 

Mr.  FULKERSOIST.  I  have  a  resolution  on  the  same 
subject,  which  I  wish  to  offer,  as  follows : 

"  Whereas,  doubts  exist  in  the  minds  of  many  as 
to  the  right  of  the  members  of  this  Convention  to  re- 
ceive mileage  for  travelling  from  the  capitol  in  the  city 
of  Richmond  to  their  respective  homes,  and  returning 
again  to  said  capitol,  during  the  recess  or  adjournment, 
it  is  therefore,  by  this  Convention, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  question  of  mileage  be  and  is 
hereby  referred  to  the  General  Assembly  for  its  action 
thereon." 

Mr.  DOUGLASS  offered  the  following  as  a  substitute  : 
Resolved,  That  this  Convention  dissents  from  the  At- 
torney General  in  his  opinion  that  members  are  entitled 
to  mileage  for  going  home  and  returning  to  this  city, 
since  the  recess  taken  by  this  body. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE  I  move  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment of  the  resolution  and  amendment.  I  understand 
the  amendment  proposes  to  dissent  from  the  opinion  of 
the  Attorney  General,  in  which  he  declares  that  mem- 
bers are  entitled  to  their  mileage.  If  I  am  correct,  I 
feel  a  personal  interest  in  the  postponement  of  the  reso- 
lution and  amendment.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  is 
a  settled  fact  that  the  members  of  this  Convention  are 
entitled  to  their  per  diem,  or  to  their  mileage — one  or 
the  other.  The  Senate  meets  here  annually  and  takes 
a  recess  of  from  ten  to  twenty  days.  The  members 
go  home  and  return,  and  under  the  law  draw  their 
per  diem  for  the  time  of  their  absence  from  this  capitoL 
The  only  precedent  we  have  of  the  Legislature  taking 
a  recess  for  a  longer  time  than  three  days,  I  believe,  is 
the  recess  taken  by  that  body  from  April  to  May,  some 
two  years  ago.  They  returned  to  the  city  of  Richmond 
and  moved  to  Fauquier  Springs.  On  their'  return  to  the 
city  of  Richmond,  it  was  settled  that  they  were  entitled 
to  mileage  for  going  there  and  back.  The  House  has 
just  determined  to  leave  this  question  to  be  settled  by 
the  law-officers  of  the  Commonwealth,  by  laying  on  the 
table  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Hampshire, 
(Mr.  Blue,)  and  leaving  the  Secretary  of  this  body  to 
pay  the  mileage  of  members  under  the  decision  of  the 
Attorney  General  of  Virginia.  Now  where  is  the  ob- 
jection to  our  receiving  our  mileage?  I  voted  to  lay  the 
resolution  on  the  table.  I  do  not  ask  for  a  per  diem.  I 
wish  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  Attorney  General.. 
I  would  like  to  know  if  the  people  of  this  Common- 
wealth expect  their  representatives  to  come  here  and 
live  like  beggars,  at  their  own  expense,  while  they  are- 
discharging  this  high  and  important  duty  to  the  State.. 
I  despise  thi3  effort  at  bunkum,  and  the  cfench-fistedness 
which  characterises  some  of  the  legislation  of  our 
country.  I  take  it  for  granted  that,  if  my  ^vviees  am 
worth  any  thing  to  the  people  of  my  district,  they  are 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


IS 


worth  the  pitiful  sum  of  the  mileage  to  the  city  of 
Richmond.  Since  the  adjournment,  my  Convention  ex- 
penses have  been  twice  the  amount  of  my  mileage,  and 
I  ask  the  members  of  this  Convention,  if  for  one  moment 
they  believe  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  and  of 
my  district,  expect  me  to  come  here  at  this  enormous  ex- 
pense, without  bearing  my  expenses,  or  giving  me  the 
pitiful  sum  allowed  for  the  purpose  by  the  laws  of  this 
Commonwealth  ?  I  trust  that,  after  the  new  Constitu- 
tion shall  have  been  adopted,  this  clench-fistedness  and 
niggardly  system  of  paying  our  officers,  will  be  num- 
bered with  the  things  that  are  past,  and.  that  the  offi- 
cers of  this  Commonwealth  will  no  longer  be  inmates  of 
poor-houses,  or  fed  upon  the  charities  of  the  land.  I  ask 
the  Convention,  in  the  infancy  of  this  work  of  Constitu- 
tional reform,  to  set  a  good  example  upon  this  subject. 
I  trust  that  it  will  not  be  sent  forth  to  the  people  that 
we  are  sitting  here  discussing  a  proposition  whether  we 
will  forfeit  our  twenty  cents  a  mile  for  the  purpose  of  secu- 
ring popularity  at  home.  I  love  fame  as  well  as  most 
men,  but  I  love  self  a  little  better.  I  do  not  intend  to 
starve  myself  for  the  sake  of  a  little  bunkum  for  the  coun- 
ties I  represent  on  this  floor. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  that  if  gentlemen 
will  attend  to  the  nature  of  this  body,  they  will  see  that 
all  resolutions  upon  this  subject  which  contemplate  the 
declaration  of  opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  law  under 
which  the  Convention  is  here  assembled,  are  improper. 
We  have  not  power  as  a  Convention  to  decide  this  ques- 
tion. We  have  not  the  power  authoritatively  to  instruct 
any  of  our  officers  touching  this  business.  We  come  here 
under  the  law  of  the  land,  and  according  to  that  law  we  are 
entitled  to  certain  per  diem  compensation  and  to  certain 
mileage.  That  law  refers  it  to  certain  accounting  officers 
of  this  government  to  determine  what  per  diem  we  are 
entitled  to  and  what  compensation  for  travelling.  It 
does  not  belong  to  us  to  construe  this  law.  It  does  not 
belong  to  this  body  to  settle  any  question  relating  to  the 
rights  of  members  under  that  law.  If  the  law  gives  the 
right  to  per  diem  during  the  recess,  it  is  the  right  of  any 
member,  and  of  every  member,  to  prefer  his  claim ;  and 
if  the  law  gives  it  and  the  demand  be  made,  the  proper 
officers  will  pay  it ;  and  if  the  law  does  not  give  it,  the 
demand  will  be  rejected.  And  as  this  is  true  in  regard  to 
per  diem,  it  is  equally  true  in  regard  to  mileage.  We  are 
entitled  or  not  entitled  to  it,  under  the  law,  and  that  law, 
as  I  have  said  before,  is  to  be  construed  by  the  proper  ac- 
counting officers  of  the  government,  and  by  them  alone. 
We  mistake  our  powers — we  transcend  our  powers  when 
we  undertake  by  resolution  or  in  any  manner  to  give  di- 
rection to  those  who  are  to  pass  upon  this  matter.  I  un- 
dertake to  express  no  opinion  myself,  for  whether  gentle- 
men mean  to  prefer  their  claims  for  mileage  or  per  diem 
is  a  question  addressing  itself  individually  to  each  mem- 
ber. If  he  thinks  he  is  entitled  to  it,  he  will  present  his 
claim  to  the  proper  officer.  If  he  does  not  choose  to 
make  the  claim,  the  question  will  not  arise.  I  object  to 
the  resolution  as  first  offered,  because  it  contemplates  an 
appeal  to  the  Legislature.  I  object  to  the  other,  because 
it  dissents  from  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General, 
the  result  of  which  only  has  been  communicated  to 
us,  and  merely  stated  to  us  by  members  on  this  floor.  I 
hope  the  motion  will  be  concurred  in,  and  the  resolution 
be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  DOUGLASS.  I  am  sorry  to  have  given  rise  to 
any  discussion  about  a  matter  which  some  gentlemen 
think  we  had  better  not  pass  upon  at  all,  but  I  under- 
stand that  I  am  here  to  perform  my  duties  according  to 
my  understanding  of  them,  and  I  do  not  mean  to  be  de- 
terred from  so  doing  by  the  denunciations  of  any  gentle- 
man on  this  floor,  or  by  imputations  of  motives  by  which 
I  certainly  am  not  cognizant  of  being  actuated. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  wish  to  say  to  the  gentleman 
that  I  had  not  the  slightest  intention  of  reflecting  on  his 
object  or  motive  in  offering  his  amendment. 

Mr.  DOUGLASS.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the 
explanation  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  and  I  will 
take  this  occasion  to  say  that  it  was  certainly  very  far  from 


my  intention  to  make  "  bunkum"  capital  in  my  district 
by  offering  this  amendment.  I  was  actuated  by  no  such 
motive.  I  simply  expressed  my  view  of  the  law  in  the 
resolution  which  I  offered,  and  if  I  have  an  opportunity,  I 
will  sustain  that  opinion  by  my  vote.  I  do  not  believe 
that  we  are  entitled  either  to  mileage  or  per  diem,  though 
I  am  not  unwilling  to  defray  all  necessary  expenses  we 
may  have  incurred. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  dissent  entirely  from  the  views  of 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.)  Whether  this 
is  a  proper  subject  to  bring  before  the  Convention  or  not, 
is  a  question  deserving  of  consideration  and  reflection ; 
but  as  it  has  been  brought  before  us,  I  think  it  is  due  to 
the  Convention,  to  the  country,  and  to  ourselves,  that 
our  own  opinions  upon  this  subject,  whatever  they  may 
be,  shall  be  expressed  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  by 
which  the  people  may  understand  exactly,  at  least  what 
we  think  are  our  rights  in  respect  to  this  matter.  My 
own  opinion  is,  I  confess,  that  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention are  not  entitled  to  their  per  diem  during  the  re- 
cess. I  think  even  if  there  be  no  other  precedent  than  that 
which  is  furnished  by  the  adjourned  session  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  which  took  place  in  revising  the  civil 
code,  that  it  is  a  precedent  sufficient  to  guide  the  ac- 
tion of  this  body.  At  all  events,  more  ought  not  to 
be  claimed  or  received  by  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, than  was  claimed  by  the  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, on  the  footing  of  whom  we  are  placed  by  the  ex- 
press terms  of  the  law  under  which  we  hold  our  seats 
here.  I  think  it  is  due  to  the  Convention  that  this  sub- 
ject should  be  disposed  of.  If  it  be  the  sense,  as  it  pro- 
bably is,  of  the  majority  of  this  body,  that  the  members 
are  entitled  to  their  mileage  in  order  to  cover  the  expens- 
es incurred  in  going  from  and  returning  home,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  precedent  furnished  by  the  course  of  the 
Legislature  during  their  recess,  let  the  Convention  say  so. 
If  it  is  the  opinion  of  a  large  majority,  as  I  think  it  is, 
that  we  are  not  entitled  to  per  diem,  let  us  say  so  at  once, 
or  let  the  Convention  say  so,  for  this  subject,  to  my 
certain  knowledge,  has  already  attracted  the  public  at- 
tention, and  it  has  been  said  in  some  of  the  public  prints 
that  the  members  proposed  to  claim  their  per  diem  du- 
ring the  recess.  I  presume,  however,  there  is  not  a  gen- 
tleman here  who  Avishes  to  claim  his  per  diem  during  the 
recess.  My  friend  who  sits  by  my  side,  has  drawn  up  a 
resolution  which  I  will  offer — 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  not  be  in  order  to  offer  the 
resolution  now. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  will  then  merely  read  the  resolu- 
lution  by  way  of  argument.  At  the  proper  time  it  will 
be  offered  either  by  him  or  myself,  if  the  motion  for  in- 
definite postponement  be  voted  down. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention, 
members  are  entitled  to  their  mileage,  both  in  going  to, 
and  returning  from  home ;  but  to  no  per  diem  during 
said  recess. 

I  trust  as  this  subject  has  been  brought  before  the 
Convention,  it  will  be  disposed  of  one  way  or  the  other. 
It  must  be  apparent  that  if  we  now  dispose  of  it  either  by 
indefinite  postponement  or  any  other  indirect  mode,  the 
imputation  will  be  cast  upon  us,  that  it  is  the  purpose 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention  to  claim  their  per 
diem.  For  my  part,  I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  purpose  of 
a  single  member  to  make  such  a  claim.  I  am  satisfied 
that  the  people  do  not  think  that  we  are  entitled  to  it, 
and  I  am  unwilling  to  do  anything,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, to  sanction  this  imputation  upon  us. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  stated,  I  think,  when  I  was  on 
the  floor  before,  that  I  did  not  believe  there  was  a  mem- 
ber of  this  body  who  would  claim  his  per  diem  during  the 
recess.  I  said  I  did  not  believe  the  opinion  prevailed  to 
any  extent,  that  we  were  entitled  to  per  diem  compensa- 
tion. I  believed  then  as  now  that  the  members  of  this 
Convention  were  entitled  to  their  mileage,  and  that  such 
was  the  opinion  of  a  large  majority  of  its  members. — 
Now,  I  concur  entirely  in  the  views  expressed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  that  whatever  we 


14 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


are  entitled  to,  we  are  entitled  to  under  the  law  under 
which  we  are  convened  here.  That  law  is  in  these  words : 
"  And  moreover,  shall  be  allowed  the  same  pay  for  tra 
veiling  to  and  returning  from  such  Convention  as  is  now 
allowed  members  of  the  General  Assembly  for  like  ser- 
vices. "  This  puts  us  on  precisely  the  same  footing  as 
members  of  the  General  Assembly,  so  far  as  regards 
our  pay  and  mileage.  I  contend  then  that  this  is  a  settled 
question — the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  growing 
out  of  the  law  as  it  existed  when  it  met  to  revise  the 
civil  code,  being  a  precedent,  and  the  opinion  of  the  At- 
torney General  being,  that  that  precedent  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  Legislature  ad- 
journed in  March  1849,  to  meet  again  on  the  same  day  in 
May  1849,  to  consider  the  report  of  the  revisors  of  the 
civil  code.  When  we  met  again,  we  all  received  not 
the  per  diem  compensation  for  the  time  we  were  absent, 
but  exactly  the  same  mileage  as  if  it  were  a  regular  ses- 
sion. When  we  adjourned  from  here  to  meet  at  the  Fau- 
quier Springs,  we  received  mileage  for  travelling  to  that 
place,  but  in  the  interim  no  per  diem  compensation. — ■ 
Now,  I  contend,  as  I  before  remarked,  that  whatever  we 
are  entitled  to,  we  are  entitled  to  under  this  law,  and 
this  Convention  has  no  right  to  alter  or  change  that 
law  in  any  particular  whatever.  Even  if  three-fourths 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention  should  decide 
that  I  was  not  entitled  to  mileage,  I  would  deny 
their  right  to  do  it,  for  they  have  no  power  to  abridge  the 
rights  of  any  single  member  under  the  law.  Suppose 
that  a  majority  of  the  members  should  determine  that 
they  would  have  no  compensation  at  all — -that  would  not 
bind  me.  Suppose  134  members  should  determine  that 
they  were  not  entitled  to  the  per  diem,  what  would  be 
the  effect  ?  Their  action  would  be  null  and  void  and  of 
no  binding  effect  in  the  premises.  They  have  no  power 
over  the  subject.  Each  and  every  member  would  still  be 
entitled  to  the  per  diem  under  the  law  which  convenes 
us  here,  and  no  action  of  this  body  can  alter  or  change 
that  law  in  any  respect  whatever.  I  do  not  know  what 
the  motives  of  the  gentleman  are  who  offers  this  resolu- 
tion, but  I  presume  they  are  proper,  and  just  what  he 
claims  them  to  be,  and  that  he  believes  such  to  be  the  effect 
of  the  law.  I  know  motions  of  this  kind  in  some  places 
are  considered  very  patriotic  indeed.  To  refuse  to  re- 
ceive the  public  money  is  considered  very  patriotic,  but 
it  is  generally  regarded,  I  believe,  as  having  an  eye  to 
home.  The  gentleman  disclaims  any  such  motive,  and 
I  give  him  full  credit  for  his  disclaimer.  But,  it  matters 
not  what  the  motives  and  intentions  may  be,  I  contend 
that  this  Convention  has  no  power  over  the  subject. — 
Now,  in  what  situation  do  we  find  ourselves  ?  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  has  determined  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  per  diem  during  a  recess,  but  are  entitled  to  mile- 
age— and  determined  it  by  acquiescing  in  the  decision  of 
their  Clerk,  based  on  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  Gener- 
al at  the  time.  And  if  I  understand  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey)  correctly,  this  opinion  has  been 
repeated  by  the  Attorney  General  when  called  upon  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Convention,  and  the  Secretary  has 
determined  to  govern  his  action  accordingly.  Now,  I 
call  upon  the  members  of  this  Convention  to  vote  upon 
this  motion  for  indefinite  postponement,  with  this  under- 
standing :  All  who  believe  that  we  are  entitled  to  mile- 
age and  no  per  diem,  will  vote  for  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment, and  then  if  the  motion  prevails,  all  will  understand 
what  the  determination  of  this  Convention  is. 

Mr.  DOUGLASS.  Suppose  we  were  to  adjourn  from 
this  place  to  meet  at  Norfolk,  would  we  still  be  entitled 
to  mileage  ? 

Mr  FERGUSON.  The  gentleman  asks,  suppose  we 
were  to  adjourn  our  sessions  to  Norfolk,  would  we  still  be 
entitled  to  mileage  ?  I  have  not  the  slightest  hesitation 
in  answering  that  we  would.  If  we  were  to  adjourn  from 
here  to  Nova  Scotia,  we  would  still  be  entitled  to  our 
mileage,  if  we  had  the  right  to  go  there.  The  members  of 
the  General  Assembly  received  mileage  for  travelling 
from  here  to  Fauquier,  and  we  are  entitled  to  the  same 
pay  and  mileage,  exactly,  as  they  are  entitled  to.    If  the 


General  Assembly  had  a  right  to  charge  mileage  for  com- 
ing here  and  then  for  going  to  and  returning  from  Fau- 
quier Springs,  we  unquestionably  have  the  same  right  to 
charge  mileage  on  adjourning  from  place  to  place  and 
from  time  to  time.  If  there  is  any  wrong  in  this  thing, 
that  wrong  is  in  the  General  Assembly,  and  not  in  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  STRAUGHAN.  It  will  be  recollected  that  when  the 
resolution  for  taking  a  recess  by  this  Convention  was  of- 
fered, I  introduced  an  amendment  to  it,  by  which,  had  the 
Convention  adopted  it,  this  whole  matter  would  have 
been  settled.  My  opinion  as  to  the  proper  construction 
of  the  law  was  embodied  in  that  amendment.  That  opin- 
ion has  been  in  part  sustained  by  the  decision  of  the 
Attorney  General.  I  did  not  then  believe,  nor  do  I  now 
believe,  that  any  member  has  a  right  to  claim  any  per 
diem  whatever,  and  for  the  purpose  of  settling  this  ques- 
tion, I  introduced  that  amendment.  But  as  the  Attorney 
General  has  decided  that  we  are  not  entitled  to  per  diem, 
but  only  to  mileage,  I  hope  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  (Mr.  Claiborne)  will  prevail ;  and  then,  for 
the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  country  at  large  as  to  the  ac- 
tion of  this  Convention,  I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
mond (Mr.  Stanard)  will  introduce  the  resolution  he  read 
just  now,  and  for  which  I  will  give  my  vote. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  Does  the  motion  for  indefinite  post- 
ponement include  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  King  William  (Mr.  Douglass)  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  replied  that  it  did. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.    Then  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  JACOB.  Before  the  vote  is  taken,  I  would  like 
to  hear  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richmond  read. 

Mr.  STANARD.  It  is  not  in  order  to  offer  the  reso- 
lution now,  but  I  will  offer  it  at  the  proper  time.  I  will 
read  it  for  the  information  of  the  Convention.  It  is  as 
follows : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  Convention  the 
members  are  entitled  to  mileage,  but  not  to  per  diem 
during  the  existence  of  the  recess. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  purpose  to  express  no  opinion  what- 
ever as  to  the  various  resolutions  submitted  to  the 
House,  for  I  feel  very  little  solicitude  indeed  as  to  any 
decision  which  may  be  made  by  the  Convention  in  re- 
spect to  this  question.  I  have  never  seen  the  subject  of 
pay  up  before  a  deliberate  assembly  without  producing 
a  confusion  which  every  body  had  occasion  to  regret. 
I  think,  however,  that  it  is  very  desirable  that  the  Con- 
vention should  arrive  at  a  proper  conclusion  on  this 
subject.  There  is  some  diversity  of  sentiment  in  the 
Convention  in  regard  to  the  pay  the  members  are  con- 
sidered entitled  to;  but  I  think  it  is  only  an  act  of  justice 
the  members  owe  themselves  to  take  the  proper  mode 
of  adjusting  this  question  and  of  reaching  a  just  conclu- 
sion. Anxious  as  I  am  that  the  Convention  should  de- 
cide properly  upon  this  quest-ion,  I  would  suggest  the  pro- 
priety of  referring  the  whole  matter  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee for  them  to  report  what  are  our  rights  upon  this 
subject.  If  the  House  does  not  postpone  this  matter 
indefinitely,  I  shall  move  to  refer  it  to  that  committee, 
and  shall  be  willing  to  submit  to  their  report  when 
made,  whatever  it  may  be— -unless  indeed  they  should 
decide  that  we  are  entitled  to  per  diem. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  do  not  desire  to  discuss  this  question 
now,  but  simply  to  ascertain  its  position*  Suppose  the 
motion  to  postpone  is  sustained,  will  it  then  be  in  order 
for  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Stanard)  to 
move  his  proposition,  or  will  the  whole  subject  be  dis- 
posed of? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  may  then  be  offered  as  a  new 
and  independent  proposition. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  1  think  that  we  have  probably  dis- 
cussed this  subject  long  enough,  and  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  that  a  large  majority  of  the  Convention  coincides 
with  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Attorney  General,  as 
stated  by  my  friend  before  me.  We  are  informed  also 
by  him  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  Secretary  of  this 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


15 


body  to  act  in  accordance  with  that  opinion,  unless  the 
Convention  reverses  it  by  its  action.  In  order  to  get  rid 
of  the  whole  subject,  and  prevent  its  occupying  the  time 
of  the  Convention  at  any  future  period  of  the  session,  I 
move  to  lay  it  on  the  table. 

Mr.  SLOAN".  In  my  seat  here,  I  can  scarcely  hear 
what  is  said  at  all,  but  I  believe  I  have  heard  enough  to 
know  that  this  is  a  question  in  relation  to  the  law  by 
which  the  members  of  this  body  draw  their  pay.  Now 
to  pass,  repeal  or  alter  a  law,  is  the  work  of  legislation, 
and  to  judge  of  a  law  is  a  function  of  the  judiciary  de- 
partment of  the  Government.  I  believe  that  this  body 
possesses  no  legislative  power,  and  I  take  it  that  it  can- 
not exercise  any  function  of  the  judiciary  department  of 
the  Government.  Therefore  we  cannot  judge  of  or  con- 
strue a  law,  and  I  shall  vote  against  this  and  every  oth- 
er effort  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  STANARD.  As  this  vote  is  to  be  considered 
as  a  test  question,  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  the  question  be- 
ing taken  there  were  yeas  10,  nays  35,  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Mason,  (President,)  Armstrong,  Arthur, 
Barbour,  Botts,  Bowden,  Brown,  Byrd,  Camden,  Caper- 
ton,  Caiiile,  Claiborne,  Conway,  Deneale,  Edwards,  Fer- 
guson, Finney,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Fuqua,  Gaily,  Garland, 
Muscoe  Garnett,  Hall,  Hill"  Hoge,' Hopkins,"  Jacob,  Jan- 
Hey,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kenney,  Knote,  Letcher,  Ligon, 
Lynch,  McCamant,  McComas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Mar- 
tin of  Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moncure,  Neeson,  New- 
man, Pendleton,  Price,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fau- 
quier, Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Seymour,  Sheffey,  Sloan, 
Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Snodgrass, 
Snowden,  Stephenson,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Tate,  Taylor, 
Trigg,  Tunis,  Van  Winkle,  Watts  of  Norfolk  county, 
Whittle,  Willey,  Williams  of  Fairfax  and  Wysor— 70.  ■ 

Ways — Messrs.  Anderson,  Banks,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock, 
Bowles,  Braxton,  Chapman,  Cocke,  Cook,  Douglas,  Faulk- 
ner, Flood,  Fulkerson,  Goode,  Hays,  Hunter,  Kilgore, 
Leake,  Lucas,  Lyons,  McCandlish,' Moore,  Rives,  Shell, 
Smith  ofKanawha,  Smith  of  King  &  Queen,  Stanard, 
Straughan,  Summers,  Turnbull,  Wallace,  Wingfield, 
Woolfolk  and  Worsham — 35. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  the  subject  on  the  table  was 
agreed  to. 

ADDITION  OF  MR.  WISE  TO  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  MARTIN",  of  Marshall.  I  beg  leave  to  offer  the 
following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  an  additional  member  be  added  to  the 
Committee  on  Education. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  President  and  to  this  Conven- 
tion that  the  member  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  on  being 
called  home  by  an  afflicting  dispensation  in  his  family, 
desired  that  he  should  not  be  placed  upon  any  commit- 
tee of  the  Convention.  He  was  not  placed  on  any  ac- 
cordingly, but  since  that  time  I  have  consulted  with  him, 
and  he  has  consented  to  serve  upon  the  educational 
committee,  where  all  must  be  of  opinion  his  services 
will  be  most  valuable. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  a 
resolution  on  this  subject.  If  it  is  desirable  to  add  Mr. 
Wise  to  that  committee,  a  simple  motion  to  that  effect  is 
sufficient. 

Mr.  MARTIN.    I  will  accept  of  the  suggestion,  and 
now  move  that  Mr.  Wise  be  added  to  that  Committee. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

REMOVAL  OF  FREE  NEGROES. 

>  Mr.  LETCHER  presented  a  memorial  from  sundry 
citizens  of  Rockbridge,  asking  for  the  adoption  of  a  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  authorizing  and  directing  the 
Legislature  to  provide  by  law  for  the  removal  from 
the  State  of  the  free  negro  population. 

The  memorial  was  referred  to  the  committee  raised  on 
that  subject. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

Mr.  WILLEY.    I  hold  in  my  hand  a  memorial  from 


some  348  citizens  of  Monongalia  county,  on  the  subject 
of  the  basis  of  representation.  It  recites  the  cardinal 
maxims  in  our  Bill  of  Rights,  viz  :  that  all  men  are  by 
nature  free  and  independent,  that  all  power  is  vested 
in  and  consequently  derivable  from  the  people,  and  that 
a  majority  of  that  people  is  the  only  true  basis  of  the 
legislative  power  in  Government — and  as  a  consequence 
of  these  principles  thus  recited,  they  declare  that  the 
predication  of  the  legislative  power  of  the  Government 
upon  any  other  basis  than  that  of  population,  would  be 
a  most  palpable  infraction  of  the  great  American  doc- 
trine of  popular  sovereignty.  They  take  care  to  declare 
that  property  should  be  amply  protected,  and  express 
their  earnest  desire  that  such  protection  shall  be  accom- 
plished by  all  proper  constitutional  securities.  This  is 
not  the  time  to  discuss  these  principles,  but  I  may  be 
allowed  to  say,  however,  that  it  is  particularly  to  be  re- 
gretted that  our  eastern  brethren  do  not  appreciate  the 
deep,  the  heartfelt  and  the  universal  earnestness  of  senti- 
ment on  the  other  side  of  the  Allegany  mountains,  on 
this  subject.  My  friend  from  the  city  of  Richmond  (Mr. 
Scott)  yesterday  alluded  to  the  fact  that  probably  we 
Western  gentlemen  would  hardly  be  willing  to  hold  the 
sessions  of  the  Convention  in  the  African  church.  I  say 
to  him  that  some  of  us  come  here  with  very  strong  in- 
structions to  carry  the  war  right  into  the  centre  of  Af- 
rica— and  that  location  may  be  appropriate  for  us  on 
that  ground.  [Laughter.]  I  take  occasion  also  to  en- 
dorse not  only  the  principles  contained  in  the  me- 
morial, but  likewise  the  character  of  the  memorialists 
themselves.  The  list  embraces  many  men  of  the  highest 
standing  in  our  community — men  of  the  greatest  intelli- 
gence— and  I  hope  the  Convention  will  allow  the  me-- 
morial  to  be  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis. 

The  memorial  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows  : 

The  undersigned  citizens  of  the  county  of  Monongalia 
beg  leave  respectfully  to  represent  to  the  Virginia  Con- 
vention now  sitting  "to  consider,  discuss  and  propose  a 
new  Constitution  or  alterations  and  amendments  to  the 
existing  Constitution  of  this  Commonwealth,"  that  we 
heartily  subscribe  to  the  following  truths  enumerated  in 
the  "Declaration  of  Rights,"  now  a  part  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Virginia,  to  wit : 

"That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  indepen- 
dent and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which,  when  they 
enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot  by  any  compact 
deprive  or  divest  their  posterity,  namely,  the  enjoyment 
of  life  and  liberty  with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  pos-^ 
sessing  property  and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety ; 
"that  all  power  is  vested  in  and  consequently  derived  from 
the  people. 

"That  a  majority  of  the  community"  is  the  true  source 
of  political  power  : 

"That  no  man  or  set  of  men  are  entitled  to  exclusive 
emoluments  or  privileges  from  the  community,  but  in 
consideration  of  public  services." 

Whilst  we  recognise  the  duty  of  every  well  organized 
government  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  citizens  to  pro- 
perty amply  and  fully,  and  are  willing,  nay  desirous,  that 
a  sufficient  constitutional  guaranty  shall  be  provided 
against  all  improper  invasion  of  their  rights,  we  neverthe- 
less believe  that  property  is  not  the  legitimate  or  right- 
ful source  of  the  legislative  power  of  government.  Re- 
presentation in  the  law  making  department,  predicated 
on  property  as  its  basis,  would  be  a  palpable  infraction 
of  the  fundamental  republican  doctrines  above  recited, 
and  the  incorporation  of  such  a  dogma  into  the  organic 
law  of  this  Commonwealth  would  result  in  conferring  the 
power  of  the  government  on  a  sectional  minority  and  in 
inflicting  political  degradation  on  a  large  majority  of  the 
people.  It  would  utterly  overthrow  the  cardinal  princi- 
ple of  popular  sovereignty  and  virtually  give  place  and 
power  to  wealth  in  legislation  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
voice  of  the  majority  of  the  community. 

We  would  therefore  respectfully  but  earnestly  remon- 
strate against  the  introduction  of  the  principle  of  proper* 


16 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ty -representation  into  the  organic  law  of  this  Common- 
wealth. We  would  regard  it  as  subversive  of  our  proper 
political  equality. 

We  hope  we  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  West  Vir- 
ginia is  a  law-abiding  community  ;  that  we  are  ardently 
attached  to  the  good  old  Commonwealth  of  Virginia ;  that 
the  history  of  the  past,  when  Western  men  flew  to  the 
rescue  of  their  Eastern  brethren  in  the  hour  of  their  peril 
and  sacrificed  even  life  itself  in  defending  Eastern  cities 
from  fire  and  sword,  and  Eastern  property  from  pillage, 
will  amply  attest  the  fidelity  of  the  Western  heart  to  the 
people,  and  the  honor  and  welfare  of  all  sections  of  the 
State.  Yet  we  dare  not  say  that  we  may  continue  our 
allegiance,  if  by  so  doing  we  are  to  sacrifice  the  dearest 
and  highest  interests  of  freemen.  We  will  never  submit 
to  live  in  political  slavery.  We  have  learned  too  well 
the  lessons  of  political  equality,  taught  us  by  our  fathers 
from  Eastern  Virginia,  even  to  acknowledge  an  infe- 
riority, either  personally  or  politically,  and  believing  as 
we  do  that  population  is  the  only  true  basis  of  legisla- 
tive power,  and  that  any  other  element  of  representa- 
tion which  would  stifle  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the 
community  would  be  degradation  of  that  majority  to  a 
state  of  political  slavery,  we  appeal  in  the  name  of  the 
100,000  of  the  Western  majority  of  the  white  population 
of  W ester n  Virginia — we  appeal  to  you — to  your  hearts 
— to  your  high  sense  of  honor  and  justice — to  your  appre- 
ciation of  the  great  principles  of  human  freedom  and  po- 
litical equality — we  appeal  to  you  earnestly  but  most 
respectfully — will  you  inflict  such  a  wrong  upon  v  s  ? 

Allow  us  to  assure  your  honorable  body,  in  terms  as 
respectful  as  our  estimation  of  your  honorable  bodv  is 
high  and  hopeful,  that  these  are  not  the  sentiments  of  a 
mometary  popular  excitement,  or  of  a  few  ardent  indi- 
viduals, but  they  are  the  sober  sentiments  of  the  entire 
Western  community,  deep-fixed,  heartfelt,  and  unall  era- 
ble.  Granting  you  will  so  consider  them,  we  shall,  as  in 
duty  bound  ever  pray.    Signed  : 

John  Fetty,  Mathew  Gay,  Henry  E.  Smith,  Henry 
Dering,  John  Watts,  Miller  Hall,  James  H.  McKeny, 
George  Hite,  Sr.,  Samuel  J.  Johnston,  Elias  Stillwell, 
E.  P.  Fitch,  Wm.  D.  Smith,  A.  E.  Thorn,  G.  R.  C.  Allen, 
J.  H.  Scott,  Henry  Swindler,  Seth  N.  Stafford,  John  Bly, 
J.  T;  Davis,  L.  S.  Hough,  T.  F.  Hurry,  Thos.  Lyell,  Za- 
dok  Mackbee,  George  Alexander,  Robert  Hite,  O.  B. 
Johnston,  James  Watson,  Joseph  Garland,  Cabell  Hol- 
land, Thos.  Meredith,  Sampson  Turner,  William  Robin- 
son, Henry  Burnell,  R.  P.  Hennen,  James  McClaskey, 
Ams.  Lollis,  Amos  Jolliffe,  John  Lawlis,  0.  P.  Jolleffe, 
Jacob  Ruble,  Isaac  Cartright,  Geo.  S.  Dering,  W.  Wag- 
ner, Geo.  M.  Hagans,  R.  L.  Berkshire,  James  Bodley,  L. 
Seigfried,  Jacob  Haught,  Sr.,  A.  C.  Dorsey,  E.  C.  Bun- 
ker, Richard  B.  Carr,  George  Conn,  John  C.  Price,  Pur- 
nell  Simpson,  Ezekiah  Morris,  Edgar  C.  Wilson,  Caleb 
Wight,  Wm.  S.  Tingle,  A.  Abercrombie,  Henry  Watson, 
James  A.  Hawthorn,  Thomas  Lazzell,  David  Lemley, 
P.  H.  Keck,  JoelRidgway,  Edwin  Clear,  J.  M.  Trippett, 
Charles  Dewyes,  Nathaniel  Reed,  Jno.  Hanway,  Daniel 
K.  Jarrett,  Amaziah  D.  Payne,  James  Evans,  E.  S.  Pin- 
dall,  Joseph  Shuttleworth,  John  St.  Clair,  Shepard  Con- 
well,  Burr  P.  Marsteller,  John  Gine,  Paul  Bayles,  Wait- 
man  Fleming,  Stephen  Warmer,  William  Bayles.  John 
Meredith,  A.  M.  MacDonald,  Asa  Hall,  John  W.  Wiley, 
J.  A.  Wiley,  E.  W.  Tower,  Raleigh  Holland,  Benjamin 
Shriver,  David  Magill,  James  Johnson,  Jr.,  Reasom  Li- 
ming, William  Faulkner,  Caleb  Tanzey,  John  M.  Waters 
Andrew  Lough,  James  Arnett,  M.  R.  Chalfant,  Wm.  E. 
Grove,  John  H.  Courtney,  James  Robison,  Joseph  Snider, 
Jr.,  Joseph  Frum,  Sam.  Drabell,  Jacob  Miller,  L.  P.  Knox, 
James  S.  Miller,  Jos.  Morgan,  John  Dunn,  James  Kelly, 
P.  A.  Layton,  E.  Tarleton,  John  Prentiss,  Jas.  H.  Carroll, 
Jacob  Tenant,  Warman  Wade,  A.  P.  Clark,  John  C.  How- 
ell, David  Mayers,  Jacob  Horner,  Henry  Cunningham, 
Denune  Wade,  Jacob  Barrickman,  Geo.  M.  Ray,  Green- 
berry  Wade,  George  Costole,  Elias  C.  Finnell,  Wm.  John, 
Jesse  Holland,  John  Hare,  Jonathan  Stansberry,  A.  Yea- 
ger,  John  B.  Laugh,  Barnett  W.  Fox,  John  Statler,  Wil- 


son J enkins,  Amos  A.  Vandorvort,  Enos  Cobun,  James 
Pixler,  Wm.  Lambert,  Seth  Stafford,  L.  H.  Dorsey,  R.  B. 
Tenant,  John  Piles,  E.  S.  Brooke,  Reuben  Finnell,  John 
Heck,  Peter  Shafer,  Jacob  Myers,  Job  Simms,  Martin  Fox, 
Sr.,  Martin  P.  Fox,  Josephus  T.  Myers,  Aaron  W.  Bills, 
George  Weaver,  Hiram  Austin,  James  H.  Stafford,  A. 
Lafton,  Robert  Harvey,  Purnell  Houston,  Philip  W. 
Harner,  C.  C.  Laine,  B.  C.  Brooke,  Edward  Price,  B.  F. 
Baldwin,  Edward  Gidley,  Michael  Shisler,  Adam  Smith, 
Wm.  H.  Stewart,  Jacob  Frederick,  A.  R.  McKeeper, 
Isaac  Reed,  Jr.,  D.  B.  Lynch,  Samuel  Darnell,  Albert  Ma- 
dera, J.  E.  Tucker,  A.  Davarett,  Daniel  Halderman, 
Marshall  M.  Dent,  E.  B.  Tygard,  H.  J.  Combe,  John  Mc- 
MastersK  Thos.  Eastburn,  John  Able,  A.  S.  Vance,  C.  B. 
Tucker,  Henry  Swindler,  W.  M.  E  vans,  Wm.  Tallyarch, 
James  B.  Prier,  Geo.  M.  Dering,  H.  D.  McGeorge,  Orlan- 
do Shay,  Joseph  R.  Mathews,  Wattson  Carr,  Cable  Dor- 
sey, Peter  Youst,  John  Youst,  Wm.  Barb,  D.  B.  Lynch, 
F.  A.  Dering,  Milton  Rogers,  Thomas  Lanham,  Sr.,  Tho- 
mas Lanham,  Jr.,  Moses  Steele,  J.  J.  Fitch,  LeRoy  Kra- 
mer, Samuel  Howell,  Wm.  Durbin,  Henry  Daugherty, 
Draper  Cole,  George  J  Williams,  George  F.  Hartman, 
Wm.  Pride,  John  Lewis,  Wm.  Park,  James  Miller,  Martin 
Callendine,  Elijah  Morgan,  George  Utt,  Thos.  Evans, 
Isaac  Haistings,  Daniel  Tuttle,  John  J.  Gould,  B.  B.  Cox, 
Jonah  Vanderwort,  A.  Hayes,  John  F.  Cooper,  George 
Hall,  J.  S.  Patterson,  Samuel  Shackleford,  D.  B.  Stewart, 
L.  "L.  John,  John  J  ones,  Ezra  Stephens,  M.  Scott,  John 
M.  Trowbridge,  John  Wolf,  John  Joseph,  Thomas  Jolliff, 
Soloman  Exline,  Joseph  Smell,  J.  G.  Allen,  John  H.  Sni- 
der, John  S.  Derings,  Andrew  Frum,  W.  P.  Williams, 
J ohn  Jones,  Thomas  Reed,  Hugh  H.  Carr,  Wm.  E.  Grove, 
Benj.  F.  Milles,  John  P.  Dering,  James  S.  Peery,  John  D. 
M.  Carr,  George  Bell,  J.  W.  Demain,  Joseph  Reed,  John 
Barb,  John  B.  Achesdn,  Henry  Wise,  George  Kiger,  Rey 
Stell,  Samuel  Heart,  jr.,  James  M.  McVeeker,  Joseph 
Oraball,  Wm.  J.  Dougherty,  Wm.  Courtney,  Wm.  P. 
Hess,  J.  Pickenpaagh,  M.  W.  Selbey,  Hezekiah  Sumers, 
James  Johnson,  jr.,  Jonathan  Morgan,  James  T.  McKas- 
key,  John  Vandewort,  Joseph  Jacobs,  H.  B.  Allsup, 
James  Miller,  Jabez  Brown,  Andrew  Weaver,  James 
Miller,  Wm.  Haskins,  Fielding  S.  Dawson,  F.  B.  Drutell, 
John  N.  Baker,  R.  B.  Carr,  C.  B.  Watts,  Alexander  Dun- 
can, Wm,  Frum,  Joseph  H.  Jones,  Elias  Jones,  Rezin  H. 
Jones,  F.  S.  Berkshire,  Samuel  B.  Snider,  John  Jamison, 
Philip  Rogers,  jr.,  George  D.  Evans,  Henry  Bunbridge, 
Eli  J.  Walls,  B.  L.  Wilson,  Izaiah  Jones,  John  S.  Coombs, 
H.  F.  Martin,  Newton  Mike,  Andrew  Mike,  Nicholas 
Shislu,  Wm.  M.  Jones,  Hugh  M.  Dering,  Leroy  Kiger, 
George  W.  Dorsey,  Wm.  Richardson,  John  Core,  Wm. 
Vandevert,  jr.,  Jas.  M.  Hawthorn,  Catle  S.  Price,  John 
Foyle,  James  Wright,  Jacob  Smell,  Stamsbury  S.  Low- 
man,  C.  Dorsey,  P.  Gogle,  G.  W.  Morrison,  Benjamin 
Dorsey,  jr.,  G.  W.  Miller,  Nimrod  Barrickman,  John  Bar- 
rickman, Thomas  J.  John,  Burton  Pride,  James  Barrick- 
man, Benjamin  Griffith,  James  Botzmer,  John  Boyd, 
Ulysses  Camp. 

It  was  then  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis, 
and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

GENERAL  LAW  FOR  CORPORATIONS. 

Mr.  VAN  WINKLE  offered  the  following  resolution 
and  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment inquire  and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  re- 
quiring the  General  Assembly  to  provide,  by  a  general 
law  or  laws,  for  the  incorporation  of  any  number  of  in- 
dividuals, not  less  than  ,  associated  for  nuning, 

manufacturing,  constructing  works  of  internal  improve- 
ments, banking,  insuring  or  other  purposes,  useful  to  the 
public,  and  having  paid  or  secured  to  be  paid  a  certain 
proportion  of  their  capital  stock,  subject  to  such  regula- 
tions, and  giving  such  security,  as  may  be  deemed  neces- 
sary or  expedient  to  guard  against  abuses  of  the  priv  ile- 
leges  conferred  or  the  injury  of  the  public,  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  said  general  law  or  laws. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


17 


REGISTER  OF  DEBATES. 

The-  PRESIDENT  submitted  to  the  Convention  the 
following  communication : 

Richmond,  Jan.  7,  1851. 

Hon.  John  Y.  Mason — 

Sir: — Contemplating  the  publication  of  a  Register  of 
the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Virginia  Reform 
Convention,  in  octavo  form  for  preservation,  I  hereby  of- 
fer to  furnish  the  Convention  with  any  number  of  copies, 
at  the  end  of  the  session,  in  a  bound  volume  or  volumes, 
your  body  may  desire  for  the  use  of  its  members,  or 
for  the  Commonwealth — the  price  to  be  fixed  by  a  com- 
mittee appointed  for  that  purpose. 

Very  respectfully,  your  ob't  servt, 

R,o.  H.  Gallaher. 

The  communication  having  been  read,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  MARTIN",  of  Marshall,  it  was  referred  to  the  Select 
Committee  having  charge  of  the  subject. 

HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  MONCURE  moved  that  when  the  Convention  ad- 
journ, it  adjourn  to  meet  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M., 
and  at  that  hour  on  each  subsequent  day,  until  other- 
wise ordered.    Agreed  to. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morn- 
ing, at  10  o'clock. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  8,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

HOMESTEAD  EXEMPTION,  &C. 

Mr.  HAYS  offered  the  following  resolution : 
"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment of  the  Government  inquire  into  the  expedien- 
cy of  incorporating  into  the  Constitution  a  restriction 
against  the  process  of  Ca-Sa,  and  to  provide,  that  if  es- 
tate should  ever  be  made  liable  to  execution,  a  home- 
stead exemption  to  the  amount  of   dollars  shall 

be  allowed.  " 

PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT  stated  that  the  committee  appoint- 
ed to  prepare  accommodations  for  the  sessions  of  the 
Convention,  had  discharged  the  duty  devolved  upon 
them,  and  he  desired  to  submit  a  report,  in  favor  of 
which  he  believed  the  committee  were  unanimous. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as  follows  : 

"  The  committee  on  providing  accommodations  for  the 
Convention,  together  with  the  several  communications  to 
them  referred,  have  had  them  under  consideration,  and 
report  as  follows : 

"That  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  are  due,  and  should 
be  respectfully  tendered  to  the  councils  and  citizens  of 
Norfolk,  Alexandria  and  Petersburg,  for  their  polite  in- 
vitations to  the  Convention  to  hold  its  sessions  in  then- 
towns,  and  for  the  courteous  and  generous  offer  to  pro- 
vide suitable  accommodations,  should  either  of  their  in- 
vitations be  accepted;  and,  however  tempting  the  '  pleas- 
ures and  recreations '  so  kindly  promised  the  '  members, 
individually,'  the  committee  are  reluctantly  constrained 
to  advise  that  you  decline  these  several  invitations. — 
Your  committee  have  examined  the  buildings  in  the  city 
of  Richmond  offered  for  the  use  of  the  Convention,  viz  : 
the  Universalist  church,  and  La  Fayette  hall,  and  have 
no  hesitation  in  recommending  to  the  Convention  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  former.  La  Fayette  hall  is  a  room  large 
enough  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Convention,  but 
totally  destitute  of  every  convenience  and  comfort ; 
would  have  to  be  fitted  up  entire,  which  would  require 
considerable  time  and  an  outlay  of  some  two  or  three 
thousand  dollars,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  it 
could  then  be  well  used  for  the  purpose  designed,  owing 
to  the  echo  and  reverberation  of  every  sound  made  in  it. 
The  Universalist  church  is  a  substantial  building,  of  am- 
ple dimensions  for  the  convenient  accommodation  of  the 
Convention  and  a  large  number  of  spectators,  and 


will  require  but  few  alterations  in  its  present  ar- 
rangement to  make  it  entirely  comfortable  and  suit- 
able for  the  use  of  the  Convention.  It  has  been  offer- 
ed on  the  most  liberal  terms,  the  proprietors  being  wil- 
ling to  accept  such  remuneration  as  the  Convention  may 
seem  fit  and  proper,  and  any  permanent  improve- 
ments or  repairs  which  the  Convention  may  make,  your 
committee  are  authorized  to  say  will  be  received  very 
cheerfully  as  part  of  such  remuneration.  Your  com- 
mittee are  of  opinion  from  information  they  have  obtain 
ed,  that  the  entire  cost  attendant  upon  this  removal  of 
the  Convention  to  this  church,  including  the  rent  of  the 
building  and  fitting  it  up,  will  not  exceed,  if  it  reach,  the 
sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  and  it  can  be  ready  for  the 
acceptance  of  the  Convention  in  a  few  days.  Your  com- 
mittee recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  be,  and 
they  are  hereby  respectfully  tendered  to  the  councils  and 
citizens  of  Norfolk,  Alexandria  and  Petersburg,  for  their 
polite  invitations  to  this  body  to  hold  its  sessions  in  their 
towns,  and  for  their  courteous  and  generous  offer  of  suit- 
able accommodations  therefor,  and  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Convention  forward  each  of  the  said  councils  a  co- 
py of  this  resolution." 

Resolved,  That  the  offer  of  the  Universalist  church  in 
the  city  of  Richmond,  be  accepted,  and  that  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  be,  and  he  is  hereby  directed  (under  the  super- 
vision and  advisement  of  the  committee)  to  have  the  ne- 
cessary alterations  and  improvements  made  in  the  said 
church  for  the  accommodation  and  reception  of  the  Con- 
vention as  speedily  as  practicable." 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is 
any  occasion  to  act  at  this  time  on  this  report.  If  I 
understand  it,  it  recommends  that  we  should  take  mea- 
sures at  once  to  remove  to  the  Universalist  church.  It 
is  possible,  I  may  say  probable,  the  House  of  Delegates 
will  agree  to  permit  the  Convention  to  occupy  this 
house  at  the  hour  of  1  o'clock.  I  think  this  might 
suit  the  convenience  of  the  members  of  the  Convention ; 
and  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  that  arrangement  can 
be  made,  I  move  that  the  report  and  resolutions  be  laid 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  with- 
draw that  motion  for  a  moment. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Certainly. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  trust  that  the  Convention  will 
at  once  decide  this  very  trivial  matter — trivial  in  itself, 
but  perhaps  important  in  its  consequences.  I  have  yet  to 
see  the  very  first — at  least,  they  are  like  angels'  visits, 
very  few  and  far  between — of  those  gentlemen  who 
think  that  we  can  get  along  in  this  hall,  while  it  is  oc- 
cupied by  the  Legislature,  at  all.  I  do  not  believe  that 
there  is  a  "baker's  dozen"  who  are  disposed  to  sit  here, 
and  jointly  occupy  this  hall,  at  all.  Now,  let  us  decide 
this  question  at  once.  I  gave  my  reasons  the  other  day 
why  we  could  not  sit  here  jointly  with  the  House  of  Del- 
egates. Then  business  occupies  all  their  time.  Let 
them  have  the  hall  all  the  time,  and  let  us  go  where  we 
can  have  all  our  time.  I  beg  leave  to  say,  in  further  ex- 
planation of  the  report,  that  the  Universalist  church  is 
not  only  amply  sufficient  for  the  comfort  and  convenience 
of  the  Convention,  but  of  all  the  spectators  who  may 
attend.  And  I  would  further  state,  that  the  common 
council  of  the  city  of  Richmond  had  a  meeting  yester- 
day, and  determined,  as  the  road  is  not  very  good  to 
that  church,  to  have  a  plank  road  made  to  it.  This 
will  be  a  benefit  which  we  will  confer  on  the  owners 
of  the  church,  on  the  citizens,  and  on  ourselves.  The 
house  we  have  tried,  and  the  sound  of  it,  and  it  is 
one  better  adapted  for  us  than  this,  in  my  humble  opin- 
ion. It  is  quite  as  comfortable,  I  think,  in  every  re- 
spect. And  I  do  trust  that  gentlemen  will  not  permit 
any  further  delay  to  be  had.  Is  it  not  apparent,  that  so 
long  as  we  sit  here,  we  shall  not  get  regularly  at  work  ? 
The  opinion  of  the  committee  is,  that  this  house  can  be 
got  ready  for  your  reception  by  Monday  morning,  if  you 
will  adopt  the  report  and  resolutions  we  have  advised. 


18 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Then  we  can  go  there  quietly,  masters  of  our  own  time, 
and  go  to  work  and  begin  to  do  what  we  were  sent  here 
to  do  ;  and  which  it  is  very  evident  that  we  have  not  yet 
commenced. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  With  a  view  to  test  the 
sense  of  the  Convention,  I  will  repeat  my  motion  to  lay 
upon  the  table.  I  do  not  think  we  can  be  accommoda 
ted  in  any  other  place,  with  any  thing  approaching  the 
conveniences  we  have  here.  We  shall  have,  for  instance, 
no  desks  or  tables  for  our  use  there.  I  think  a  period 
of  time  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Delegates  may  be 
obtained,  which  will  satisfy  the  convenience  of  the  Con- 
vention. And  regarding  this  house  as  better  adapted 
for  our  deliberations  than  any  other  that  can  be  procur- 
ed in  the  city  of  Richmond  or  elsewhere,  I  think  we 
ought  to  lay  this  report  on  the  table  for  this  day,  and 
give  the  House  of  Delegates  an  opportunity,  if  they 
will,  to  offer  us  the  hall  at  some  hour  which  will  be 
better  suited  to  our  convenience.  With  a  view,  there- 
fore, to  test  the  sense  of  the  Convention,  I  renew  the 
motion  to  lay  the  report  on  the  table. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  I  trust  the  report  will  not  be  laid 
on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDENT.    The  motion  is  not  debateable. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    I  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  I  trust  the  Convention  is  prepared 
to  act  at  once  on  this  question.  The  very  reasons  urged 
by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  in  favor  of  his  motion 
to  lay  on  the  table,  are  the  very  reasons  which  operate 
against  it,  in  my  mind.  He  thinks  we  should  be  better 
accommodated  here  than  elsewhere.  In  the  first  place, 
it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  manifest  propriety  that 
we  should  retain  absolute  control  of  the  hall  in  which 
Ave  sit,  to  suit  our  own  time,  without  being  limited  by 
the  rights  of  any  other  body.  The  gentleman  also  lays 
great  stress  upon  the  absence  of  the  desks  and  tables. 
Now,  I  would  go  any  where  to  get  rid  of  desks  and 
tables.  I  have  heard  the  old  men  speak  of  the  in- 
troduction of  desks  and  chairs  into  Congress,  the  disor- 
ganization which  it  produced  in  that  body,  and  the  hin- 
drance to  the  dispach  of  business.  I  served  here  former- 
ly in  this  House,  when  there  was  a  lobby  of  fifteen  or 
twenty  feet,  and  a  large  space  thirty  feet  in  length,  by 
fifteen  in  breadth,  unoccupied  by  seats,  and  when  there 
was  abundance  of  room,  and  privileged  seats  within. 
And  before  1829 — for  before  that  time  I  had  not  the  ho- 
nor of  a  seat  here — this  hall  accommodated  some  220 
members.  Now,  since  the  introduction  of  chairs  and 
desks  over  the  whole  House,  including  the  lobby  and 
unoccupied  space  of  the  former  hall,  it  cannot  ac- 
commodate properly  135  members.  We  came  here  to 
do  the  public  business ;  and  yet  we  find  the  time  occu- 
pied in  writing  letters,  or  by  legal  gentlemen,  in  drawing 
legal  papers,  while  the  public  business  is  obstructed. 
This  introduction  of  seats,  desks  and  chairs,  is  an  Ame- 
rican invention.  The  Houses  of  Parliament  never  permit- 
ted it.  They  had  nothing  but  benches  and  a  little  board, 
upon  whioh  they  drew  resolutions.  That  was  pretty 
much  the  case  with  the  old  House  of  Delegates.  I  hope 
that  we  all  desire  to  transact  the  business  for  which  we 
were  sent  here,  and  to  get  home  without  delay.  I  hope 
we  shall  go  somewhere  where  we  can  have  an  arrange- 
ment of  seats  in  a  smaller  compass — where  we  shall  not 
be  confined  to  particular  seats,  so  that  gentlemen  may  mix 
more  together,  and  become  acquainted  with  each  other. 
I  hope  we  shall  go  somewhere  where  we  shall  get  rid 
of  these  desks  and  chairs.  And  I  do  not  doubt,  if  we 
were,  by  a  constitutional  regulation,  to  prohibit,  in  all 
legislative  bodies,  the  introduction  of  desks  and  chairs, 
that  we  should  render  a  much  more  beneficial  service  to 
the  State,  than  by  many  of  the  regulations  which  we 
shall  make. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  renew  the  motion  to  lay 
the  report  on  the  table. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table,  it  was  decided  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  FISHER.  I  am  constrained  to  object  to  the  adop- 
tion of  this  resolution,  because  in  my  humble  opinion, 


there  are  interests  connected  with  the  permanent  loca- 
tion of  this  Convention  which  ought  not  be  overlooked. 
I  do  not  wish,  at  this  particular  moment,  to  develop 
what  those  interests  are,  and  I  shall  refrain  from  any 
comment  upon  the  matter,  and  have  risen  mainly  with  the 
view  to  move  an  amendment  to  that  resolution  by  stri- 
king from  it  the  words  ''Universalist  church,"  and  in- 
serting in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "city  hall  in  the  bo- 
rough of  Norfolk."  With  a  view  to  ascertain  whether 
private  convenience  shall  be  sacrificed  to  the  public  weal 
in  relation  to  this  question,  I  beg  leave  to  ask  the  ayes 
and  noes  upon  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  [Mr.  Hopkins  tempo_ 
rarily  in  the  Chair.]  Two  resolutions  have  been  reported 
by  the  committee,  and  as  they  refer  to  separate  and  dis- 
tinct subjects,  the  vote  will  be  taken  on  each  separately. 
Where  all  refer  to  the  same  subject,  however,  the  prac- 
tice is  to  take  the  question  on  them  aggregately.  The 
first  resolution  here,  returns  thanks  to  the  authorities  of 
Alexandria,  Norfolk  and  other  places  for  their  kind  invi- 
tations to  the  Convention,  and  the  second  resolution  pro- 
vides for  the  selection  of  a  place  for  the  meeting  of  the 
Convention.  The  question  will  therefore  be  first  taken 
on  the  first  resolution,  unless  the  Convention  should  desire 
to  pass  it  over  for  the  present. 

Mr.  FISHER.  I  have  not  understood  that  any  gentle- 
man has  desired  the  division  of  the  resolutions.  I  imagined 
that  the  question  would  arise  upon  the  resolutions  joint- 
ly. My  motion  is  to  amend  the  second  resolution,  but  if  it  is 
more  in  accordance  with  parliamentary  usage  to  take  the 
question  first  upon  the  first  resolution,  then  my  amend- 
ment will  apply  when  the  second  resolution  is  considered. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  parliamentary  law 
is  very  clear  on  the  subject.  It  is,  that  the  question  must 
be  taken  separately  on  each  resolution  in  its  order,  un- 
less the  House  should  pass  by  one,  in  order  to  take  up 
the  other. 

Mr.  PRICE.  The  gentleman  can  attain  his  object  by 
moving  to  lay  the  first  resolution  on  the  table.  The  se- 
cond will  then  come  up,  and  the  gentleman's  amend- 
ment will  then  be  in  order. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  A  motion  to  pass  by  the 
first  resolution  will  be  sufficient  to  attain  the  end. 

Mr.  FISHER.    I  do  not  make  the  motion. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  first  resolution 
reported  by  the  committee,  and  it  was  agreed  to. 

The  second  resolution  was  then  read. 

Mr.  FISHER  renewed  his  resolution  to  amend  by 
striking  out  the  words  "Universalist  church, "  and  in- 
serting in  lieu  thereof,  the  words  "  city  hall, "  in  the 
borough  of  Norfolk. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
from  Mason,  that  he  designate  instead  of  the  "city 
hall,"  the  "mechanics'  hall,"  in  the  city  of  Norfolk,  as 
the  place  of  meeting.  This  motion  had  been  made  with- 
out any  expectation  on  my  part  that  such  an  one 
would  be  made,  but  I  presume  _  it  is  proper  in  me  as 
a  representative  in  part  of  the  district  of  which  Noiv 
folk  forms  a  part,  and  as  a  citizen  of  that  place, 
to  say  to  the  Convention  that  there  is  certainly  a  room 
of  sufficient  capacity  in  every  respect  in  that  city,  for  the 
sittings  of  the  Convention  ;  and  that  room  is  the  mecha- 
nics' hall.  I  need  not  say  in  view  of  the  resolutions 
from  Norfolk,  laid  before  this  body,  and  the  knowledge 
which  most  of  the  members  must  have  of  the  citizens 
of  Norfolk,  that  if  it  should  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
Convention  to  adjourn  to  that  city,  there  is  no  communi- 
ty in  the  State  of  Virginia  who  will  receive  them  with  a 
more  cordial  welcome,  or  make  greater  exertions  tq 
make  their  sojourn  more  pleasant  and  agreeable. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  think  that  we  are  about  to  ex- 
hibit to  the  country,  from  the  demonstrations  which  are 
now  being  made  upon  this  floor,  that  this  is  really  and 
truly  what  may  be  called  an  itinerant  Convention.  We 
met  in  the  capitol,  according  to  law,  and  more  than  two. 
months  ago  the  Convention  took  a  recess  for  two  mont  hs. 
I  voted  for  that  adjournment  and  recess,  and  I  have  no 
cause,  and  expect  to  have  none,  to  regret  that  vote, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


19 


Prior  to  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  a  committee 
was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  hall  in  which 
this  body  was  to  re-assemble  on  its  return  to  the  city  of 
Richmond.  The  only  arrangement  made  by  that  com- 
mittee was  one  with  the  Legislature  for  the  joint  occu- 
pancy of  this  house  during  certain  hours  of  the  day  and 
the  whole  of  the  night.  And  I  beg  leave  to  say  here,  in 
courtesy  to  those  gentlemen  who  have  a  double  duty  to 
perform  to  their  constituents,  by  the  will  and  choice  of 
their  people,  that  I  am  prepared  to  vote  either  for  the 
report  of  the  committee,  or  for  accepting  the  proposition 
of  the  Legislature  with  regard  to  the  occupation  of  this 
hall.  I  do  not  believe  as  some  gentlemen  believe,  that 
my  constituency  require  me,  after  eating  and  drinking 
a:  dinner,  to  come  here  and  make  a  Constitution,  nor  do  I 
claim  to  belong  to  that  aristocracy  who  would  imitate 
the  House  of  Commons  of  Old  England  and  perform  the 
duties  of  the  Convention  at  night.  But  I  am  willing,  if 
there  is  any  disposition  on  the  part  of  this  body  to  enter 
into  an  arrangement  with  the  Legislature,  to  meet  here 
either  in  the  morning  or  in  the  evening,  to  discharge  the 
duties  that  are  incumbent  upon  me  as  a  member  of  this  bo- 
dy, in  this  capitol,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  gentlemen 
who  hold  positions  in  this  body  and  in  the  Legislature, 
to  discharge  the  duties  they  rightfully  and  lawfully  ow 
to  their  constituents.  I  do  not  blame  them  for  attempt- 
ing to  discharge  those  duties,  since  it  is  the  will  of  the" 
people  that  they  should  hold  two  positions.  But  I  am 
satisfied  that  there  is  no  disposition  on  the  part  even  of 
a  moiety  of  the  members  of  this  body,  to  meet  in  this 
hall  and  to  accept  the  offer  of  the  Legislature.  Then, 
as  we  have  been  two  months  and  three  days  preparing  a 
hall  for  this  body  to  meet  in,  I  think  the  time  at  last  has 
arrived  when  this  body  should  take  action  as  to  where 
they  will  meet  to  discharge  the  duties  they  owe  to  their 
constituents.  Four  months  and  more  of  the  session 
of  the  Convention  have  been  exhausted,  and  not 
one  single  solitary  step  has  been  taken  in  the  dis- 
charge of  our  duties.  The  people  of  Virginia,  who  desir- 
ed this  Convention,  and  who  called  it  into  existence,  are 
looking  for  a  reformed  Constitution,  and  to  the  adoption 
or  vote  upon  that  Constitution  by  themselves,  so  that  a 
Legislature  may  be  elected  next  summer,  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  that  Constitution  into  effect.  As  a  member 
of  the  committ  ee  appointed  to  ascertain  if  a  house  might 
be  procured  that  would  answer  the  purpose,  I  went  yes- 
terday, in  company  with  other  members  of  that  commit- 
tee, and  examined  La  Fayette  hall,  and  the  Universalist 
church,  in  this  city,  and  I  take  this  occasion  to  say  to  the 
Convention,  and  to  those  gentlemen  who  have  not  visit- 
ed the  Universalist  church,  that  it  is  a  building  85 
by  40  feet,  and  that  in  the  body  of  the  church,  out- 
side of  the  galleries,  there  is  sufficient  room  to  ac- 
commodate one  hundred  and  thirty-five  members  of  the 
Convention — every  seat,  and  every  man  of  whom  may  be 
immediately  in  front  and  directly  in  the  eye  of  the  Pres- 
ident. On  the  right  and  left  of  the  pulpit,  su  itable  ar- 
rangements may  be  made  for  the  stenographers,  and  desks 
may  be  prepared  for  gentlemen  who  wish  to  prepare  a 
resolution  or  write  a  letter,  during  the  session  of  the 
Convention.  The  brick  wall  that  supports  the  church 
is  the  widest  and  most  substantial  that  I  ever  saw  in 
my  life.  The  underpinning  of  the  galleries  and  the 
main  floor  of  the  building  is  sufficiently  ample  to  sup- 
port the  weight  of  1500  or  2000  persons.  The  sound 
of  the  voice,  in  every  part  of  the  church,  is  better 
than  in  this  hall,  or  in  any  building  that  can  be 
procured  in  the  city  of  Richmond ;  and  independent  of 
all  these  qualifications  which  this  building  possesses,  they 
have  pews  well  cushioned,  and  they  are  long  enough  to 
(lire  worn-out  members  an  opportunity  of  taking  a  nap 
during  the  long  speeches  in  the  dog  days.  [Laughter.] 
Now  what  inducement  is  offered  to  this  body  to  go  to  Nor- 
folk, in  preference  to  accepting  the  Universalist  church  ? 
You  have  been  told  by  the  report  of  the  committee,  that 
this  church  can  be  prepared,  and  that  all  the  expense 
will  not  amount  to  more  than  §1000. 

If  we  leave  ths  capitol  and  go  to  Norfolk,  a  distance 


of  more  than  10-0  miles,  this  Convention  goes  there  at  a 
cost  of  forty  dollars  per  member  to  the  State  of  Virginia, 
an  amount  eight  or  ten  times  as  much  as  the  whole  ex- 
pense of  procuring  a  hall  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  I  ne- 
ver saw  the  hall  in  the  city  of  Norfolk,  but  I  am  satisfied 
that  it  cannot  possibly  offer  any  greater  inducements  in 
the  shape  of  convenience,  than  the  Universalist  church. 
Then  what  advantages  do  the  city  of  Norfolk  present 
over  the  city  of  Richmond  ?  I  am  a  thousand  times 
obliged  to  the  hospitable,  generous,  and  kind  people  of  the 
city  of  Norfolk,  for  the  invitation  that  they  have  extend- 
ed to  us ;  and  I  have  no  doubt,  that  if  we  were  in  that 
city,  we  would  meet  with  all  the  cordiality  and  kindness 
that  we  could  expect,  and  a  good  deal  more  than  we  were 
entitled  to.  The  whole  sum  and  substance  of  it  is  this, 
that  there  is  no  other  advantage  offered  to  the  Conven- 
tion by  Norfolk,  except,  perhaps,  a  larger  supply  of  Tay- 
lor's best  brand  of  French  brandy,  and  fresh  oysters. 
[Laughter.]  But  I  believe  this  extra  supply  of  superior 
provender,  will  add  nothing  to  the  wisdom  of  the  fra- 
mers  of  the  new  Constitution.  I  recollect  very  well, 
when  a  boy,  that  whenever  they  failed  to  give  me  bis- 
cuit and  butter  for  breakfast,  I  always  learned  my  les- 
son, but  if  I  was  well  fed,  I  was  very  apt  to  neglect  it. 
[Laughter.]  I  hope  that  this  Convention,  for  the  sake  of 
good  oysters  and  better  diet,  will  not  say  to  the  people 
of  Virginia,  that  after  a  five  months'  session,  they  have 
thought  proper  to  make  a  stampede  of  a  hundred  miles, 
to  a  remote  position,  almost  upon  the  very  line  of  the 
Commonwealth  itself.  Are  there  not  advantages  pre- 
sented in  the  city  of  Richmond,  even  if  there  was  no  ne- 
cessity on  the  part  of  the  Convention  to  remain  here,  that 
should  influence  its  course  ?  The  public  printer  is  here. 
Your  contract  with  him  has  been  solemnly  ratified,  and 
you  are  bound  to  abide  by  that  contract.  You  have  bet- 
ter facilities  of  sending  forth  to  the  people  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  body,  than  you  would  have  at  any  other 
point ;  and  I  trust  that,  in  the  absence  of  every  considera- 
tion that  would  justify  this  movement  of  the  Conven- 
tion,  you  will  proceed  to  act  upon  the  report  of  this 
committee ;  and  I  do  hope,  that  this  body  will  not  think 
of  leaving  Richmond,  when  it  can  be  accommodated 
within  its  limits,  quite  as  well,  if  not  better,  than  else- 
where. 

Mr.  WATTS.  There  are  two  propositions  before  the 
Convention — one  to  adjourn  to  the  Universalist  church 
in  Richmond — and  the  other  to  remove  to  Norfolk.  As 
between  the  two,  I  find  no  difficulty  in  deciding  in  favor 
of  the  latter.  The  inquiry  has  frequently  been  raised 
by  members  of  this  body,  can  the  Convention  be  enter- 
tained in  Norfolk  ?  I  cannot  consent  to  discuss  such  a 
question  here.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  the  in- 
vitation comes  from  the  councils  of  the  city  of  Norfolk. 
This  was  of  itself  a  sufficient  pledge,  that  every  accom- 
modation would  be  provided  for  the  comfort  and  conve- 
nience of  the  Convention,  if  the  invitation  should  be  ac- 
cepted. It  was  not  for  B  to  question  the  capacity  of  A 
to  entertain  him,  with  the  invitation  of  the  latter  in  his 
hand.  Mr.  Claiborne,  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  said 
he  could  anticipate  no  advantage  from  the  assembling  of 
the  Convention  in  Norfolk.  I  can.  There  is  not  a 
State  in  the  Union  whose  people  know  so  little  of  each 
other,  as  those  of  Virginia ;  especially  of  the  Eastern  ' 
and  Western  portions  of  the  State.  There  is  but  little 
intercourse  between  them — none  between  the  city  of 
Norfolk  and  the  West.  Let  the  Convention  assemble  in 
Norfolk,  and  it  will  bring  together  extremes  which  never 
before  met.  It  would  bring  about  a  community  of 
feeling  which  would  be  no  less  advantageous  than  happy. 
There  are  other  advantages,  but  it  is  unnecessarv  to 
enumerate  them.  I  have  not  risen  to  press  the  invitation 
by  a  speech,  but  to  endorse  it,  and  to  suggest  that,  if  it 
be  accepted,  the  place  of  meeting  in  that  city  should  be 
left  to  the  election  of  the  councils. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  regret  very  much  to  see  the  man- 
ifest impatience  of  this  body  to  adopt,  or  at  least  to  take 
a  vote  upon  the  report  of  the  committee,  to  transfer 
our  sittings  from  this  hall  to  the  Universalist  church. 


20 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


I  regret  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  to  lay  the  report  on  the  table  did  not  pre- 
vail, particularly  when  accompanied  as  it  was  by  the 
statement  which  I  understood  him  to  make,  that  the 
House  of  Delegates  were  willing  to  give  to  the  Conven- 
tion the  use  of  the  hall  from  9  to  1,  or  from  1  until 
12  the  next  morning.    Now,  it  does  seem  to  me,  that 
this  is  by  far  the  best  arrangement  that  can  be  made  for 
the  convenience  and  comfort  of  the  members  of  this 
body.    There  are  many  members  of  this  Convention, 
probably,  who  are  not  by  experience  informed  of  the 
difficulties  we  will  have  to  encounter  if  we  meet  else- 
where than  in  this  hall.    No  place  can  be  fitted  up  so 
well  in  the  short  time  it  is  proposed  to  fix  up  the  Uni- 
versalist  church,  where  the  same  comforts  and  conve- 
niences can  be  had  as  are  here  furnished  by  the  people  for 
the  General  Assembly  and  also  for  the  deliberations  of 
this  body,  by  the  very  act  of  the  Assembly  which  called 
this  Convention.    There  is  another  reason  that  should 
have  some  weight,  it  seems  to  me,  with  the  members  of 
this  Convention  upon  this  subject.    "Where  an  actual  ex- 
pense is  necessary  to  be  incurred,  no  member  is  more  wil- 
ling to  vote  to  incur  that  expense  than  I  am.    But  where 
there  is  no  necessity  for  incurring  expense,  I  hold  it  to 
be  the  bounclen  duty  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  and 
the  representatives  of  the  people  who  are  to  pay  the  cost, 
to  save  that  amount,  whatever  it  may  be.    Then,  by 
meeting  here,  no  additional  preparation  will  be  necessary 
to  be  made,  and  there  would  be  no  expense  incurred  in 
preparing  a  hall  for  the  meeting  of  this  body.    I  main- 
tain that  it  is  but  respectful  to  the  General  Assembly  and 
the  appropriating  house,  who  now  offer  to  divide  with 
us  the  use  of  this  hall,  a  division  which  will  not  retard 
in  the  slightest  degree  the  progress  of  the  public  business 
in  either  body  ;  nay,  that  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  this 
Convention  to  accept  that  offer.    If  this  hall  is  occupied 
by  the  Convention  from  9  until  1  o'clock,  our  committees 
can  meet  in  the  afternoon  while  the  Legislature  is  in  ses- 
sion,  or,  if  the  Convention   should  prefer  to  meet 
at   1    o'clock,  then  the   committees   of  the  Conven- 
tion can  meet  in  the  morning,  and  thus  would  not 
interfere  with  the  committees  of  the  House  of  Delegates. 
I  apprehend  that  it  is  not  seriously  entertained  by 
any.  member  of  this  body  that  we  should  remove  or 
transfer  the  sittings  of  the  Convention  to  the  city  of  Nor- 
folk or  any  other  place  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  but  I 
shall  vote  for  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Mason,  (Mr.  Fisher,)  and  then  I  shall  vote  against 
the  resolution  as  amended,  and  I  trust  that  all  who 
think  that  we  should  occupy  this  hall  under  the  arrange- 
ments tendered  by  the  House  of  Delegates,  will  so  vote. 
The  gentleman  from  Albemarle  (Mr.  Randolph)  seems 
to  think  that  this  hall  is  too  convenient,  and  he  refers  to  the 
time  when  220  members  occupied  this  hall.  Now  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  are  packed  as  close  as  it  is  desirable.  At 
any  rate,  I  would  not  like  to  be  transferred  to  the  Uni- 
versalist  church  or  any  where  else  where  we  would  be 
less  conveniently  seated  and  provided  for  than  we  are 
here.    I  trust,  therefore,  that  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention who  think  it  is  not  only  better  for  our  own  comfort 
and  convenience  to  remain  in  this  hall,  but  that  no  ap- 
propriation of  money  should  be  made  for  fitting  up  any 
other  place,  since  this  hall  has  been  fitted  up  and  ten- 
dered to  us,  as  well  as  those  who  believe  it  is  but  re- 
spectful to  the  House  of  Delegates,  who  made  us  this 
offer,  to  accept  of  it,  will  vote  for  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Mason,  (Mr.  Fisher,)  to  go  to  Norfolk, 
and  then  vote  against  the  resolution  as  amended.  By 
taking  that  course,  we  may  defeat  the  resolution  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  believe  the  question  under  the 
rule  can  be  divided,  so  that  a  vote  may  be  taken  first  on 
striking  out. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  can  be  so  taken  if  a 
division  is  asked  for. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Then  I  call  for  a  division  of  the 
question.  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech,  for  I  do 
trust  that  gentlemen  have  by  this  time  made  up  their 


minds  on  this  subject.  Indeed  I  am  very  much  tempted 
to  do  what  I  have  never  done  before,  and  that  is  to  move 
the  previous  question,  but  I  hope  the  hint  will  be  suffi- 
cient. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  question 
whether  we  will  go  to  Norfolk  is  now  before  this  body. 
"We  have  adopted  the  first  resolution,  I  understand.  Am 
I  correctlv  informed  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.    Yes  sir. 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    Then  will  not  the  Chair  bear  me  out  in 
saying  that  the  first  resolution  expressly  declines  the  in- 
vitation to  go  to  Norfolk  ?    Now  then,  we  have  adopted 
a  resolution  which  expressly  declines  the  invitation  to  go 
to  Norfolk,  and  we  are  asked  to  adopt  a  second  resolu- 
tion by  which  we  accept  that  invitation.    The  gentle- 
man from  Barbour  will  hardly  expect  that  we  should 
adopt  a  resolution  right  in  the  teeth  of  the  one  we  have 
just  now  passed.  I  observed  there  was  very  little  divi- 
sion of  opinion  on  the  first  resolution.    I  think  there  is 
very  little  prospect  of  our  putting  ourselves  in  a  po- 
sition so  contradictory.     I  presume  that  we  under- 
stand what  we  are  doing;,  and  the  Convention  having 
decided  the  question  of  going  to  Norfolk,  I  will  say  no- 
thing on  that  point.    In  regard  to  fitting  up  the  church, 
I  think  our  first  duty  to  ourselves  and  those  who  sent 
us  here  is  to  make  such  an  arrangement  as  in  the  most 
speedy  manner    possible,  to    get   at  the  work  we 
have  to  do.    Our  next  duty  is,  to  arrange,  so  far  as  we 
can  reasonably  do  so,  in  justice  to  ourselves  and  our  du- 
ties to  our  constituents,  so  as  best  to  accommodate  every 
one  of  our  own  members.    I  am  willing  to  do  that.  am 
willing  to  pursue  the  course  which  will  best  accommo- 
date those  members  who  have  other  duties  entrusted  to 
them  by  the  people  to  perform.    But  should  that  prevent 
our  fitting  up  the  church  ?    I  saw  the  chur  ch  yesterday 
in  company  with  the  conunittee,  though  not  a  member  of 
it,  and  I  know  it  will  accommodate  us  better  than  we  are 
accommodated  here.    I  think  therefore  we  ought  to  pro 
ceed  at  once  to  the  adoption  of  this  resolution.    It  does 
not  force  us  to  move  either  to-day  or  to-morrow,  but  it 
gives  us  a  hall  to  go  to  when  we  can  no  longer  do  our 
work  here.    So  long  as  we  can  sit  here  consistently  with 
the  performance  of  our  duties,  I  trust  we  shall  continue 
to  do  so ;  and  perhaps  it  would  be  more  convenient  to  do 
so  while  the  committees  are  engaged  in  preparing  the 
work.    It  is  said  the  House  of  Delegates  will  give  us  the 
hall  at  1  o'clock.    Probably  that  will  answer  our  pur- 
pose for  some  time.    But  we  can  have  the  church  ready, 
and  then  we  can  determine  at  any  time  we  choose,  when 
it  is  best  for  us  to  go  there.    The  adoption  of  this  resolu- 
tion does  not  oblige  us  to  go  there  immediately. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  the  res- 
olution adopted  by  the  common  council  of  the  city  of 
Richmond  on  this  subject. 

The  Secretary  read  it  accordingly,  as  follows : 
At  a  called  meeting  of  the  city  council,  held  Tuesday, 
7th  inst.,  the  following  resolution,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Bo- 
sher,  was  unaimously  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to 
confer  with  the  committee  already  appointed  by  the  Con- 
vention, assembled  in  this  city  for  amending  the  State 
Constitution,  to  provide  a  suitable  hall  in  which  to  hold 
the  meetings  of  that  body,  and  to  render  all  proper  aid 
by  the  city  iu  providing  and  fitting  up  such  hall  as  may 
be  acceptable  to  the  Convention  ;  and  also  to  contract  for, 
and  have  made  at  the  city  cost,  ready  and  comfortable 
access  to  such  hall,  when  prepared. 

A  committee  was  accordingly  appointed  of  Messrs.  Bo- 
sher,  Denoon,  and  Carrington. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  have  had  that  communication  read 
simply  to  place  the  corporate  authorities  of  Richmond  in 
the  position  they  are  entitled  to  occupy  before  this  body. 
I  certainly  shall  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  Convention, 
in  discussing  the  question  whether  we  shall  remove  from 
the  capital,  the  seat  of  government,  where  _  all  the  ar- 
chives are,  and  where  the  public  library,  &c.  is,  and  go  to 
the  city  of  Norfolk,  or  any  where  else,  because  that 
question  has  been  ably  discussed  already,  and  besau^e  we 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


21 


have  already  passed  upon  it  by  the  adoption  of  the 
first  resolution  of  the  committee.  I  hope  therefore, 
that,  when  the  Convention  sees  that  it  has  the  report 
of  its  committee  in  favor  of  this  church,  and  when  it  sees 
that  there  is  as  much  disposition  manifested  by  the  cor- 
porate authorities  here  to  accommodate  them,  and  to  ex- 
tend to  them  every  facility  for  the  dispatch  of  their  busi- 
ness as  in  any  other  city,  it  will  be  satisfied  to  dispose  of 
this  whole  question  by  at  once  voting  down  the  proposi- 
tion to  amend  the  report.  If  the  proposition  is  insisted 
upon,  I  shall  deem  it  my  duty  to  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  on  the  question. 

Mr.  RIDLEY.  While  gentlemen  seem  so  anxious  to 
designate  some  place  for  the  meetings  of  the  Convention, 
it  seems  to  me  they  have  lost  sight  entirely  of  the  fact 
that  the  whole  business  of  the  body  rests  now  with 
the  committees,  and  we  have  not  yet  heard  of  any  ar- 
rangement being  made  for  their  accommodation.  They 
cannot  meet  in  the  morning  in  the  committee  rooms  of 
the  capitol,  because  those  committee  rooms  are  used  by 
the  legislative  commitees.  I  can  see  no  reason  for  our 
daily  assemblage  here.  "What  have  we  to  do  until  the 
committees  have  reported  ?  Is  there  any  business  be- 
fore the  Convention  ?  I  merely  throw  out  these  sug- 
gestions and  I  most  respectfully  inquire  whether  it  enter- 
ed into  the  consideration  of  the  committee  who  have 
charge  of  this  matter,  to  accommodate  the  committees  at 
the  same  time  that  they  were  providing  for  the  conve- 
nience of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that  we 
did  make  some  inquiry  into  this  matter  of  the  conve- 
nience of  the  committees,  but  we  did  not  feel  ourselves 
authorized  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements.  We 
sire  informed,  however,  that  very  convenient  rooms  for 
the  accommodation  of  our  committees  can  be  obtained 
in  the  Odd  Fellows'  hall  in  this  city.  Certain  it  is  that 
the  committees  of  the  House  of  Delegates  and  the 
committees  of  the  Convention  cannot  all  sit  in  the  capi- 
tol together,  and  either  one  or  the  other  must  be  ex- 
cluded. 

Mr.  ARMSTRONG.  The  question  before  the  House, 
as  I  understand  it,  is,  upon  the  amendment  submitted  by 
the  gentleman  from  Mason,  (Mr.  Fisher,)  proposing  that 
this  Convention  shall  adjourn  to  the  city  of  Norfolk. 
When  I  came  here,  I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  vote  that 
the  Convention  should  go  to  Norfolk.  Finding  that  there 
was  no  place  provided  for  holding  the  sessions  of  the  Con- 
vention here,  I  thought  it  due  to  the  people  of  Virginia  that 
we  should  go  where  a  suitable  building  and  every  accom- 
modation had  been  tendered  us.  But  since  the  declara- 
tion made  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  (Mr. 
Claiborne,)  and  by  the  committee  who  have  this  subject 
in  charge,  I  have  come  to  a  different  conclusion.  I  think  it 
but  right  and  proper  that  the  Convention  should  at  once 
select  a  place  where  we  may  go  to  work  and  do  the  busi- 
ness for  which  we  were  sent  here.  In  relation  to  occupying 
this  hall  with  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  I  think  it 
would  be  entirely  useless  to  attempt  it.  If  the  Legis- 
lature dispatch  the  duties  for  which  they  were  sent  here, 
I  am  sure  they  cannot  afford  us  the  time  necessary. 
They  have  no  right  to  deprive  themselves  of  this  hail, 
and  to  put  it  out  of  their  power  to  discharge  the  du- 
ties enjoined  upon  them.  It  seems  but  just  and  proper 
that  they  should  retain  it,  and  if  we  occupy  it  with  them 
and  thus  trespass  upon  their  time,  we  shall  but  protract 
their  session  as  well  as  the  session  of  this  body.  If  I 
was  a  member  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  I  would  not 
vote  to  give  the  Convention  the  time  which  has  been 
stated.  In  relation  to  those  gentlemen  who  are  mem- 
bers of  both  bodies,  they  have  been  placed  in  this  situa- 
tion by  their  constituents,  and  they  must  account  to 
them,  but  I  think  it  would  be  doing  ample  justice  to 
those  gentlemen  to  select  the  place  for  our  meeting  where 
the  committee  have  recommended.  Before  I  take  my 
seat  I  will  ask  the  gentleman  from  Mason  if  under  the 
circumstances  he  will  not  withdraw  his  amendment,  and 
then  I  hope  a  vote  will  not  be  pressed  on  this  resolution 
to-day,  but  that  it  will  be  laid  on  the  table  temporarily, 


so  that  members  may  have  an  opportunity  to  examine 
this  building  for  themselves,  and  see  whether  it  is  a  prop- 
er place  in  which  to  hold  our  meetings. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  I  have  been  deterred  from  offer- 
ing for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  an  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  which  is  proposed  to  the  se- 
cond resolution,  in  consequence  of  the  evident  incon- 
gruity in  the  action  of  the  Convention.  The  Conven- 
tion, as  has  been  remarked  by  a  gentleman  who  has 
spoken,  has  almost  unanimously  declined  the  invita- 
tions from  Alexandria,  Norfolk,  &c,  and  now,  that  that 
vote  has  been  taken,  a  proposition  right  in  the  teeth  of 
it  is  made  that  we  adjourn  to  Norfolk !  If  this  thing 
is  to  be  persisted  in,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  on  many 
considerations,  personal,  local,  national  and  patriotic,  to 
move  to  amend  the  amendment,  by  substituting  the 
words  "  the  town  of  Alexandria;'  in  the  place  of  the 
words  "  the  city  of  Norfolk ;"  and  I  would  suggest  that, 
in  addition  to  many  other  reasons  which  might  be  given 
why  we  should  adjourn  to  that  good  old  town,  that  in  a 
national  sense,  it  will  be  highly  expedient  and  proper. 
I  am  exceedingly  desirous  that  the  Congress  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  should  have  so  near  a  neighbor  in  a  body 
from  which  they  might  learn  so  many  useful  lessons  of 
propriety,  dignity,  order  and  decorum.  (Laughcer.) 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  do  not  think  the  fact,  that  any 
member  of  this  Convention  holds  a  seat  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, ought  to  influence  this  body,  in  any  vote  which  will 
be  given  in  regard  to  the  place  of  meeting.  Our  consti- 
tuents have  sent  us  here  in  this  double  capacity,  and  we 
have  voluntarily  taken  upon  ourselves  the  discharge  of 
this  double  duty ;  and  in  every  vote  which  I  have  given, 
and  which  I  shall  give,  I  shall  give  it  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  fact  that  I  occupy  a  seat  in  both  bodies,  or 
that  any  other  gentleman  occupies  a  seat  in  that  way. 
Since  this  question  of  adjournment  to  Norfolk  has  been 
raised,  I  feel  it  due  to  the  people  of  Norfolk  to  say, 
that  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt,  not  only  that  a 
suitable  hall  can  be  obtained  in  that  city  to  accom- 
modate the  Convention,  but  that  every  other  accom- 
modation which  may  be  required,  will  be  extended 
to  its  members  and  the  visitors  that  may  attend  its 
sittings.  I  was  requested  when  I  was  there,  to  visit 
the  Mechanics'  hall,  and  express  an  opinion  as  to  its 
capacity  to  accommodate  the  Convention.  I  did  so, 
and  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  a  better  hall  than  can  be 
obtained  any  where  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  It  will 
accommodate  a  larger  number  of  people  than  any 
place  which  can  be  selected  in  this  city.  As  to  the 
other  accommodations,  such  as  board  &c,  I  was  assured 
there,  and  I  have  been  assured  since,  that  not  only  the 
Convention  can  be  accommodated  with  rooms,  but  that 
they  can  accommodate  as  many  visitors,  who  are  not 
members,  as  would  be  likely  to  attend  its  session. 
Having  said  thus  much,  I  do  not  mean  to  say,  however, 
at  this  time,  that  I  am  prepared  to  vote  for  the  adjourn- 
ment to  Norfolk  at  all.  I  believe  that  we  are  acting 
prematurely  upon  this  question.  I  think  that  we  ought 
to  wait  and  deliberate,  before  we  conclude  to  take  any 
steps  in  regard  to  an  adjournment  from  this  city.  I 
think  we  ought  in  the  first  place,  to  go  in  a  body  and 
examine  the  Universalist  church,  and  test  its  capacity 
to  accommodate  the  Convention.  I,  for  one,  should 
very  much  prefer  that  course.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the 
capacity  of  the  gentlemen  on  the  committee  to  select  a 
hall,  but  still  I  prefer  to  make  an  actual  test  by  visiting 
that  church,  and  seeing  for  ourselves,  whether  we  can  be 
accommodated  there  or  not.  It  may  be  if  we  adopt 
the  suggestion  of  the  committee,  that  we  may  not  be 
satisfied  with  the  building,  and  then  these  gentlemen 
might  feel  uncomfortable,  after  having  taken  us  to  a 
house  and  place  with  which  we  were  not  satisfied. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  true  policy  at  this  time 
is,  to  lay  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  table,  and 
go  in  a  body  this  evening  and  test  the  capacity  of  the 
house,  and  see  whether  we  can  be  accommodated  there 
or  not.  I  move,  therefore,  that  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee  be,  for  the  present,  laid  on  the  table. 


22 


C01NV  NTION. 


Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  By  way  of  testing  this  question, 
I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  understand  that  such  a  motion  has 
been  made  and  voted  down  by  the  Convention,  and  I 
inquire  if  it  is  in  order  to  make  it  a  second  time  ? 

THE  PRESIDING-  OFFICER.  Certainly  sir;  a 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table,  may  be  made  ad  infinitum. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  ordered,  and  the  ques- 
tion being  taken,  there  were  yeas  16,  nays  95,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Armstrong,  Blue,  Byrd,  Camden,  Car- 
lile,  Davis,  Ferguson,  Fisher,  Hays,  McComas,  Neeson, 
Scott  of  Fauquier,  Snodgrass,  Watts  of  Norfolk  county, 
Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wysor,  and  Trigg — 16. 

Nays — Messrs.  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Bland,  Bo- 
cock,  Botts,  Bowden,  Bowles,  Braxton,  Brown,  Burgess, 
Caperton,  Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Claiborne,  Con- 
way, Cook,  Deneale,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Edwards,  Faulk- 
ner, Finney,  Flood,  Fulkerson,  Fuqua,  Gaily,  Garland, 
M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  M.  Garnett,  Goode,  Hall,  Hill,  Hoge, 
Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Janney,  Johnson,  Jones,  Ken- 
ney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Leake,  Letcher,  Ligon,  Lucas, 
Lynch,  Lyons,  McCamant,  McCandlish,  Martin  of  Mar- 
shall, Martin  of  Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moncure, 
Moore,  Morris,  Newman,  Price,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Rives, 
Saunders,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Richmond  city, 
Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith 
of  King  and  Queen,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Green- 
brier, Snowden,  Southall,  Stanard,  Stephenson,  Stewart 
of  Morgan,  Straughan,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate, 
Taylor,  Tunis,  Turnbull,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  White, 
Whittle,  Willey,  Wingfield,  Woolfolk  and  Worsham — 95. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  FISHER.  I  wish  to  submit  a  few  remarks  to 
the  Convention  previous  to  the  vote  being  taken,  which  I 
hope  will  be  excused,  inasmuch  as  I  have  consumed,  here- 
tofore, none  of  the  time  of  the  body  in  discussion.  Various 
objections  have  been  urged  to  my  amendment,  one  of  which 
is  that  it  was  proposed  too  late.  Now  the  Convention 
was  about  adopting  a  resolution  which  would  have  pre- 
cluded all  action  on  this  subject  in  the  future,  and  my 
amendment  was  offered  to  avoid  that.  I  am  not  anxious 
that  it  should  be  acted  upon  now,  indeed  I  voted  to  lay  it 
on  the  table,  and  should  prefer  that  the  Convention 
should  take  a  day  or  two  to  reflect  upon  the  mat- 
ter, but  as  it  seems  the  vote  must  come  on  this  oc- 
casion, I  desire  to  mention  briefly  one  or  two  of  the 
reasons  which  induced  me  to  offer  that  amendment. 
Before  doing  so,  however,  permit  me  to  answer  a  remark 
made  by  a  gentleman  from  a  county  which  I  will  not 
attempt  to  name,  lest  I  should  make  as  great  a  mistake 
as  you  have,  Mr.  President,  in  assigning  me  to  a  certain 
county.  The  remark  was,  that  the  prospect  of  fine  fish 
and  oysters  might  be  an  inducement  for  gentlemen  to  go 
to  Norfolk.  Such  an  idea  had  no  influence  whatever  on 
my  mind,  for  I  can  assure  gentlemen  that  we  have  as 
fine  oysters  on  the  Ohio  river  as  can  be  procured  in  the 
city  of  Norfolk.  We  eat  them  there  every  day  and  they 
are  brought  to  us,  not  from  Norfolk,  nor  from  Richmond, 
but  through  the  bounty  of  the  city  of  Baltimore  in  the 
construction  of  a  railroad  westward,  over  which  I  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying  a  half  a  million  of  dollars  worth  of 
oysters  are  passed  annually  to  the  West  and  are  there 
consumed.  My  principle  objection  to  remaining  in  the 
city  of  Richmond  exists  in  the  fact  that  I  believe  it  will 
be  utterly  impossible  for  the  Legislature  and  the  Con- 
vention to  operate  harmoniously  together  and  with  a 
proper  dispatch  of  business.  The  joint  occupancy  of  this 
hall  is  utterly  impossible,  and  an  alternate  occupancy  of 
it  by  the  two  bodies  would — I  came  very  near  saying — 
be  mere  humbug.  And  suppose  we  go  to  the  church, 
why  when  any  question  of  interest  was  being  debated 
in  the  Convention,  you  would  find  the  hall  of  the  House 
of  Delegates  emptied  of  its  members.  Let  one  of  these 
railroad  questions  come  up  in  the  House,  in  which  the 
Wrest  has  a  deep  interest,  and  you  would  see  how  few 
votes  we  should  have  in  the  Convention.  The  western 
members  would  be  found  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  when  the  vote  was  to  be  taken,  urging  their 


eastern  brethren  to  do  them  that  justice  which  they 
think  has  long  been  withheld  from  them  in  that  body. 
And  let  an  exciting  debate  arise  in  this  body,  particularly 
on  the  basis  question,  and  you  will  find  the  hall  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  emptied  of  all  its  members  who 
will  have  poured  in  upon  the  Convention.  Thus,  each 
body  will  be  retarding  the  dispatch  of  business  in  the 
other,  and  doubtless  each  will  have  no  little  influence  on 
the  action  of  the  other.  Under  these  circumstances, 
who  will  be  to  blame  for  this  waste  of  time  and  money  of 
the  Commonwealth  ?  The  Legislature,  as  I  understand 
it,  must  remain  here  and  cannot  remove,  while  the  Con- 
vention can,  and  as  I  think,  ought  to  move.  The  joint 
occupancy  of  this  hall  would  be  worse,  and  I  have  been 
much  amused  at  the  remarks  of  gentlemen  who  have  com- 
mended the  liberality  of  the  House  of  Delegates  in 
awarding  to  us,  for  some  16  or  18  hours  out  of  the  24,  the 
use  of  this  hall.  I  wonder  it  never  occurred  to  any  of 
these  gentlemen  that  the  House  might  very  properly 
work  16  or  18  hours  a  day  themselves,  as  to  require  it,  by 
implication  of  the  Convention.  Let  them,  for  instance, 
give  us  the  hall  from  12  until  3  o'clock,  and  let  them 
occupy  it  for  the  balance  of  the  24  hours.  But,  suppose, 
as  is  suggested,  the  House  of  Delegates  shall  tender  us 
the  use  of  the  hall  from  1  o'clock  P.^M.  until  the  hour  of 
meeting  the  next  day,  what  is  the  necessary  consequence  ? 
Why  that  you  curtail  the  time  of  the  House  and  limit 
the  amount  of  business  which  they  may  transact.  Thus, 
you  curtail  the  time  of  both  bodies  and  they  mutually 
retard  each  other  to  the  public  detriment,  and  in  a  great 
measure,  to  the  entire  obstruction  of  the  progress  of  busi- 
ness in  both  bodies.  While  up,  I  will  add  a  single  other 
remark  in  connection  with  this  matter.  I  doubt  ex- 
tremely, with  all  due  respect  to  the  city  of  Richmond, 
whether  the  Convention  ought  to  remain  here  at  all.  It 
is  a  city  in  winch  millions  upon  millions  of  the  public 
money  have  been  expended,  and  yet  it  possesses  not  a 
single  building  in  which  to  receive  the  Convention.  It  is 
a  city  which  has  not  taken  the  first  step,  so  far  as  our 
accommodation  is  concerned,  until  last  evening,  as  1  un- 
derstand from  a  communication  to  the  Convention  read 
this  morning,  and  which  perhaps  was  produced  from  the 
disposition  manifested  by  a  portion  of  the  Convention  to 
remove  to  other  places  where  more  politeness  and  alac- 
rity in  tendering  a  hall  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
Convention  has  been  evinced. 

Mr.  STANARD.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for  a 
moment  ? 

Mr.  FISHER.    With  pleasure  sir. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  am  sure  the  gentleman  does  not 
mean  to  do  injustice  to  the  authorities  of  Richmond,  and 
he  will  be  therefore  gratified  to  be  informed  that  the 
corporation  of  Richmond  tendered  to  the  committee  of 
the  Convention  the  only  public  hall  in  the  city,  at  their 
disposal — La  Fayette  hall — as  soon  as  they  were  informed 
that  a  place  was  desired  for  the  meeting  of  the  Conven- 
tion. The  city  hall,  the  building  on  the  opposite  side 
of  the  street,  was  always  at  the  service  of  this  body,  but 
any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  at  it,  will  see 
at  once  that  it  is  impossible  to  fit  it  up  for  the  use  of  the 
Convention.  La  Fayette  hall,  recently  erected,  is  the 
only  building  at  the  disposal  of  the  city,  and  I  venture 
to  affirm  that  it  is  quite  as  comfortable  as  any  building 
which  can  be  procured  either  at  Norfolk  or  Alexandria. 
That  hall  was  tendered  to  the  Convention  by  the  corpor- 
ate authorities,  on  their  learning  that  this  body  desired 
to  have  a  place  for  its  sessions  other  than  this  house,  and 
the  resolution  to  which  the  gentleman  refers,  was  adopted 
by  the  council,  on  being  informed  that  upon  examination 
the  Convention  were  of  opinion  that  the  Universalist 
church  was  more  acceptable  than  La  Fayette  hall.  The 
fact  is  that  the  council  have  proposed  to  aid  in  preparing 
any  building  for  the  reception  of  the  Convention  which 
might  be  selected,  and  to  arrange  a  proper  access  to  it. 
I  have  made  this  explanation  as  a  matter  of  justice,  and 
beg  leave  to  say  in  behalf  of  the  city  of  Richmond,  that 
while  it  is  unquestionably  indebted  to  the  State  for  the 
expenditure  of  money  here  for  the  benefit  of  the  State, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


23 


in  the  shape  of  great  works  of  public  improvement,  yet 
it  never  can  be  said  that  it  called  on  Hercules  without 
putting  its  own  shoulder  to  the  wheel.  1  venture  to 
affirm  that  there  is  not  within  the  United  States,  and  I 
doubt  whether  there  is  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United 
.States,  any  city  of  the  same  size  in  which  the  corporate 
taxes  are  so  onerous  as  in  Richmond.  And  it  is  mainly 
on  account  of  the  subscriptions  which  the  city  itself  has 
made  for  carrying  on  those  public  works  in  aid  of  the 
subscription  made  by  the  State.  When  gentlemen  talk 
of  the  expenditures  of  public  money  in  Richmond.  I 
trust  they  will  do  the  city  justice  and  say  at  least  that  she 
has  contributed  a  fair  share  of  it  in  the  burdens  imposed 
on  her  own  citizens.  Gentlemen  Would  be  startled 
at  the  amount  of  corporate  taxes  annually  raised  in 
Richmond,  and  which  is  expended,  nearly  every  dollar 
of  it,  in  subscriptions  to  these  works  of  internal  im- 
provement. 

Mr.  FISHER.    What  is  the  rate  per  cent,  of  those 
taxes  ? 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  do  not  recollect  precisely,  but  I 
will  state  that  I  know  of  private  residences,  or  of  one  at 
least,  on  which  the  corporate  tax  alone  amounts  to  nearly 
$150  per  annum,  and  this  exclusive  of  State  or  any  other 
taxes.  Gentlemen  may  form  some  idea  from  this  state- 
ment of  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  here.  The  rate  per 
cent,  is  56  cents  on  the  $100,  I  am  informed  by  a  friend. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  (in  his  seat.)  We  pay  50  cents  on  the 
$100  in  Norfolk,  and  we  get  nothing  in  return. 

Mr.  FISHER,    This  episode  compels  me  to  make  a 
single  remark  and  that  is,  that  I  believe  we  pay  more 
taxes  in  the  corporation  in  which  1  live,  than  are  paid 
even  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  I  pay  $10  of  corporate  tax, 
and  what  I  am  taxed  for  I  do  not  know.  I  know,  however, 
that  I  pay  it.    [Laughter.]    And  I  am  told  by  a  gentle- 
man from  the  .district  adjoining  mine,  that  this  onerously 
taxed  city  of  Richmond  is  only  taxed  6  cents  on  the 
$100  more  than  the  town  of  Parkersburg.    The  tax 
there  last  year  was  50  cents  on  the  $100.    I  have  made 
some  inquiries  in  reference  to  this  branch  of  our  politi- 
ical  economy  and  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  in  the  city  of 
New  York  they  only  pay  80  cents  on  the  $100  of  cor- 
porate tax.    But  this  has  little  to  do  with  the  matter 
before  us.    The  only  remark  I  made  in  reference  to 
Richmond,  and  it  certainly  was  not  in  an  unfriendly 
spirit  to  the  city,  was,  that  I  had  not  perceived  that  its 
corporate  authorities  had  began  to  move  in  this  matter 
until  last  night.    To  be  sure,  they  have  tendered  us  La 
Fayette  hall,  a  cold,  cheerless,  unfurnished  room,  without 
one  single  solitary  comfort  about  it.    It  may  be  that  the 
gentleman  from  Albemarle,  (Mr.  Randolph.)  who  would 
provide  neither  chairs  nor  desks  for  our  use,  in  order  that 
we  might  set  in  the  same  manner  aft  do  the  members  of 
the  British  House  of  Commons,  was  consulted.  [Laugh- 
ter.]   I  trust,  however,  that  when  the  committee  is  ap- 
pointed to  fit  up  this  Universalist  church,  if  it  is  to  be  our 
fate  to  go  there,  that  he  will  not  be  on  the  committee  to 
deprive  us  of  those  articles  of  comfort,  and  compel  us  to 
sit  as  they  did  under  the  ancient  regime  in  the  House  of 
Delegates.    [Laughter.]    The  city  of  Norfolk  has  ten- 
dered us  a  comfortable,  convenient  place  of  meeting,  and 
I  think  we  ought  to  accept  their  invitation.    The  Ohio 
Constitutional  Convention  is  now  sitting  in  Cincinnati, 
whilst  the  legislature  of  that  State  is  sitting  in  Columbus. 
I  imagine  that  the  public  interest  would  be  greatly 
promoted,  also,  if  this  body  should  adjourn  to  some  other 
place — J  care  little  what  place, — whether  it  be,  Norfolk, 
Alexandria,  Lynchburg,  Petersburg,  Fredericksburg  or 
any  other,  so  long  as  the  public  business  may  be  done. 
1  trust  the  Convention,  if  it  is  determined  to  act  on  this 
matter  at  this  moment,  will  adopt  the  amendment  1 
have  proposed,  but  I  will,  if  in  order,  move  again  to  lay 
the  report  on  the  table,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  Convention  will  not  suspend  its  judgment, 
in  order  that  we  may  have  time  to  reflect  and  see  the 
practical  bearing  and  operations  of  two  deliberative 


bodies  meeting  in  the  same  hall  and  town.   I  make  that 
motion. 

Mr.  CONWAY.    What  is  the  Question  ? 
THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.    On  the  motion  to 
lav  on  the  table. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  am  satisfied  if  it  cuts  off  debate. 
My  object  in  rising  was  to  bring  this  debate  to  a  close 
by  moving  the  previous  question.  I  care  not  what  the 
question  is,  so  long  as  we  bring  the  debate  to  a  close. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  lay  the  report 
on  the  table  was  negatived. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  What  is  now  the  question  before 
the  Convention  ? 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  is  on  the  motion 
to  strike  the  words  "  Universalist  church "  from  the 
second  resolution  of  the  committee,  and  to  insert  in  lieu 
thereof  the  words  "mechanics  hall  in  the  city  of 
Norfolk."  *  * 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.    I  ask  for  a  division  of  the  ques- 
tion-— the  vote  to  be  taken  first  on  striking  out. 
Mr.  CONWAY  demanded  the  previous  question. 
The  call  was  sustained,  the  main  question  ordered, 
and  the  Convention  refused  to  strike  out  the  words 
referred  to. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  Will  it  be  ;J3  order  now  to  offer 
an  amendment  ? 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.    Fes  sir. 
Mr.   CARLILE.    I  move  then  the  following  as  a 
substitute  for  the  2nd  resolution. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Convention  will  continue  its 
sessions  in  the  hall,  provided  that  the  House  of  Delegates 
will  agree  to  give  it  to  the  Convention  at  1  o'clock  on 
each  day. 

This  will  settle  at  once  the  question,  whether  the 
Convention  will  meet  in  this  hall  or  any  where  else, 
and  upon  that  amendment  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 
Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  rise  only  to  say  that  I  cannot 
see  how  the  question  is  to  be  settled  by  the  adoption  of 
this  substitute.  The  gentleman  proposes  a  substitute 
for  the  committee's  resolution.  That  resolution  is  that 
we  go  to  the  Universalist  church,  the  gentleman's  sub- 
stitute is  that  we  shall  remain  here  in  case  the  House  of 
Delegates  will  give  us  the  hall  after  1  o'clock.  Well, 
suppose  we  adopt  the  substitute  and  reject  the  commit- 
tee's resolution  and  the  House  of  Delegates  will  not 
agree  to  give  us  the  hall  after  1  o'clock,  will  the 
question  be  settled,  or  will  we  not  have  to  occupy  one  or 
two  more  days  discussing  where  we  shall  go  ?  If  the 
object  is  to  settle  the  question,  this  seems  to  be  the  very 
worst  way  to  accomplish  the  purpose. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  will  only  detain  the  Convention  to 
answer  the  gentleman  last  up.  It  has  been  stated  here 
by  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  who  is  also  a  member  of 
this  body,  that  the  House  of  Delegates  were  willing  to 
give  the  Convention  the  use  of  this  hall  from  9  to  1 
o'clock,  or  after  1  o'clock  on  each  day.  I  grant  that  this 
was  not  officially  communicated  to  us  from  the  House  of 
Delegates,  but  I  take  it  that  such  is  the  determination  of 
this  Assembly,  or  it  would  not  be  stated  to  the  Conven- 
tion by  a  member  of  the  House.  The  gentleman  asks  if 
the  adoption  of  the  substitute  which  I  have  offered  will 
settle  this  question,  and  I  say  it  will  settle  it  so  far  as  tins 
Convention  is  concerned.  It  will  say  that  this  Convention 
prefers  to  occupy  this  hall  provided  for  the  deliberations 
of  the  people's  representatives  by  the  people  themselves, 
and  that  it  will  not  subject  the  people  to  the  expense  of 
fitting  up  another  building  for  that  purpose.  For  myself 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  I  will  go  to  the  Universal- 
ist church  or  any  other  building  in  this  city,  upon  the  re* 
commendation  of  any  committee.  I  happened  to  be  a 
member  of  the  House  and  you,  sir,  (Mr.  Hopkins)  was  the 
Speaker  of  it,  when  we  adjourned  to  the  Fauquier 
Springs.  Every  promise  possible  was  made  that  we 
should  be  comfortable  there,  yet  you  will  bear  me 
witness  that  members  were  not  only  greatly  inconve- 
nienced, but  that  the  deliberations  of  the  body  could 
have  been  brought  to  an  earlier  close  and  the  public  but 


24 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


smess  more  readily  despatched  if  it  had  continued  it- 
sessions  in  a  hall  like  this.  Members  are  not  aware  oi  1 
the  inconveniences  to  which  they  will  be  exposed  by 
leaving  this  building  and  going  to  one  that  is  not  and 
cannot  be  fitted  up  in  a  suitable  manner.  When  you  sit 
on  chairs  during  a  long  sitting,  you  may  change  your 
position  somewhat ;  but  pack  you  down  on  benches  in  a 
church,  and  you  have  no  relief.  Go  to  that  church,  anc 
in  a  week  there  will  not  be  ten  members  who  will  nol 
wish  themselves  back  to  this  hall.  How  are  our  sessions 
here  to  retard  the  public  business  ?  Is  it  not  known 
to  every  one  that  for  the  next  three  or  four  weeks  members 
will  be  engaged  in  the  committee  rooms  instead  of  in  the  '. 
House  ?  Have  not  the  committees  first  to  carve  out  the 
work,  and  will  they  not  occupy  a  certain  portion  of 
every  day  in  the  discharge  of  those  duties  ?  As  for  the 
committee  rooms,  they  can  be  occupied  by  the  commit-  ; 
tees  of  the  House  while  the  Convention  is  in  session,  and 
by  the  committees  of  the  Convention  while  the  House  is 
in  session,  so  that  there  can  be  no  conflict  there.  It  is 
useless  to  disguise  the  fact,  that  as  a  general  thing,  nei- 
ther the  House  nor  the  Convention  will  occupy  more 
than  three  hours  a  day  in  sitting  in  this  hall.  The  work 
has  first  to  be  done  in  the  committees,  and  for  no  purpose 
of  exhibiting  to  the  country  that  we  are  sitting  from  9 
o'clock  A.  M.  to  6  P.  M.,  am  I  going  to  record  my  vote  in 
favor  of  leaving  this  hall,  particularly  when  we  are  in- 
formed that  the  House  of  Delegates  are  willing  to  change 
their  hours  of  meeting  expressly  to  accommodate  us. 
My  experience  goes  to  show  that  the  House  does  not 
average  three  hours  a  day  in  its  sessions,  and  the  residue 
of  the  day  will  leave  us  ample  time  to  transact  all  our 
business.  I  trust  that  not  only  those  who  desire  to  re- 
main here  and  avoid  the  expense  which  must  necessarily 
be  attendant  on  the  fitting  up  of  any  other  building,  but 
those  who  desire  time  to  look  into  the  subject  and  see 
whether  a  better  arrangement  than  that  proposed  by  the 
committee  cannot  be  made,  will  vote  for  the  substitute  I 
have  submitted. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  ask  for  the  previous  question. 
I  desire  that  we  shall  get  at  our  labors  at  once.  Here  we 
have  been  three  days  deciding  where  we  shall  hold  our 
sessions. 

The  call  for  the  previous  question  was  sustained,  the 
main  question  ordered,  and  the  vote  being  taken  on  the 
substitute  proposed  by  Mr.  Carlile,  there  were  yeas  16, 
nays  95,  as  follows : — 

Yeas — Messrs.  Caperton,  Carlile,  Conway,  Davis, 
Faulkner,  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  Jones,  Lyons,  McCamant, 
Miller,  Moncure,  Shell,  Stanard,  Trigg,  Turnbull,  Whittle, 
—16. 

Nays — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (President,)  Anderson, 
Armstrong,  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock, 
Botts,  Bowden,  Bowles,  Brown,  Burgess,  Camden,  Cham- 
bliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Claiborne,  Cook,  Deneale,  Doug- 
lass, Edmunds,  Edwards,  Ferguson,  Finney,  Fisher,  Floyd, 
Fulkerson,  Fuqua,  Gaily,  Garland,  M.  Garnett,  Goode, 
Hall,  Hays,  Hill,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Janney, 
J ohnson,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Leake,  Letcher,  Ligon, 
Lucas,  Lynch,  McCandlish,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin 
of  Henry,  Meredith,  Moore  Morris,  Neeson,  Newman, 
Price,  Purkins,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Rives,  Saunders,  Scott 
of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of  Richmond  city, 
Seymour,  Sheffey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of 
King  &  Queen,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier, 
Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Southall,  Stephenson,  Stewart  of 
Morgan,  Straughan,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate, 
Taylor,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  Watts,  of  Norfolk  county, 
White,  Willey,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wingfield,  Woolfolk, 
Worsham,  and  Wysor — 95. 

So  the  substitute  was  rejected. 

Mr.  FISHER  moved  that  the  Convention  adjourn. — 
The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  second  resolution 
proposed  by  the  committee,  and  it  was  agreed  to,  as  was 
the  report  of  the  committee. 


On  motion  of  Mr.  GOODE,  the  Convention  adjourned 
until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock 

THURSDAY,  January  9,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  LUCAS  presented  a  memorial  of  Messrs.  John  J. 
Palmer  and  Colin,  Baptist  &  Nolan,  in  relation  to  the 
printing  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Conven- 
tion, which  was  read  as  follows : — 
To  the  Hon.  the  PresH  and  Members  of  the  Convention  : 

The  undersigned  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  repre- 
sent, that  they  are  desirous  of  submitting  a  proposition 
to  your  honorable  body  for  the  publication  of  the  pro- 
ceedings and  debates  of  the  Convention.    That  we  are 
at  a  loss  to  know  what  form,  plan  or  mode  will  be  most 
acceptable  to  the  Convention  for  the  proposed  publica- 
tion^ whether  it  be  the  newspaper,  the  supplemental, 
the  quarto  or  the  octavo  form.     It  is  not  for  us  to  say 
which  plan  combines  the  greatest  advantages  for  accom- 
plishing the  purposes  of  the  Convention.    That  is  a 
question  which  remains  to  be  determined  by  the  Con- 
vention itself ;  and  when  determined,  when  the  most 
desirable  plan  shall  be  fully  ascertained,  we  conceive  it 
but  fair  and  just,  that  propositions  should  be  entertained 
for  the  publication,  and  thus  fair  competition  for  the 
work  allowed  to  prevail.    In  determining  upon  the  plan, 
we  would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  Convention  the 
importance  of  understanding  in  advance,  its  details,  and 
also  to  inquire  whether  equal  benefits  will  accrue  to  all 
portions  of  the  Commonwealth  that  have  to  pay  an 
equal  portion  of  the  expense  of  the  proposed  publication. 
If  the  proceedings  be  published  in  or  circulated  with, 
the  papers  published  in  Richmond,  will  that  give  an 
equal  benefit  to  all  portions  of  the  Commonwealth.  A 
list  of  their  subscribers,  we  think,  would  show,  that  a 
particular  section,  adjacent  to  the  metropolis,  would 
receive  the  principal  part  of  the  advantage  of  said  publi- 
cation.   We  believe  it  entirely  within  the  power  of  your 
body  to  adopt  a  plan  which  will  ensure  equal  benefits 
to  all  and  every  portion  of  the  Commonwealth  ?  And 
we  hope  that  it  may  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention 
to  ascertain  in  the  first  place,  its  own  wishes  upon  the 
subject,  what  plan  will  be  most  acceptable  and  advisable 
for  it  to  adopt,  in  order  to  accomplish  most  effectually 
the  purposes  of  the  proposed  publication;   to  what 
amount  they  are  willing  to  go  in  the  cost  of  the  same  ; 
to  understand  thorougly  the  details  in  connexion  there- 
with ;  and  then  receive  propositions  from  all  the  offices 
capable  of  excuting  properly  the  duties  required.  We 
are  aware  of  the  proceedings  upon  the  subject  at  the 
close  of  the  first  session  of  your  body  in  November  last. 
But  we  are  not  aware  that  the  Convention  decided  upon 
any  matter  at  that  time  finally,  further  than  the  ap- 
pointment of  their  own  reporters.     In  any  event,  how- 
ever, we  presume  it  is  entirely  competent  for,  and  within 
the  province  of  your  body,  to  adopt  any  plan  for  the 
proposed  publication,  which  subsequent  reflection  and 
consultation  may  suggest.    We  then  submitted  a  prop- 
1  osition,  and  if  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention 
,  now  to  indicate,  in  the  first  place,  what  mode  of  publi- 
cation it  prefers,  we  shall  submit  other  propositions, 
which  we  must  be  excused  for  believing  will  recommend 
themselves  to  your  favorable  consideration.     We  will 
add,  however,  if  it  be  determined  to  adopt  the  news- 
1  paper  or  supplemental  form,  we  will  perform  the  same 
1  duties  proposed  to  be  done  by  R.  H.  Gallaher,  Esq., 
at  the  rate  of  50  cents  per  thousand,  and  50  cents  per 
token  for  the  press  work,  and  at  a  less  cost  for  the  pa- 
'  per.    Still,  we  can  give  no  assurance,  that  even  at  these 
reduced  rates,  the  entire  cost  will  only  be  between  five 
i  and  six  thousand  dollars.     Candor  compels  us  to  say 
i  that  the  cost  in  that  case  would  most  likely  amount  to 
more  than  double  that  sum.    The  fear  that  if  a  specified 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


25 


amount  were  to  be  offered,  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Mary- 
land Convention,  $4000  being  the  limit  of  that  body  for 
the  publication  of  their  proceedings,)  no  one  would  be 
willing  to  accept  the  contract  for  $10,000. 

All  of  which  is  most  respectfully  submitted. 

John  J.  Palmer. 

Colin,  Baptist  &  Nolan. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  The  committee  to  whom  this  sub- 
ject Was  referred,  have  had  one  meeting  already,  and 
are  now  engaged  in  its  consideration.  I  move  that  this 
memorial  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

CORRECTION  OF  THE  REPORTS. 

Mr.  STANARD  called  the  attention  of  the  reporter  to 
an  error  in  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  Tuesday, 
whereby  some  remarks  made  by  Mr.  Ferguson  were  as- 
cribed to  Mr.  Stanard. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  that  it  was  a  typographical 
error,  which  had  been  already  corrected. 

RE-PAYMENT  TO  THE  CONTINGENT  FUND. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  desire  to  offer  a  resolution  affect- 
ing the  business  of  the  Convention,  which  I  will  read  as 
follows : — 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  directed  to  certify  to 
the  First  Auditor  for  payment,  the  sum  of  $195  02  in 
favor  of  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth,  that  sum 
having  been  advanced  by  the  Governor  out  of  the  Con- 
tingent Fund,  placed  at  his  disposal  by  law,  to  pay  for 
stationery  heretofore  furnished  for  the  use  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  Convention  directed  the  Secretary  to  furnish 
them  with  stationery,  and  the  Secretary  proceeded  to 
execute  that  order.  Before  taking  the  recess,  the  Con- 
vention failed  to  pass  a  resolution  allowing  the  account, 
and  it  was  paid  out  of  the  contingent  fund  by  the  Gov- 
ernor. This  resolution  is  designed  merely  to  return  that 
amount  of  money  to  the  Governor. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

FORM  OF  LEGISLATIVE  ENACTMENTS. 

Mr.  RIDLEY  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  ot 
providing  that  every  law  enacted  by  the  Legislature 
shall  embrace  but  one  object,  and  that  shall  be  expressed 
in  the  title ;  and  that  no  law  shall  be  revised  or  amended 
by  reference  to  its  title,  but  in  such  case,  the  act  revised 
or  section  amended  shall  be  re-enacted  and  published  at 
length. 

PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  No  member  of  this  body  is  more  re- 
luctant to  produce  an  unprofitable  discussion  than  I  am, 
and  I  hope  that  the  motion  which  I  am  about  to  sub- 
mit may  not  produce  protracted  debate.  The  minds  of 
the  members  of  this  body,  I  am  satisfied,  are  made  up— 
at  least  all  who  have  had  the  opportunity  to  examine 
the  hall  which  the  resolution  of  yesterday  directed  us  to 
use  in  future — and  my  object  is,  to  move  a  re-considera- 
tion of  that  resolution,  because  I  believe,  from  a  visit 
which  I  have  made  to  that  hall,  that  the  minds  of  the 
members,  at  least  of  many  of  them,  may  have  been 
made  up  prematurely.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that 
many  of  them  entertain  a  different  opinion  from  that 
which  they  entertained  yesterday.  It  does  seem  to  me 
that  during  the  whole  session  of  this  body,  this  hall  is  the 
most  convenient  place  for  dispatching  the  business  which 
we  are  assembled  to  transact,  that  could  be  offered ;  and 
that  we  could  use  this  hall  conjointly  with  the  House  of 
Delegates,  without  any  kind  of  inconvenience  to  either 
body.  If  we  choose  to  meet  here  at  10  o'clock  and  ad- 
journ at  12,  it  would  be  sufficient  until  the  committees 
have  reported.  Until  ^  that  time,  it  seems  to  me  better 
that  we  should  use  this  hall.  And  I  understand,  from 
conversation  with  members  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
that  that  house  will  probably  be  willing  to  make  such 


arrangements  that  we  might  use  this  hall  either  from 
9  o'clock  till  1,  or  from  1  till  9  the  next  morning- 
Either  arrangement  I  think  would  be  far  better  than 
that   proposed  by  the  resolution  adopted  yesterday. 
That  resolution  requires  us  to  go  to  a  church  that  I  have 
visited,  where  we  would  be  huddled  together,  a  number 
of  members  in  the  same  pew,  without  the  conveniences 
for  the  dispatch  of  business — where  it  would  be  difficult 
to  pass  by  the  members  without  subjecting  them  to  great 
inconvenience,  while  the  papers  daily  distributed  we 
would  have  to  hold  in  our  hands  or  put  on  our  seats  and 
sit  upon  them.     (Laughter.)    If  the  arrangement  is 
made  to  occupy  this  house,  then  we  shall  have  the  joint 
use  of  these  desks  during  the  session.  No  member  of  the 
Legislature  would  hesitate  to  offer  us  that  facility.  I 
say,  therefore,  without  desiring  to  produce  debate  on  the 
question,  that  it  seems  to  me  more  convenient  to  occupy 
this  hall ;  and  I  therefore  move  a  re-consideration  of  the 
resolution  adopted  yesterday.    It  has  already  been  sug- 
gested, and  it  does  seem  to  me,  that  it  would  be  exceed- 
ingly inconvenient  for  the  two  bodies  to  be  in  session  at 
the  same  time  in  different  places  in  this  city.    When  an 
exciting  discussion  is  expected  in  the  Convention,  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  will  be  drawn  there ;  whenever 
an  interesting  debate  occurs  in  the  Legislature,  the  mem- 
bers of  this  body  will  be  drawn  there  ;  and  the  conse- 
quence will  be  that  both  bodies  will  frequently  find 
themselves  without  a  quorum.    In  my  judgment,  we 
would  be  kept  here  at  least  one  month  longer  than  we 
would  if  an  arrangement  were  made  for  using  this  house 
alternately.    That  is  my  conviction  at  least,  and  I  think 
we  had  better  make  an  experiment  of  using  this  hall  for 
a  month,  and  not  incur  the  serious  expense  proposed, 
when  it  may  be  unnecessary.    I  understand  that,  if  we 
use  that  church,  it  will  cost  some  thousand  or  fifteen  hun- 
dred dollars  to  fit  it  up.    I  hope,  therefore,  we  shall  re- 
consider the  resolution  adopted  yesterday,  before  any  ex- 
pense is  incurred ;  and  if  so,  I  shall  present  a  resolution 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  wait  upon  the 
House  of  Delegates  and  ask  that  body  to  give  us  the  use 
of  the  hall  from  9  o'clock  till  1,  or  from  1  to  9. 

A  MEMBER.    Say  from  12  until  3  o'clock. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  would  with  pleasure  if  I  thought 
We  could  get  it.  I  have  been  told  by  members  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  that  that  body  are  willing  to  make 
the  other  arrangement  to  which  I  have  referred. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Did  the  gentleman  vote  in  the 
majority  on  this  question  ? 

Mr  CONWAY.    Yes  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  the  question  to  be  on  re-con- 
sidering the  vote  of  yesterday,  adopting  the  following 
resolution : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  offer  of  the  Universalist  church 
in  the  city  of  Richmond  be  accepted,  and  that  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms  be,  and  he  is  hereby  directed  (under  the 
supervision  and  advisement  of  the  committee)  to  have 
the  necessary  alterations  and  improvements  made  in  the 
said  church  for  the  accommodation  and  reception  of  the 
Convention,  as  speedily  as  practicable.  " 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  have  heard  a  great  deal  said 
about  economy  and  expense  here,  but  it  appears  to  me* 
that  we  are  pursuing  the  most  extravagant  course  that 
was  ever  pursued  by  any  public  body,  in  this  or  any  oth- 
er Commonwealth.  We  have  been  told  that  it  would 
cost  about  1,200  or  1,500  dollars  to  fit  up  this  church ; 
yet  what  have  we  done  but  expend  more  than  that 
since  we  have  been  here,  and  we  have  not  commenced 
our  business,  or  even  determined  where  we  shall  hold 
our  sessions.  Suppose  you  re-consider  the  resolution 
passed  yesterday  and  send  a  committee  to  the  House, 
why  that  body  will  consume  this  whole  day  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject,  at  an  expense  of  $1000  to  the  peo- 
ple of  this  Commonwealth.  And  if  they  do  not  make  an 
arrangement  suitable  to  us,  this  entire  discussion  will  be 
had  over  again  here,  and  we  shall  be  one  whole  week 
discussing,  resolving,  and  re-discussing,  and  re-resolving 
as  to  where  we  shall  hold  our  sittings.  Now  I  am  Eot 
disposed  to  continue  this  child's  play  any  longer.  Let 


26 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


us  not  show  to  the  people  that  we  are  resolving  one  thing 
one  day  and  the  contrary  the  next.  The  signs  of  the 
times  are  very  ominous.  I  entertain  myself  very  great 
doubts  whether  this  Convention  is  competent  to  discharge 
the  duties  for  which  they  are  elected.  [Laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  for  any  gentle- 
man to  make  reflections  upon  the  competency  of  this 
body. 

Mr  WOOLFOLK.  If  we  cannot  determine  the  ques- 
tion where  we  shall  sit,  we  certainly  are  not  compe- 
tent to  transact  the  more  iinportant  business  for  which  we 
were  sent  here.  If  it  takes  a  week  to  decide  this  prelim- 
inary question,  how  will  it  be  when  we  come  to  the  con- 
sideration of  those  grave  questions  which  will  arise  in  the 
adoption  of  a  new  Constitution  ?  If  this  course  is  to  be 
pursued,  I  have  no  hopes  of  getting  away  from  here  be- 
fore the  first  of  December,  and  I  think  it  would  be 
far  better  to  take  another  recess  till  the  Legislature  ad- 
journs, and  then  come  here  and  stay  till  next  Christmas, 
than  to  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  sessions  of  that  bo- 
dy, by  the  joint  occupation  of  this  hall.  I  trust  that 
this  resolution  will  not  be  re-considered,  but  that  the 
vote  of  yesterday  will  be  allowed  to  rest,  that  we  may 
get  at  the  business  for  which  we  were  sent  here.  We 
have  appointed  a  committee  for  the  purpose  of  procuring 
a  place  for  our  sessions.  That  committee  have  examined 
the  Universalist  church  and  report  that  it  is  a  place  of 
ample  dimensions,  capable  of  accommodating  not  only 
the  members  of  this  body,  but  all  who  may  wish  to  at- 
tend our  sittings.  Let  us,  at  least,  make  a  trial  of  it,  and 
if  we  find  it  is  not  suitable,  it  will  then  be  time  enough 
to  come  before  the  Legislature  to  beg  the  use  of  this 
hall. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  concur  fully  in  the  remarks  made 
by  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  except  as 
to  the  competency  of  the  Convention  to  perform  the  bu- 
siness for  which  it  has  assembled.  It  seems  to  me  a 
very  extraordinary  thing  that  a  church  erected  in  the 
city  of  Richmond  to  accommodate  a  large  congregation 
cannot  contain  135  members  of  the  Convention.  I  pre- 
sume there  is  not  a  church  in  this  city  which  is  not  of 
ample  dimensions  to  accommodate  this  Convention,  so 
far  as  its  members  are  concerned,  though  there  may  be 
some  difficulty  with  respect  to  the  audience  who  may 
attend  upon  its  deliberations.  I  submit  in  that  respect 
however  to  the  opinions  and  report  of  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  consider  this  subject.  They  have  reported  to 
us  that  the  church  is  ample  in  all  respects  both  for  the 
Convention  and  the  audience.  The  gentleman  from 
Spottsylvania  (Mr.  Conway)  objects  to  the  proceedings) 
of  going  to  the  church  upon  the  ground  that  it  will  cause 
additional  expense,  because  it  will  cost  some  thousand 
or  fifteen  hundred  dollars — 

Mi'.  CONWAY.  If  the  church  would  properly  ac- 
commodate the  Convention,  I  should  not  care  if  the  ex- 
pense amounted  to  even  $5,000.  My  constituency  would 
not  object  to  it,  if  it  was  necessary.  My  objection  is, 
that  we  shall  incur  the  expense  without  receiving  any 
benefit  in  return. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  was  about  to  meet  that  question. 
I  apprehend  that,  if  the  two  bodies  were  to  meet  in  this 
hall,  it  would  operate  to  delay  the  business  of  both,  to 
the  extent  of  at  least  thirty  days.  I  believe  that  the  ex- 
pense of  the  House  of  Delegates  is  about  $1,000  per  day, 
and  that  of  the  Convention  about  $800.  This,  according 
to  my  calculation,  would  amount  to  $54,000,  an  ex- 
pense which  would  all  have  to  be  borne  by  the  peo- 
ple of  this  Commonwealth.  For  the  two  bodies  to  meet 
in  this  hall,  therefore,  would  not  be  good  economy.  It 
is  better  that  we  should  expend  a  thousand  or  fifteen 
hundred  dollars  in  going  to  the  church,  than  to  delay 
each  other  by  meeting  in  this  hall.  You  and  I,  sir,  are 
acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of  legislation  here,  and 
we  well  know  that  in  case  of  a  protracted  debate,  a  ques- 
tion may  be  sometimes  settled  by  continuing  the  discussion 
a  reasonable,  time  beyond  the  usual  hour  ofadjournment — 
when,  by  postponing  the  taking  of  the  question  by  an  ad- 


journment, the  debate  will  be  re-opened  afresh,  and  con- 
tinued perhaps  for  days  afterwards.  I  believe  that  ev- 
ery day  we  have  met  in  Convention  since  our  re-assem- 
blage, we  have  adjourned  at  an  hour  beyond  the  time 
prescribed  to  us  by  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates. This  will  continue,  and  the  two  houses  will  tres- 
pass on  each  other,  and  greater  delays  and  consequently 
greater  expense  incurred.  I  trust  that  this  Convention 
will  hold  on  to  the  decision  which  it  made  yesterday,  and- 
by  a  decided  vote  direct  the  carrying  out  of  the  arrange- 
ment entered  upon  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  But  for  the  fact  of  my  occupying  a 
position  on  the  committee,  I  should  not  think  it  my  du- 
ty to  say  a  word ;  nor  do  I  design  now  to  do  more 
than  to  make  a  simple  statement  of  facts.  Yesterday, 
this  Convention,  by  a  vote  of  9&  to  16,  decided  that  they 
would  not  hold  their  sessions  in  this  hall,  although 
the  Legislature  might  agree  to  give  them  the  use  of 
it  from  9  until  1  o'clock.  Your  committee,  thinking 
that  your  minds  were  fully  made  up  on  the  subject  and 
that  you  would  not  be,  as  the  sailors  say,  "backing  and 
filling"  all  the  time,  in  discharge  of  their  duties  met  the 
committee  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  common  council 
of  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  that  committee  have  taken 
charge  of  the  church,  and  are  now  at  work,  I  doubt  not, 
putting  it  in  order.  All  that  I  have  to  say  is,  that  if 
you  are  going  to  continue  this  game  of  "hold  fast  and 
let  go,"  and  do  nothing,  the  sooner  you  say  so  the  bet- 
ter, lest  we  incur  expense  for  fitting  up  the  church  and 
then  not  occupy  it.  I  am  very  well  satisfied  that  the 
minds  of  most  gentlemen  are  made  up.  A  very  large 
number  of  gentlemen  have  visited  that  hall,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Spottsylvania  (Mr.  Conway)  is  the  very 
first  man  whom  I  have  heard  declare  that  it  is  unfitted 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  Was  selected.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  with  whom  I  have  conversed,  seem  to  feel  that 
we  shall  be  quite  as  comfortable  there  as  we  would  be 
here,  and  perhaps  more  so.  I  tender  my  thanks  to  the 
gentleman  from  Orange  (Mr.  Woolfolk)  for  his  sugges- 
tions. If  we  have  so  much  difficulty  in  deciding  where 
we  shall  meet,  I  think  the  very  best  thing  we  can  do, 
however  much  people  may  be  disappointed,  is  to  adjourn 
sine  die.  I  hope  that  the  House  will  decide  one  way  or" 
the  other  immediately,  in  order  that  we  may  go  to  work 
somewhere,  for  as  to  holding  the  Convention  here,  that 
is  totally  impracticable.  I  speak  in  all  candor,  when  I 
say,  that  I  cannot  distinguish  here  between  the  members 
of  the  Convention  and  the  members  of  the  Legislature, 
and  I  doubt  not  you,  sir,  find  the  same  difficulty.  I 
hope  that,  whatever  the  Convention  may  do  to-day,  it 
will  be  something  positive  upon  which  we  can  depend. 

Mr.  STRAUG-HAN  demanded  the  previous  question. 

The  call  was  sustained,  the  main  question  ordered  to 
be  put,  and  the  vote  being  taken,  the  Convention  reject- 
ed the  motion  to  re-consider  the  vote  of  yesterday,  as- 
moved  by  Mr.  Conway, 

USE  OF  THE  SEATS  IN  THE  CHURCH. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  I  desire  to  offer  the  following 
resolution: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  house  to  be  fitted  up  for  the 
use  of  this  Convention,  all  the  seats  shall  be  open  to  be 
occupied  indiscriminately  by  members,  who  shall  hold 
possession  for  the  time  being. 

Several  gentlemen  under  the  practice  which  has  existed 
in  this  House,  have  already  occupied,  by  their  cards,  seats 
in  the  church  that  is  to  be  occupied  by  the  Convention ;  I 
too,  seeing  the  general  tendency  of  the  thing,  have  taken 
possession  there,  by  my  card,  of  my  seat,  which  I  consider 
one  of  the  best  in  the  house.  It  seems  to  be  one  of  the 
privileged  benches,  and  no  doubt  belongs  to  the  high  dig- 
nitaries of  the  church.  [Laughter.]  But  I  believe  that 
the  dispatch  of  the  public  business  will  be  very  much 
forwarded  by  our  occupying  seats  indiscriminately ;  we 
shall  then  be  enabled  to  become  acquainted  with  each 
other ;  and  we  may  then  understand  and  compromise  our 
views  upon  the  various  and  difficult  questions  which  may 
arise  between  the  different  portions  of  the  country.  But 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


if  we  persist  in  this  practice  of  selecting  permanent  seats, 
we  shall  become  acquainted  with  but  few  beyond  the  im- 
mediate circle  around  us.  It  is  also  unjust  that  those 
who  have  been  the  more  thoughtful,  should  occupy  the 
best  seats  in  the  Convention. 
The  resolution  was  adopted. 

THAXKS  TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  DELEGATES. 

Mr.  HOPKINS,  Yesterday,  a  resolution  was  adopted, 
tendering  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  to  the  cities  of 
Norfolk,  Alexandria  and  Petersburg ;  but  none,  I  believe, 
have  been  tendered  to  the  House  of  Delegates  for  the  of- 
fer which  they  have  very  kindly  made  us  of  the  use  of 
this  hall. 

A  MEMBER.    Include  the  city  of  Richmond  too. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  That  I  supposed  was  embraced  in  the 
resolution  of  yesterday.  I  have  one  here  tendering  the 
thanks  of  the  Convention  to  the  House  of  Delegates 
which  I  will  offer,  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  are  due 
and  are  hereby  tendered  to  the  House  of  Delegates  for 
the  offer  of  their  hall  to  the  Convention,  but  deeming  it 
incompatible  with  the  proper  despatch  of  business  that 
both  bodies  should  hold  their  sessions  in  the  same  haU, 
the  Convention  will  accept  the  offer  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  only  so  lon<y  as  may  be  necessary  to  prepare 
the  Universalist  church  for  its  deliberations. 

Resolved,  That  the  Clerk  of  this  Convention  certify 
a  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  to  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  I  think  the  resolution  could  be  im- 
proved by  striking  out  the  words  "House  of  Delegates, ' 
and  inserting  the  words  "  council  of  the  city  of  Rich- 
mond, "  and  by  striking  out,  also,  all  of  the  latter  clause 
of  the  resolution.  As  I  do  not  see  that  we  are  under  any 
obligations  to  the  House  of  Delegates  at  all,  I  cannot  per- 
ceive the  necessity  for  voting  them  our  thanks.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  propose  an 
amendment  ? 

Mr.  DENEALE.    Oh,  no  sir. 

Mr.  STANARD.  It  strikes  me  that  this  resolution  con- 
tains two  distinct  propositions :  one  returns  thanks  to  the 
House  of  Delegates,  and  the  other  is  a  declaration,  in 
which  a  good  many  gentlemen  do  not  concur,  that  it  is  in- 
compatible with  the  public  business  for  the  Convention 
to  occupy  this  hall,  according  to  the  offer  of  the  House  of 
Delegates. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  ask  for  a  di- 
vision of  the  question  ? 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  should  prefer  that  the  question 
should  be  divided,  if  it  can  properly  be. 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  susceptible  of  division. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  Will  not  ask  for  any  division  of  the 
question,  but  I  will  move  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the 
table. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  was  about  to  ask  a  division  of  the 
question  myself.  The  first  part  of  the  resolution  I  ap- 
prove, but  the  second  part  I  cannot  go  for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  second  branch  of  it  is  rather 
a  reason  than  a  question. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Will  the  gentleman  withdraw  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table. 

Mr.  STANARD.    I  will  sir. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  am  willing  to  put  the  resolution  in 
any  shape  in  which  it  will  please  the  Convention.  If 
gentlemen  desire,  therefore,  I  will  withdraw  the  last  clause 
of  it,  so  that  the  resolution  shall  read : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  are  due, 
and  are  hereby  tendered  to  the  House  of  Delegates  for 
the  offer  of  their  hall  to  the  Convention.  " 

Mr.  LETCHER.  This  seems  to  me— with  all  due  de- 
ference to  gentlemen — to  be  a  very  small  business  5  and  I 
move  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  sincerely  trust,  however  much  mem- 
bers on  this  floor  may  have  deprecated  the  introduction 
of  such  a  resolution,  that  this  Convention  will  not  be  guil- 
ty of  the  discourtesy  of  indefinitely  postponing  a  resolu- 


tion of  courtesy  to  the  House  of  Delegates.  However 
much  we  may  regret  the  introduction  of  such  a  resolu- 
tion, I  should  be  very  sorry  to  see  it  treated  with  disre- 
spect after  it  had  been  introduced.  I  trust,  therefore, 
that  the  gentleman  from  Rockbridge  (Mr.  Letcher)  will 
Eot  persist  in  his  motion,  the  very  submission  of  which, 
is  calculated  to  increase  the  angry  feelings  of  discontent 
and  jealousy  which  I  am  sorry  to  say,  already  exists  on 
the  part  of  "certain  members  of  the  House  of  Delegates 
towards  this  Convention.  I  know  that.such  a  state  of 
feeling  does  exist,  but  let  us  at  least  preserve  our  records 
from  such  an  act  of  discourtesy  towards  one  of  the 
branches  of  the  State  Government.  I  trust  the  motion 
to  postpone  indefinitely  will  be  withdrawn,  and  that  the 
resolution  will  be  adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  It  is  perhaps  proper  that  I  should  say 
a  word  more  in  relation  to  this  matter.  I  have  no  re- 
grets myself  in  offering  this  resolution.  I  think  it  is  right 
and  proper  in  itself,  and  that  it  is  due  to  the  House  of 
Delegates.  The  quetion  has  arisen  which  body  was  en- 
titled to  the  use  of  this  hall,  and  it  is  one  which  can  ne- 
ver be  decided  except  by  the  two  bodies  themselves.  But 
by  the  very  terms  of  various  acts  of  Assembly,  and  in  com- 
mon parlance  throughout  the  State,  this  hall  is  known  as 
the  hall  of  the  House  of  Delegates.  They  have  assembled 
here  according  to  former  laws,  and  are  in  possession  of 
the  hall.  They  have  offered  us  the  use  of  it  such  por- 
tion of  the  time  as  they  judged  compatible  with  the  dis- 
patch of  the  business  required  of  them  by  law.  And  as 
we  have  determined  to  decline  the  offer,  courtesy  re- 
quires that  such  a  resolution  as  the  one  I  have  offered, 
should  be  adopted,  and  adopted  unanimously. 

Mr.  LETCHER,  As  my  motion  is  likely  to  produce 
a  day's  discussion,  I  will  withdraw  it.  N 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  move  to  lay  the  resolution  on 
the  table,  and  let  it  sleep  the  sleep  of  death.  _ 
The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  negatived. 
Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
latter  part  of  the  resolution  that  has  been  stricken  out 
by  the  member,  is  proper  to  be  retained.  The  law  under 
which  we  are  convened,  directed  us  to  meet  here.  We 
met  here  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and 
this  unforseen  conflict  has  occurred.  Before  you  adjourn- 
ed, you  appointed  a  committee  to  ascertain,  among  other 
things,  whether  the  House  of  Delegates  would  not  find 
it  compatible  with  the  public  duty  to  divide  the  time  of 
the  occupancy  of  this  hall  with  this  body.  That  com- 
mittee acted  in  obedience  to  your  direction.  A  commit- 
tee was  raised  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
which  conferred  with  your  committee,  and  the  result 
of  the  action  on  the  part  of  the  House  was  only  to  con- 
firm what  your  committee  proposed.  It  is  a  fact  that 
the  proposition  which  has  been  rejected  by  the  Conven- 
tion was  one  proposed  by  the  committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  coming  to  the  House  of  Delegates  under  that 
sanction,  that  the  House  approved  it.  In  approving  it, 
it  has  debarred  itself  from  the  use  of  this  hall  during  cer- 
tain hours  of  the  day.  You  have  determined  that  you 
are  dissatisfied  with  this  resolution,  and  that  you  will  go 
elsewhere.  Does  not  respect  to  ourselves  as  well  as  to  the 
other  body,  require  us  to  communicate  information  in 
an  authoritative  manner  to  the  other  House,  of  the  reasons 
for  our  decision  ?  Does  not  propriety  require  us  to  com- 
municate this  decision  to  the  House  of  Delegates,  that  they 
may  occupy  this  hall  all  the  time,  if  they  desire  to  do 
so  ?  I  move  to  restore  that  part  of  the  resolution  which 
the  mover  has  withdrawn,  deeming  it  manifestly  pro- 
per and  respectful  to  the  House,  and  becoming  m  us  to 
make  that  response  to  the  offer  which  has  been  made  us. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  agree  entirely  -with  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier.  I  did  not  agree  to  the  motion  to  strike 
out  because  I  thought  the  clause  improper,  but  I  con- 
sented to  strike  it  out  simply  to  save  time,  and  because 
some  gentlemen  objected  to  it  and  said  they  were  willing 
to  vote  for  the  other  part  of  the  resolution,  but  not  for 
this.  It  does  not  appear-  to  meet  the  general  views  of  the 
Convention  that  it  should  be  stricken  out,  and  as  it  is 


28 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


proposed  to  reinsert  it,  I  accept  of  that  modification  as 
I  have  a  right  to  do. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  will  then  stand  as 
originally  introduced. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making 
one  single  remark  and  then  I  shall  ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays.  I  cannot  vote  what  I  do  not  believe ;  in  other 
words,  I  cannot  in  my  conscience  vote  a  lie.  That  reso- 
lution declares  that  the  thanks  of  this  body  are  due  to 
the  House  of  Delegates  for  their  offer  to  us  of  the  use  of 
this  hall.  We  have  not  come  to  that  point  when  thanks 
are  due  to  every  body  for  doing  their  duty.  But  in  this 
case  I  do  not  believe  the  Legislature  have  done  their 
full  duty  to  the  people  and  the  Convention  on  this  sub- 
ject and  I  shall  not  vote  for  that  resolution. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  The  fault  is  with  your  com- 
mittee and  not  with  the  House.  They  accepted  the  pro- 
position of  your  committee. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  Well,  the  committee,  I  understand, 
made  the  very  best  terms  they  could. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Wot  at  all;  the  committee 
proposed  the  arrangement  themselves. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  The  proposition  ought  to  have 
come  from  the  House  in  the  first  place,  without  an  ap- 
plication from  the  Convention,  for  they  were  aware  that 
we  were  required  by  law  to  assemble  in  the  capitol.  It 
was  their  duty,  therefore,  to  have  provided  us  with  a 
hall,  either  here  or  elsewhere,  knowing  that  this  body 
would  be  in  session  at  the  same  time  as  themselves.  If 
they  had  even  done  that,  I  should  regard  them  as  hav- 
ing done  no  more  than  their  duty,  and  I  should  not  feel 
ourselves  under  any  obligation  to  thank  them.  I  do  not 
feel  that  thanks  are  due  to  them  or  to  any  of  the  public 
servants  for  the  simple  discharge  of  their  duty,  and  be- 
lieving that,  I  certainly  cannot  vote  for  a  resolution 
which  I  believe  to  be  untrue.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  COX.  I  have  been  absent  from  the  sittings  of 
this  body  on  account  of  sickness  in  my  family.  I  was 
desirous  of  being  here  at  the  commencement  of  the  ses- 
sion, because  I  had  been  appointed  chairman  of  a  com- 
mittee to  procure  a  room  for  the  meetings  of  the  Con- 
vention on  its  re-assembling  here  on  Monday  last.  In 
answer  to  the  remarks  which  have  fallen  from  the  mem- 
ber who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  I  would  say,  that  when  the 
Legislature  first  met,  I  think  on  the  first  or  second  day 
of  its  session,  a  gentleman  who  is  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Delegates  and  also  a  member  of  the  Convention,  in- 
troduced a  resolution  asking  for  the  use  of  this  hall  from 
the  House  of  Delegates.  At  that  time  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Delegates  from  Spottsylvania,  as  the  re- 
cord will  show,  proposed  to  make  an  appropriation  to 
fit  up  a  hall  in  this  city  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 
That  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table  of  the  House  at 
the  instance  of  a  member  of  the  committee  appointed  by 
this  body  to  provide  suitable  accommodations  for  the 
Convention  on  its  re-assembling.  I  came  here  to  unite 
with  the  members  of  that  committee  in  providing  a  suit- 
able place.  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  apply  to  the  Le- 
gislature for  the  use  of  this  hall  after  the  action  taken  by 
it  on  the  first  or  second  day,  and  hence  it  was  that  the 
committee  looked  round  and  selected  a  place  in  this  city, 
and,  as  I  thought,  directed  a  place  to  be  fitted  up.  After 
that  time  the  Legislature  appointed  a  committee  to  meet 
the  committee  of  this  House.  In  my  absence  these  com- 
mittees met  and  determined  upon  this  arrangement.  It 
was  an  arrangement  that  did  not  meet  my  views,  an  ar- 
rangement which  I  believed  then  and  in  fact  could  not 
believe  otherwise,  would  be  unsuitable  and  inconvenient 
for  the  deliberations  of  this  body.  But  a  majority  of  the 
committee  appointed  by  this  body  did  confer  with  the 
committee  appointed  by  the  House,  and  did  make  the  ar- 
rangement with  that  committee  which  was  sanctioned  by 
the  House  of  Delegates.  I  think,  under  the  circumstances, 
we  ought  to  return  our  thanks  to  the  House,  and  pass 
the  resolution  in  the  shape  in  which  it  stands.  If  blame 
is  to  be  attached  any  where,  it  belongs  to  the  committees 


of  this  body  and  of  the  House.  The  House  of  Delegates- 
did  all  that  the  committees  of  the  two  bodies  required 
them  to  do,  and  all  we  had  a  right  to  ask  them  to  do.  I 
am  perfectly  willing,  therefore,  to  say  to  that  House, 
that  we  thank  them  for  the  arrangement  they  have  been- 
willing  to  enter  into  with  us,  though  we  failed  to  adopt 
it  because  we  thought  some  other  arrangement  would 
be  better.  I  was  in  favor  of  some  other  arrangement  be- 
fore, yet  being  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the  commit- 
tee, I  had  to  yield.  In  my  opinion  courtesy  requires 
that  we  should  unanimously  adopt  the  resolution,  and. 
bring  about  the  state  of  feeling  that  ought  to  exist  be- 
tween the  two  bodies,  which  nothing  that  has  occurred^ 
as  yet  should  disturb. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  feel  some  solicitude  that  this  resolu- 
tion should  be  adopted  unanimously,  or  as  nearly  so  as 
possible.  In  regard  to  the  objection  of  my  friend  from 
Orange,  (Mr.  Woolfolk,)  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  say 
anything  that  will  remove  it;  but  my  friend  from  Bar- 
bour (Mr.  Carlile)  has  raised  an  objection  which,  I  think, 
he  may  very  easily  waive.  If  I  understood  that  gentle- 
man correctly,  he  said  he  could  not  vote  for  the  resolu- 
tion, because  he  believed  that  this  hall  was  the  most 
suitable  place  for  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  was  misunderstood  by  my  friend. 
I  said  that  I  could  have  voted  for  the  first  branch  of  the 
resolution  but  not  for  the  second ;  and,  therefore  asked, 
as  I  had  a  right  to  do,  for  a  division  of  the  question.  If 
the  question  is  divided,  I  shall  vote  aye  on  the  first  branch, 
and  no  on  the  the  second. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  from  Preston- 
will  excuse  me  for  a  moment,  I  will  respond  to  the  re- 
quest of  the  gentleman  from  Barbour  (Mr.  Carlile.) 
He  has  requested  a  division  of  the  question.  There  are 
two  propositions  embraced  in  the  resolution.  The  first 
part  declares  that  the  thanks  of  the  Covention  are  due, 
and  tenders  them  to  the  House  of  Delegates.  The  se- 
cond part  is  but  the  statement  of  the  fact  that  the  Con- 
vention has  deemed  it  incompatible  with  the  public  in- 
terests to  hold  the  sessions  of  the  two  bodies  in  the  same 
hall,  but  that  it  will  accept  the  offer  of  the  House  until 
the  church  is  arranged  for  its  use.  It  is  a  reason  sub- 
mitted, and  not  a  proposition  for  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention. The  question  will  be  taken  first  on  so  much 
of  the  resolution  as  returns  thanks  to  the  House  of  Del- 
egates. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  will  withdraw  the  request  for  a 
division  of  the  question. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  With  a  view  to  meet  the  objection 
of  my  friend  from  Orange,  (Mr.  Woolfolk,)  I  will  sug- 
gest that  by  unanimous  consent  of  the  Convention, 
there  be  inserted  after  the  words  "  thanks  due,"  the  word& 
"in  courtesy,"  so  that  it  shall  read  "thanks  due  in 
courtesy."    I  never  meant  any  thing  else  than  that. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    "  Oh  no !" 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  will  not  consent  to  say  "  thanks 
due"  I  have  frequently  given  my  thanks  in  courtesy 
where  they  were  not  due,  and  I  am  willing  to  do  so  on 
this  occasion. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Objection  being  made,  I  will  with- 
draw my  suggestion.  , 

THE  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Preston 
(Mr.  Brown)  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Oh  sir,  as  I  understand  the  gentle- 
man from  Barbour  (Mr.  Carlile)  to  have  withdrawn 
his  call  for  a  division  of  the  question,  I  have  nothing 
further  to  say. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  am  exceedingly  anxious  that 
this  discussion  be  brought  to  a  close,  and  that,  whatever 
action  the  Convention  may  take,  may  be  unanimous,  or 
nearly  so  as  possible.  Though  I  am  perfectly  ready 
to  vote  for  the  resolution  as  it  stands,  yet  if  by  the 
addition  or  change  of  a  single  word,  any  objections 
can  be  removed,  I  presume  every  member  will  acquiesce 
in  such  change.  Now,  if  I  understand  the  gentleman 
from  Orange,  he  is  willing  to  vote  for  the  resolution 
tendering  thanks,  and  with  the  omission  of  the  word 
"  due."    According  to  his  view,  in  which,  I  confess,  I 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


29 


do  not  concur,  thanks  are  not  due,  though  he  is  wil- 
ling, as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  to  tender  them.  And  by 
striking  out  the  words  "  are  due,"  and  leaving  it  to  read 
"thanks  are  hereby  tendered,"  I  hope  a  unanimous 
wote  will  be  secured  for  the  resolution,  and  I  suggest  to 
the  mover,  if  he  had  not  better  so  modify  it. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  am  willing  to  do  anything  in 
the  world  to  bring  this  matter  to  a  close,  and  if  possible 
to  a  unanimous  vote.  If  there  is  no  objection  from 
.any  quarter,  I  will  therefore  give  my  most  hearty 
assent  to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
.and  modify  the  resolution  so  as  to  strike  out  the  words 
;"  are  due,"  and  simply  say  that  ''thanks  are  hereby 
tendered." 

A  MEMBER.  Will  you  give  thanks  where  none  are 
due  ?    Is  that  not  mere  child's  play. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan 
will  permit  his  resolution  to  stand  in  its  original  shape. 
I  think  there  is  no  necessity  to  modify  it. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Some  gentlemen  desire  it  to  stand, 
and  others  desire  it  to  be  changed.  I  am  willing  to 
have  it  either  way .  I  said  I  would  make  the  change, 
if  no  objection  was  made — objection  has  been  made 
and  I  will  submit  the  question  to  the  Convention  and 
not  accept  the  modification. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
Hopkins,  and  it  was  adopted. 

LIQUIDATION  OF  THE  STATE  DEBT. 

Mr.  TRIGG  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment of  the  Government  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  propriety  of  incorporating  into  the  Constitution  a 
provision  requiring  the  Legislature  to  provide  annually  a 
fund  of  not  less  than  $1,000,  to  be  applied  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  principal  of  the  State  debt. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of 
moving  that  when  the  Convention  adjourns  to-day,  it  be  to 
meet  on  Tuesday  next  at  12  o'clock  in  the  Universalist 
church,  which  I  understand  will  be  fitted  up  for  our 
accommodation  by  that  time.  I  do  think  that  if  any 
doubts  have  heretofore  existed  in  the  minds  of  any  here, 
as  to  the  impropriety  of  holding  the  sessions  of  the 
Convention  in  this  hall,  they  must  be  now  entirely 
dissipated.  I  feel  satisfied  that  no  good  results  can 
proceed  from  our  deliberations  here.  That  we  cannot 
deliberate  here  must  be  manifest  to  every  one.  There 
is  no  .necessity  for  convening  here  every  morning  and  re- 
enacting  the  scenes  we  have  witnessed  to-day  and  every 
day  since  our  meeting  here.  The  committees  can  meet 
in  the  recess  and  be  transacting  their  business,  and  it  will 
be  ample  time  for  us  to  re-assemble  when  the  church 
shall  be  ready,  which  I  understand  will  be  on  Tuesday. 
I  move  therefore  that  when  this  body  adjourns  to-day,  it 
"be  to  meet  on  Tuesday  next  in  the  Universalist  church. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  make 
that  motion  to-day,  because  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
committee  appointed  to  prepare  accommodations  for  the 
Convention,  to  procure  committee  rooms,  and  if  they 
succeed  in  that,  it  is  desirable  that  they  should  report 
to-morrow.  I  hope  he  will  at  least  allow  his  motion  to 
lay  on  the  table  for  to-day. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  To  accommodate  the  com- 
mittee, as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Essex,  I  will 
withdraw  my  motion,  with  the  understanding  that  I  shall 
renew  it  to-morrow. 

THANKS  TO  THE  CITY  OF  RICHMOND. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  In  order  that  we  may  liquidate  all 
debts  of  thanks  and  courtesy,  I  will  offer  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  ten- 
dered to  the  common  council  of  the  city  of  Richmond 
for  their  offer  of  La  Fayette  hall  for  the  use  of  this  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  M.  G  ARNETT.    As  I  understand  this  to  be  the  last 


debt  to  be  paid,  I  would  suggest  that  we  may  just  as 
well  go  a  little  further,  and  thank  the  council  for  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  arrange  the  church  for 
us. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  If  it  will  suit  the  gentleman  better, 
he  may  modify  the  resolution  by  adding  to  it  the  words , 
'•and  to  all  others  to  whom  thanks  are  due." 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  adopt  that 
as  a  part  of  his  resolution  ? 

Mr.  DENEALE.    No  sir  ;  I  prefer  it  as  it  reads. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  the  resolution  was 
adopted. 

PUBLIC  MEETING  IN  MONONGALIA  COUNTY. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  have  received  the  proceedings  of  a 
meeting  of  a  portion  of  the  citizens  of  the  county  of 
Monongalia.  They  consist  of  certain  resolutions  devel- 
oping their  views  respecting  sundry  matters  of  Consti- 
tutional reform,  accompanied  with  instructions  to  myself 
and  the  delegates  from  the  district  which  I  have  the  ho- 
nor in  part  to  represent,  to  conform  our  action  in  this 
body  to  those  views.  They  declare  that  population  is 
the  only  true  basis  of  representation,  and  they  state  that 
they  believe  that  representation  based  on  any  other  prin- 
ciple would  be  an  infraction  of  the  great  doctrines 
of  true  republican  principles  so  marked  as  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  by  no  free  people.  They  allege  however,  that 
the  citizen  should  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  his 
property  by  ample  constitutional  securities.  They  in- 
struct us  to  observe  that  inasmuch  as  all  power  is  vested 
in  the  people,  and  as  magistrates  are  their  servants  and 
amenable  to  them  only,  therefore  all  officers  should  be 
elected  by  the  people.  They  have  directed  me  to  vote 
on  all  proper  occasions  for  the  extension  of  the  right  of 
suffrage,  and  also  indicate  as  their  opinion  that  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Legislature  should  hereafter  be  biennial.  I 
am  happy  to  say  for  myself,  and  I  feel  assured  that  my 
colleague  will  concur  with  me  in  opinion  and  feeling  on 
the  subject,  that  I  can  cheerfully  conform  my  conduct 
to  these  requisitions  of  the  constituent  body,  not  only 
because  I  am  instructed  to  do  so,  but  because  these  opin- 
ions of  my  constituents  harmonize  perfectly  with  my 
own.  I  am  unacquainted  with  the  rules  on  this  subject, 
and  I  would  inquire  if  these  proceedings  will  be  printed 
under  the  rules,  or  will  it  require  a  motion  for  the  pur- 
pose ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  will  require  a  motion. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  move  then  that  the  proceedings  be 
laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Will  my  colleague  move  to  refer  them 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  ? 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  understand  them  to  be  referred  es- 
pecially to  us. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  presume  they  will  go  as  a  matter  of 
course  to  that  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  paper  will  be  referred  as  a 
matter  of  course,  unless  it  be  laid  on  the  table  and  or- 
dered to  be  printed.  It  can  be  printed  without  laying 
on  the  table,  however. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  make  no 
motion  for  the  printing.  He  submitted  a  similar  me- 
morial two  days  since,  and  no  motion  for  the  printing 
was  made,  yet  we  rind  it  printed  in  the  debates. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  document  referred  to  was 
ordered  to  be  printed  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  As  that  is  the  case,  I  have  no  desire 
to  make  any  distinction. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  paper  being  the  proceedings 
of  a  public  meeting,  and  not  a  memorial,  it  cannot  be 
referred  without  a  special  motion. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  do  not  perceive  that  it  can  be  re- 
ferred with  propriety,  as  it  embraces  such  a  variety  of 
subjects,  and  is  moreover  addressed  to  certain  delegates  es- 
pecially as  a  guide  for  their  course.  I  do  not  therefore 
desire  its  reference,  and  will  move  its  printing. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Then  if  my  colleague  declines,  I  will 
make  the  motion  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  subject  of  the  Basis  and  Apportionment 


30 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  ask  that  the  memorial  may  be 
read. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  would  say  that  it  is  not  a  memorial, 
but  simply  the  proceedings  of  a  public  meeting,  embrac- 
ing a  variety  of  instructions  to  the  delegates  here  from 
that  district.  I  cannot  therefore  see  the  propriety  of 
reading  or  referring  it,  though  I  am  prepared  to  yield  to 
the  better  judgment  or  greater  legislative  experience  of 
others. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  If  it  is  to  be  printed  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Convention,  or  referred,  I  desire  to  have  it 
read. 

The  paper  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows : — 

At  a  large  and  highly  respectable  meeting  of  the  citi- 
zens of  Monongalia  county,  held  at  the  court  house  in 
Morgantown  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  November,  1850, 
(the  same  being  court  day,)  pursuant  to  public  notice,  Hon. 
E.  C.  Wilson  called  the  meeting  to  order  and  explained 
its  object,  and,  on  his  motion,  John  Watts,  Esq.,  was  ap- 
pointed Chairman,  and  L.  S.  Hough,  Secretary. 

Guy  R,  C.  Allen  then  arose  and  submitted  the  follow- 
ing series  of  resolutions,  and  supported  the  same  by  a  few 
brief  and  pertinent  remarks. 

Resolved,  That  "  all  power  is  vested  and  consequently 
derived  from  the  people,"  and  therefore  population  is  the 
only  true  basis  of  legislative  power. 

Resolved,  That  representation  in  the  Legislative  De- 
partment of  Government  predicated  on  property  or  tax- 
ation, or  on  taxation  and  population  combined,  is  an  in- 
fraction of  the  great  American  principle  of  popular  sove- 
reignty, that  cannot  be  tolerated  by  a  free  people. 

Resolved,  however,  That  whilst  property  is  not  entitled 
to  representation,  it  is  nevertheless  entitled  to  and  should 
receive  just  and  full  protection  in  every  properly  organ- 
ized government. 

Resolved,  That  "  Magistrates  are  the  trustees  and  ser- 
vants of  the  people,  and  amenable  to  them,"  Therefore 
all  public  officers  should  be  elected  by  the  people,  wheth- 
er legislative,  executive  or  judicial. 

Resolved,  That  the  right  of  suffrage  should  be  extended 
to  every  free  white  male  citizen  of  the  United  States  in 
the  Commonwealth,  over  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  not 
of  an  unsound  mind,  nor  a  pauper,  or  non-commissioned 
officer,  soldier,  seaman,  or  mariner,  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  or  persons  convicted  of  an  infamous  of- 
fence. 

Resolved,  That  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature  should 
hereafter  be  held  once  in  two  years  instead  of  annually, 
with  the  power  to  call  special  sessions  in  case  of  special 
emergencies. 

Resolved,  That  our  Delegates  in  the  Convention  soon 
to  re-assemble  to  consider,  discuss  and  propose  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  of  Virginia,  be,  and  they  are, 
so  far  as  this  meeting  is  concerned,  instructed  to  conform 
their  action  to  the  principles  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  ; 
and  we  believe  that  the  same  views  and  opinions  are  en- 
tertained by  all  the  people  in  this  district. 

On  motion,  the  above  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  directed  to 
be  published  in  the  "  Monongalia  Mirror,"  and  a  true  copy 
thereof,  placed  in  the  hands  of  W.  T.  Willey,  Esq.,  one 
of  our  delegates  in  the  Convention,  with  a  request  to  lay 
the  same  before  said  Convention,  when  it  shall  re-assem- 
ble in  January  next. 

On  motion  of  Hon.  E.  C.  Wilson,  the  meeting  adjourn 
ed  sine  die.  John  Watts,  Chairman. 

L.  S.  Hough,  Secretary. 

Mr.  BROWN".  With  the  consent  of  my  colleague,  if  I 
understand  him  rightly,  the  motion  to  print  will  be 
withdrawn,  as  the  paper  will  be  printed  as  a  matter  of 
course  among  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention.  I 
will  therefore  move,  if  my  colleague  does  not,  that  it  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  subject  of  the  Basis. 

The  motion  to  refer  was  agreed  to. 

And  then  on  motion  of  Mr.  CARLILE,  the  Conven- 
tion adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning,  at  10  o'clock. 


FRIDAY,  January  10th,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

LEGISLATIVE  POWER  TO  CREATE  STATE  INDEBTEDNESS. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  have  a  resolution  on  the  subject  of 
the  Basis  of  Representation,  which  I  will  read  before  it  is 
presented,  and  which  I  wish  to  have  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee having  charge  of  that  subject.    It  is  as  follows  ; 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  and  Ap- 
portionment be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expedien- 
cy of  inserting  the  following  provisions  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  wit : 

"The  Legislature  shall  pass  no  act  the  effect  of  which 
shall  be  to  subject  the  State  to  debts  or  liabilities,  amount- 
ing in  the  aggregate,  with  any  previous  debts  or  liabili- 
ties, to  a  sum  exceeding  millions  of  dollars,  except 
for  purposes  of  war,  or  to  suppress  insurrections ;  and  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  any  court  of  record  established  un- 
der this  Constitution,  or  the  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  upon  a  proper  case  made  before  it,  to  pronounce 
such  act  null  and  void. 

"  It  shall  further  be  the  duty  of  the  Legislature,  at  its 
first  session  after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  or  as 
soon  thereafter  as  practicable,  to  make  provision  by  law 
for  bringing  such  questions  before  said  courts,  in  behalf 
of  any  tax  payer  who  may  elect  to  proceed  at  his  own 
costs — and  providing  in  favor  either  of  the  State  or  of 
the  party  complaining,  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  court 
of  last  resort,  without  regard  to  the  sum  of  money  in 
controversy. 

"  And,  moreover,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Legislature 
to  provide  by  law  for  the  publication,  at  the  end  of  each 
session,  of  an  official  statement  showing  the  debts  and 
liabilities  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  section. 

"  This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  refer  to  any 
money  that  has  been  or  may  be  deposited  with  the  State 
by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

"  The  Legislature  shall  pass  no  bill  appropriating  the 
public  money,  or  in  any  other  way  affording  peculiar  aid 
to  any  road,  canal,  or  other  work  of  internal  improve- 
ment, until  each  of  the  following  pre-requisites  shall  have 
been  fully  complied  with,  to  wit:  The  projected  work  shall 
be  thoroughly  examined  by  some  one  or  more  competent 
engineers,  in  the  employment  of  the  State,  and  not  ap- 
pointed with  relerence  to  any  particular  improvement — 
such  examination  to  be  by  reconnoisance,  as  full  and  ac- 
curate as  possible,  short  of  actual  instrumental  surveys. 

"  The  report  of  such  engineer  or  engineers  (to  be  made 
to  the  Legislature)  shall  show  by  estimate,  with  as  much 
accuracy  as  practicable,  not  only  the  cost  of  constructing 
the  whole  work,  or  contemplated  line  of  works — and,  in 
case  of  a  railroad,  of  supplying  the  motive  power — but 
also  the  probable  amount  of  trade  and  travel  which  will 
pass  over  such  work,  or  in  other  form  contribute  to  the 
income  to  be  derived  from  it  within  years  next  after 
the  same  shall  have  been  completed. 

"  Such  report  shall  further  show  that  according  to  the 
estimates  and  reconnoisance  above  directed,  the  project- 
ed work  will  yield  a  net  average  return  of  not  less  than 
per  centum  per  annum  upon  the  expenditure  re- 
quired for  its  construction  and  motive  power,  as  herein 
before  mentioned,  for  the  years  next  succeeding  the  com- 
pletion thereof.  The  accuracy  and  fairness  of  such  re- 
port, according  to  its  purport,  shall  in  all  cases  be  veri- 
fied by  the  affidavit  of  the  engineer  or  engineers  making 
the  same. 

"The  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  discriminate  as 
to  what  property  or  persons  shall  be  the  subjects  of  taxa- 
tion, but  all  taxes  upon  property  shall  be  levied  upon  the 
ad  valorem  principle,  either  according  to  its  absolute  or 
annual  value,  as  the  Legislature,  in  reference  to  each  de- 
scription of  property,  may  deem  most  just  and  equita- 
ble :  Provided,  however,  that  in  no  case  shall  slaves  be 
subjected  to  higher  taxation  than  real  estate;  nor  shall 
any  slave  under  the  age  of  —  years,  or  which  from  iu« 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


31 


firmity  or  disability  lias  become  of  less  annual  value  than 
the  charge  of  maintenance,  be  subject  to  taxation."  The 
motion  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis. 

[The  PRESIDENT  here  left  the  Chair,  Mr.  Goode 
presiding  in  his  absence.] 

PAY  OF  THE  SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. 

Mr.  BRAXTON".  It  seems  that  when  the  Convention 
adjourned  in  November,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  was  re- 
quested by  the  President  to  remain  in  this  city  during 
the  recess,  but  no  provision  was  made  by  the  House,  and 
in  consequence,  the  Secretary  was  not  able  to  give  his 
certificate  of  pay  for  his  compensation.  I  have  arisen  on 
behalf  of  the  Committee  on  the  Compensation  of  Officers, 
who  have  received  a  letter  from  the  President  on  the  sub- 
j  ect,  which  has  been  presented  to  the  committee,  and  they 
have  directed  me  to  report  the  following  resolution ; 

I  request  the  Clerk  to  read  the  letter  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  move  that  the  resolution  be  adopted. 

The  letter  of  the  President  was  then  read  as  follows : 
Richmond,  Jan.  9th,  1851. 

Dear  Sir  :  When  the  Convention,  having  determined 
on  taking  a  recess,  was  considering  questions  touching 
the  compensation  of  some  of  its  officers  during  the  sus- 
pension of  business,  a  motion  was  made  in  favor  of  the 
compensation  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms.  My  opinion  be- 
ing asked,  I  stated  from  the  Chair,  that  the  presence  of 
the  Sergeant  here  during  the  recess,  would  be  required, 
and  the  motion  was  withdrawn.  As  the  presiding  officer 
of  the  Convention,  I  informed  Mr.  Samuels  that  I  consid- 
ered his  presence  here  necessary  for  the  performance  of 
duties  which  might  devolve  on  him.  He  remained  ac- 
cordingly. The  Secretary  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  give 
him  his  certificate  to  draw  his  pay,  and  I  considered  it 
proper  to  leave  the  question  of  the  pay  of  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  for  the  committee  and  the  Convention. 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

J.  Y.  Mason. 

The  resolution  was  then  read  as  follows  : 
;  Resolved,  That  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  be  allowed  his  per 
diem  during  the  recess  of  the  Convention,  having  been 
required  to  remain  in  the  city  of  Richmond  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  FERGUSON".  I  believe  the  resolution  fixing  the 
compensation  of  the  Secretary,  pays  him  so  much  per 
week,  and  not  per  day.  I  would  suggest  that  this  reso- 
lution be  so  arranged  as  to  give  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  the 
same  compensation  during  the  recess  as  he  would  be  en- 
titled to  during  the  session.  I  think  the  resolution  would 
read  better  if  it  were  worded  as  follows : 
_  Resolved,  That  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  this  Conven- 
tion be  allowed  the  same  pay  during  the  recess,  as  he  is 
entitled  to  during  the  session. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  I  can  see  no  difference  between  the 
two.  so  far  as  the  result  is  concerned. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  think  the  first  resolution  is  right. 
The  Sergeant-at-Arms  receives  his  pay,  if  I  understand 
it,  by  the  day,  the  same  as  the  members  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.    No,  by  the  week. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  He  receives  two  dollars  a  week 
more  than  the  members.  He  receives  thirty  dollars,  and 
they  twenty-eight. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  gentleman 
accept  the  amendment  ? 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  T  do  not  know  that  I  am  at  liberty 
to  do  so,  without  consulting  the  committee. 

Mr.  STANARD.  It  seems  to  me  that  striking  out 
the  words  "per  diem"  and  insert  "pay,"  I  would 
prefer  the  original  resolution.  It  also  has  this  additional 
recommendation,  that  it  suggests  the  reason  on  its  face, 
why  this  thing  is  done,  which  I  prefer  for  one. 

Mr.  FERGUSON.  I  acquiesce  in  the  suggestion,  and 
withdraw  my  amendment. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Will  the  mover  of  the 
resolution  accept  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Richmond  ? 

Mr.  BRAXTON.    Yes  sir,  I  accept  it. 


Mr.  FISHER.  Pardon  me  for  asking  a  single  question  ? 
It  is  this  :  I  care  nothing  about  this  matter,  nor  have  I 
any  interest  in  it  whatever  ;  but  I  wish  for  my  own  sat- 
isfaction to  know.  Previous  to  the  adjournment  of  the 
Convention,  if  I  understood  the  President,  he  declared  in 
the  presence  of  this  house,  the  necessity  of  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  remaining  in  this  city  during  the  recess,  and  sta- 
ted that  he  would  be  entitled  to  his  pay  for  so  doing ;  in 
which,  as  I  understand,  the  Convention  acquiesced.  It 
would  be  a  matter  of  very  considerable  interest  to  me  to 
know  why  it  is  that  the  Secretary  has  given  a  different 
interpretation  of  the  law  from  the  President  and  the  whole 
of  this  body  ? 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted. 

BANKS  AND  BANKING  INCORPORATIONS. 

Mr.  CAMDEN  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislature  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing 
by  the  Constitution,  that  in  case  of  the  insolvency  of  any 
bank  or  banking  association,  the  bill  holders  thereof  shall 
be  entitled  to  preference  in  payment,  over  all  the  credi- 
tors of  such  bank  or  associations. 

BETTING  ON  ELECTIONS. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  I  have  a  resolution  for  preserv- 
ing the  purity  of  elections.  I  observe  that  the  Constitu- 
tions of  several  of  the  States  contain  provisions  for  pre- 
serving pure  the  right  of  suffrage.  And  as  I  suppose  we 
are  about  to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage,  I  should  like  to 
see  a  similar  provision  inserted  in  our  own  Constitution. 
It  is  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  this  right  pure  that  I 
offer  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  the  right  of  suffrage 
inquire  into  and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  prohibit- 
ing by  Constitutional  provision,  any  person  from  voting 
at  any  election  upon  the  result  of  which  such  person  shall 
have  made  any  bet  or  laid  any  wager,  or  who  is  directly 
or  indirectly  interested  in  such  bet  or  wager. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Right  of  Suffrage. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  The  committee  to  whom  the  subject 
of  publishing  the  reports  of  the  debates  authorised  by  the 
Convention  was  referred,  have  directed  me  to  make  a  re- 
port. 

The  report  was  read  by  the  Secretary  as  follows  : 

The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  various 
propositions  for  publishing  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  the  Convention,  have  had  the  same  under  considera- 
tion, and  respectfully  report :  That,  in  their  opinion,  the 
debates  and  proceedings  should  be  published  and  distri- 
buted, so  as  to  be  read  by  as  large  a  number  of  the  peo- 
ple as  can,  at  a  reasonable  cost,  be  supplied  with  them. 
The  means  they  think  best  suited  to  effect  the  object 
are,  first,  to  make  use  of  the  circulation  of  the  six  politi- 
cal papers  printed  in  this  city ;  and,  second,  to  distri- 
bute extra  copies  of  the  reports,  in  order  to  supply,  as 
far  as  practicable, +  hose  persons  who  may  not  be  subscri- 
bers to  the  Richmond  papers.  Your  committee  have  as- 
certained  that  the  Richmond  political  presses  issue  forty- 
three  thousand  papers  each  week ;  this  number  includes 
their  daily,  semi-weekly  and  weekly  issues.  These  is- 
sues are  so  distributed  as  to  reach  fifteen  thousand  five 
hundred  subscribers. 

It  is  proposed  that  a  separate  sheet  shall  be  issued, 
twice  each  week,  containing  the  authorized  reports  of 
the  stenographer  to  the  Convention,  and  to  be  styled 
"  The  supplement  to  the  Enquirer,  Whig,  Examiner, 
Times,  Republican  Advocate,  and  Republican." 

The  six  papers  named,  are  to  be  employed  as  agencies 
for  distributing  "  the  supplement,"  so  that  their  fifteen 
thousand  readers  may  be  furnished  with  full  reports  of 
the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention. 

It  is  also  proposed  that  each  member  be  furnished 
with  twenty  copies  of  "  the  supplement,"  to  be  wrappad, 


32 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


mailed  and  directed  by  the  publishers,  as  the  members 
may  direct.  In  this  way,  2700  copies  in  addition  to  the 
15,500  copies  already  named,  will  be  distributed 

Your  committee  submit  the  following  statement  of 
the  cost  of  diffusing  this  information  among  the  people. 
Supppose  the  daily  debates  and  proceedings  to  amount 
to  matter  equal  to  six  columns  of  "  the  supplement," 
(specimen  copies  of  which  have  been  laid  before  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,)  and  that  the  session  shall  con- 
tinue fifteen  weeks,  it  is  proposed  by  the  proprietors  of 
the  six  papers  named,  to  furnish  and  distribute  "the 
supplement"  at  the  following  rates : 
For  composition  of  matter  equal  to  six  co- 
lumns a  day,  for  fifteen  weeks,  $2,106  00 
For  press-work,  folding,  &c,  of  31,000  copies 

a  week,  for  fifteen  weeks,  2,418  00 

For  paper  for  31,000  copies  a  week,  for  fifteen 

weeks,  4,450  50 

For  2700  extra  copies  twice  a  week,  for  fifteen 

weeks,  at  2  cents  each,  1,620  00 


Total,  $10,594  00 

The  aggregate  cost,  therefore,  of  publishing  and  distri- 
buting, during  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks,  15,500  copies 
of  the  supplement  through  the  agency  of  the  six  papers 
named,  and  2700  copies  as  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion may  direct,  will,  in  case  the  matter  does  not  exeeed 
six  columns  a  day,  amount  to  $10,694  50. 

Should  the  session  be  shorter,  or  the  matter  be  less 
than  the  estimate,  the  cost  will  be  proportionably  les- 
sened ;  and  on  the  contrary,  should  the  session  be  longer, 
and  the  matter  greater  than  the  estimate,  the  cost  will 
be  proportionably  increased. 

Having  stated  the  facts  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention,  your  committee  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  contract  with  Robert  H. 
Gallaher,  and  the  proprietors  of  the  other  papers  named 
in  this  report,  for  the  publication  and  distribution  of  the 
debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  in  the  man- 
ner and  at  the  rates  of  charge  herein  before  set  forth, 
and  that  he  take  bond  and  security  for  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  contract. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  I  move  that  the  report  and  reso- 
lution be  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

PUBLICATION  OF  DOCUMENTS  IN  GERMAN. 

Mr-  KNOTE.  I  desire  to  offer  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  and  is  hereby  instruct- 
ed to  contract  with  Mr.  George  Deitz,  editor  of  the  "Vir- 
ginia Staats  Zeitung,"  to  print  in  the  German  language 
copies  of  such  public  documents  as  may  be  order- 
ed to  be  so  printed  by  this  Convention,  together  with  the 
new  Constitution  when  it  shall  be  completed :  Provided 
such  contract  can  be  made  at  prices  not  higher  than  are 
now  paid  for  the  public  printing,  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  Virginia.  [Laughter.] 

I  suppose  that  this  is  somewhat  a  novel  proposition  to 
be  offered  a  body  like  this,  from  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  received.  But  there  is  in  this  Commowealth 
a  pretty  large  number  of  this  population.  There  are 
in  the  town  of  Wheeling,  in  which  I  reside,  and  in 
th<3  vicinity,  perhaps  some  four  thousand  Germans 
and  I  am  informed  that  there  is  at  Alexandria,  and  in 
the  city  of  Richmond,  and  at  Petersburg,  and  at  Norfolk, 
and  I  presume  some  other  towns,  a  very  considerable 
number  of  this  population, — men  who  have  settled  among 
us  and  are  not  able  to  read  in  the  English  language. 
They  are,  notwithstanding,  good  citizens,  very  useful 
citizens,  in  my  estimation;  and  it  is  important  that 
they  understand  the  Constitution  we  may  submit  to 
them,  before  they  will  be  properly  qualified  to  vote  upon 
it.  This  people,  wherever  settled,  are  well  known  to  be 
an  industrious  and  frugal  population,  contributing,  by 
their  industry,  economy,  and  taxes,  to  the  wealth  and  re- 
sources of  the  State,    And  in  my  humble  opinion,  it  is  no 


|  more  than  right  and  just,  that  while  we  are  providing  for 
the  general  publication  of  our  proceedings,  we  should,  at 
a  very  inconsiderable  cost  to  the  Common  wealth,  also 
give  them  facilities  for  understanding  the  Constitution 
that  we  shall  adopt.  It  seems  to  me  but  just.  Other- 
States  of  this  Union  have  thought  proper  to  publish  in 
this  language,  not  only  their  constitutions,  but  the  pro- 
ceedings of  their  legislatures  and  other  public  documents- 
at  considerable  expense.  The  State  of  Ohio,  I  am  inform- 
ed, publish  almost  all  their  public  documents  in  the  Ger- 
man language.  I  am  informed,  also,  that  the  entire  de- 
bates of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Pennsylvania,, 
some  sixteen  volumes,  were  published  in  that  language. 
Thus  these  States  manifest  a  disposition  to  treat  with 
kindness  and  affection  this  class  of  population,  and  they 
are  by  this  means  drawn  to  those  States,  and  settle  and 
become  permanent  and  valuable  citizens.  The  State  of 
Illinois,  I  believe,  has  pursued  the  same  course.  The- 
State  of  Texas  I  know  has.  They,  by  this  means,  show 
a  regard  to  this  kind  of  people ;  and  by  this  regard  they 
are  attracted  to  settle  within  those  States.  They  come 
to  this  country  with  no  inconsiderable  amount  of  money, 
and  they  bring  with  them  also  all  the  elements  of 
wealth  in  their  persevering  industry,  and  a  much  more 
valuable  acquisition  of  capital  to  the  State.  They  set- 
tle in  different  States,  deposit  their  wealth,  and  there 
expend  their  strength  and  labor.  It  appears  to  me  to 
be  just  to  this  people,  and  for  the  good  of  the  State 
to  pursue  this  policy,  and  by  manifesting  this  kind- 
ness to  them,  to  encourage  them  to  settle  within  our 
borders.  It  appears  to  me  but  just  to  this  class  of 
citizens  to  adopt  this  resolution.  Whether  it  is  the 
best  calculated  to  reach  the  object  proposed  I  do 
not  know.  Other  members  can  perhaps  judge  bet- 
ter than  myself  on  this  point.  I  have  put  in  the  resolu- 
tion the  name  of  Mr.  Deitz,  as  the  person  in  whose  paper 
it  shall  be  printed,  and  for  this  reason  :  Mr.  Deitz  is*a  gen- 
tleman, and  a  scholar  every  way  well  qualified  to  translate 
correctly  from  the  English  into  the  German  language. 
This  "Virginia  Staats  Z  eitung,"  or  Virginia  State  News- 
paper, as  it  is  translated,  is  the  only  newspaper  in  the  State 
of  Virginia,  I  believe,  printed  in  that  language.  If  there 
are  other  papers  I  do  not  know  that  their  editors  are 
competent  to  make  a  correct  translation.  Mr.  Deitz  pro- 
poses, if  this  Convention  will  give  this  printing  to  his 
paper,  to  do  the  translation  gratis,  and  not  put  the  State 
to  any  expense  on  that  account,  and  I  do  not  know  of  any 
other  paper  that  will  perform  this  service  gratuitously. 
Then  this  paper  is  printed  in  the  town  of  Wheeling,  and 
in  that  location  there  is  a  larger  portion  of  this  kind  of 
population  than  in  any  other  section  of  the  State.  It  is 
therefore  proper  to  give  it  to  him.  And  besides,  he  pro- 
poses to  print  them  gratuitously  in  his  paper,  so  that  the 
information  will  be  carried  wherever  the  paper  is  circu- 
lated, and  in  that  way  be  distributed  among  the  German 
population  generally,  of  the  State.  I  should  have  pre- 
ferred to  put  in  the  resolution  the  titles  of  the  documents 
that  I  should  wish  to  have  printed ;  but  that  is  impos- 
sible, as  they  are  not  yet  all  before  the  body.  I  pre- 
sume, however,  that  the  assessments  reported  to  us  here 
and  the  census  returns  will  be  proper  documents  to  be 
thus  published.  I  take  this  occasion  to  say  it  is,  not  my 
desire  to  make  this  a  matter  of  expense.  Perhaps  the  cost 
will  not  exceed  one,  two  or  three  hundred  dollars  in  all. 
I  only  desire  that  the  most  important  information  should 
be  afforded  to  this  population,  and  I  have  specified  such  doc- 
uments as  the  Convention  shall  from  time  to  time  order. 
I  have  specified  the  Constitution  when  it  shall  be  com- 
pleted here,  because  I  believe  that  to  be  not  only  an  im- 
portant matter  to  that  class  of  the  people,  but  useful  to 
the  State.  As  to  the  prices,  I  have  provided  in  the  reso- 
lution it  shall  be  done  at  prices  not  higher  than  those  paid 
for  the  printing  done  for  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  I  am 
aware  that  the  printing  of  this  Convention  is  done  lower 
than  the  printing  of  the  Legislature,  and  gentlemen  may 
suppose  that  this  ought  also  to  be  done  at  that  price ;  but 
they  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  corr'ect  translation 
of  this  matter  is  of  some  importance ;  and  if  we  should 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


33 


employ  a  translator  it  would  cost  as  much  as  the  printing 
does.  But  Mr.  Dietz  proposes  to  do  that  work  gratuitously, 
and  I  do  think,  that  if  the  printing  is  done  at  the  prices 
paid  by  the  General  Assembly,  it  certainly  would  not  be 
more  than  a  fair  equivalent  for  the  services  performed. 
I  can  assure  this  body  that  it  is  not  designed  by  myself, 
or  those  at  whose  instance  I  make  this  motion,  that  this 
shall  be  a  matter  of  speculation.  It  is  a  mere  matter  of 
justice  to  that  portion  of  the  population.  As  this  print- 
ing will  be  done  at  a  very  small  expense,  I  hope  this  re- 
solution will  be  adopted,  and  that  the  State  of  Virginia 
will  show  the  same  disposition  to  treat  with  kindness  and 
attention  this  class  of  population,  which  has  been  shown 
by  other  States. 

"Mr.  JACOB.  I  wish  to  inquire  of  my  colleague, 
whether  he  proposes  to  take  denmtive  action  upon  this 
resolution  at  this  time,  or  to  ask  the  House  to  lay  it  on 
the  table,  and  let  it  come  up  at  some  future  time,  with 
the  other  matters  relating  to  this  subject  ?  I  would  pre- 
fer to  request  the  House  to  lay  it  on  the  table  and  print 
it.  I  believe,  myself,  although  the  whole  House  seemed 
inclined  to  smile  at  this  proposition  when  the  resolution 
was  offered,  that  when  it  is  understood,  it  will  not  be  ob- 
jected to.  It  will  occasion  but  a  very  slight  expense,  and 
a  more  worthy,  industrious  and  useful  population,  can- 
not be  found  in  any  State,  than  the  German  population 
which  are  settled  within  our  borders,  so  far  as  my  own 
experience  goes.  I  do  think  it  is  the  policy  of  the  State 
to  encourage  the  settlement  of  the  Germans  among  us. 
I  know  it  is  a  policy  favorable  to  our  "Western  districts. 
I  believe  there  is  a  manifest  difference  in  asking  for  the 
publication  of  a  few  important  documents,  such  as  the 
Constitution,  Census,  tfcc,  and  that  of  publishing  the 
whole  proceedings.  At  all  events,  I  think  the  resolution 
is  worthy  of  that  consideration  which  would  be  mani- 
fested by  allowing  it  to  lie  on  the  table  and  be  printed. 
And  I  am  in  hopes  that,  when  the  House  shall  consider 
it,  they  will  see  its  justice  and  propriety ;  especially 
when  they  understand  how  small  will  be  the  expense, 
and  how  useful  a  portion  of  our  population  will  be  grati- 
fied by  it. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  have  no  particular  choice  in  the  mat- 
ter. I  have  taken  the  present  occasion  to  offer  the  reso- 
lution, because  there  appeared  to  be  no  particular  busi- 
ness before  the  Convention.  I  do  not  see  why  it  cannot 
be  as  well  considered  now  as  at  any  other  time.  I  am 
perfectly  willing,  however,  that  it  shall  be  laid  upon  the 
table,  as  proposed  by  my  colleague. 

Mr.  JACOB.  If  the  question  is  to  be  now  taken,  I 
ask  gentlemen  to  notice  that  this  resolution  does  not  pro- 
pose to  publish  any  thing  but  what  the  House  shall  di- 
rect, except  the  instrument  we  shall  adopt  as  a  Constitu- 
tion. If  any  other  document  is  to  be  printed  in  German, 
it  will  be  for  the  Convention  to  direct.  I  make  this  ex- 
planation, that  the  House  may  see  that  they  will  not 
commit  themselves  to  an  extravagant  expenditure. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Will  the  Secretary  please  to  read  the 
resolution,  leaving  out  the  name  that  it  is  impossible  to 
understand. 

The  resolution  was  again  read. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  shall  with  great  pleasure  vote  for 
the  resolution ;  but  I  submit  to  the  gentleman  whether 
he  had  not  better  let  it  lie  over  and  come  up  when  the 
other  question  of  printing  shall  come  up.  Then  I 
shall  vote  for  it,  though  there  is  not  a  Dutchman  in  the 
whole  district  in  which  I  live.  I  move  that  the  resolu- 
tion be  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  Is  it  to  be  printed  in  the  German  lan- 
guage ?  [Laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  is  to  be  printed  as 
it  stands. 

DECLINATION  OF  SERVICE  ON  A  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  SEYMOUR.  My  appointment  as  a  member  of 
the  committee  on  the  basis  of  representation  makes  it 
necessary  that  I  should  decline  further  service  upon  the 
committee  on  the  legislative  department.    I  ask  to  be 


excused  from  further  service  on  that  committee,  and 
that  the  President  of  the  Convention  supply  the  vacancy 
thus  occasioned. 

The  gentleman  was  excused  accordingly. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
yesterday  when  I  consented  to  withdraw  my  motion  for 
an  adjournment  till  Tuesday  next,  it  was  with  the  un- 
derstanding that  I  should  renew  it  again  to-day. 
Circumstances  have  since  transpired  to  render  it  inex- 
pedient to  renew  that  motion  at  present,  unless  the 
House  will  agree  to  take  up  the  report  in  relation  to 
printing  and  act  upon  it  to-day.  That  report  is  required, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  to  be  acted  upon  speedily, 
in  order  that  the  printers  may  make  their  arrangements 
fur  the  publication  of  the  proceedings  ol  the  Convention. 
As  it  has  been  expected  that  I  would  renew  the  motion 
to-day,  I  state  this  fact  by  way  of  explanation.  If 
this  House  will  not  agree  to  take  up  the  report  on 
printing,  and  act  upon  it  immediately,  I  shall  move 
that  this  House  adjourn  till  to  morrow  morning  at  10 
o'clock.  If  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the  House  to 
take  up  the  report,  I  will  withdraw  the  motion. 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  report  has  been 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  MARTIN.  Well,  then,  I  move  that  the  House 
adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  at  10  o'clock. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.  Oh,  no,  let  us  act  on  the 
report. 

Mr.  MARTIN.  If  it  is  the  pleasure  of  this  Conven- 
tion to  consider  this  report,  now,  I  should  like  to  have 
it  taken  from  the  table  and  acted  upon.  In  order  to 
test  the  sense  of  the  Convention,  I  move  that  it  be  now 
taken  up.  I  think  it  can  be  disposed  of  at  once,  and 
we  can  then  proceed  to  other  business. 

Mr.  LETCHER.  I  move  that  this  House  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Convention  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

SATURDAY,  January  11, 1851. 
The  Convention  assembled  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Earley,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  unfinished  business  before 
the  Convention  when  it  adjourned  yesterday,  was  the  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall,  to  take  up  the  report 
of  the  Select  Committee  on  printing  the  debates  of  the 
Convention. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  report  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  Is  it  in  order— the  report  of  the 
committee  having  just  been  read  in  the  journal,  and  it 
being  in  the  hands  of  every  member  of  the  Convention — 
to  move  to  dispense  with  its  reading  at  this  time,  so  that 
the  resolution  of  the  committee  will  be  immediately  be- 
fore the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  can  be  done,  unless  some 
gentleman  shall  insist  upon  the  report  being  read. 

[Here  Mr.  Sheffey  took  the  Chair  in  the  temporary 
absence  of  the  President.] 

The  question  was  then  put  on  the  resolution  of  the 
committee,  and  the  Presiding  Officer  was  about  to  an- 
nounce the  result,  when 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT  said  that  he  apprehended  the  ques- 
tion was  not  under? cood,  and  asked  that  it  might  be  sta- 
ted again. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  The  question  is  on 
agreeing  with  the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee 
on  the  publication  of  the  debates  of  the  Convention, 
which  is  in  the  words  following : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  contract  with  Robert 


34 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


H.  Gallaher,  and  the  proprietors  of  the  other  papers 
named  in  this  report,  for  the  publication  and  distribution 
of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  in  the 
manner  and  at  the  rates  of  charge  hereinbefore  set  forth, 
and  that  he  take  bond  and  security  for  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  contract." 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  Is  it  in  order  to  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  is  not  in  order,  the 
Convention  having  divided  on  the  question. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  supposed  that  the  question  not 
being  understood,  was  about  to  be  taken  over  again. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  The  rule  as  laid  down  by  the  Chair, 
is  correct,  but  I  understood  the  vote  was  to  be  taken 
over  again,  the  Convention  before  not  having  properly 
understood  the  question. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Convention  had 
certainly  divided  on  the  question,  but  as  gentlemen  ge- 
nerally "did  not  seem  to  understand  it,  and  as  the  resolu- 
tion was  read  in  order  that  it  might  be  understood,  I  pre- 
sume the  question  can  very  properly  be  taken  now  by 
yeas  and  nays.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Orange  de- 
mand the  yeas  and  nays  ? 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.    Yes  sir. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  ordered. 

Mr.  JACOB.    Is  it  too  late  to  make  any  observation  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.    Not  at  all. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  was  in  hopes  that  some  gentleman 
who  is  familiar  with  this  subject,  would  have  favored  us 
with  an  explanation  fuller,  and  with  reasons  more  at 
large,  than  any  that  have  been  given  us  here.  I  do  not 
profess  to  understand  it  myself.  I  am  not  clear,  howev- 
er, that  I  can  vote  at  present  for  the  resolution.  I  have 
looked  at  the  reports  of  the  last  three  or  four  days,  and 
where  I  thought  they  would  not  have  made  over  two 
columns  a  day,  I  find  six  solid  columns.  What  it  will 
be  when  we  get  fully  under  way,  is  more  than  I  can 
tell ;  but  I  should  think  ten  or  fifteen.  I  beg  leave  to 
submit  to  the  Convention  whether  they  have  duly  con- 
sidered this  matter  ?  Again,  the  resolution  provides  for 
giving  to  each  member  20  copies  of  this  supplementary 
sheet.  Now  I  do  not  know  what  good  these  20  copies 
will  do.  I  do  not  want  them,  and  I  use  my  own  case  as 
illustrative  of  my  arguments  on  this  subject.  If  I  should 
attempt  to  distribute  them,  I  should  only  send  to  twenty 
voters  in  my  district — a  very  small  proportion  of  the 
whole  number — and  I  should  have  to  discriminate  between 
my  constituents,  or  else  send  them  to  different  persons 
at  different  times,  and  thus  give  the  proceedings  in  such 
broken  fragments  that  they  would  be  of  no  use.  So  far 
as  that  provision  occasions  any  expense,  I  think  it  had 
better  be  stricken  out.  I  do  not  know  what  the  expense 
will  be,  but  it  occurs  to  me,  from  the  little  examination 
I  have  been  able  to  give  the  subject,  that  it  will  occasion 
not  less  than  one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  whole  ex- 
pense ;  and  that  would  be  something  to  us.  Again,  there 
is  another  radical  difficulty  to  my  mind.  You  send  out 
these  reports  only  to  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the  State  ; 
to  those,  and  to  none  other  than  those  who  now  take  the 
political  papers  published  in  the  metropolis  of  the  State. 
These  six  papers  have  a  circulation  at  present,  of  only 
about  15,500,  and  shall  we  pay  10,000  or  $15,000,  to  send 
our  proceedings  only  to  those  subscribers  ?  Those  sub- 
scribers will  be  pretty  well  informed  of  what  takes  place 
here,  in  any  event,  while  the  mass  of  the  people 
will  be  without  any  information  of  the  proceedings 
of  this  body.  I  was  in  hopes  that  some  plan  would 
be  devised  to  send  our  proceedings  to  those  who  do  not 
take  the  papers.  I  do  not  say  this  can  be  done,  but  I 
really  do  not  see  the  propriety  of  expending  $15,000  to 
$20,000,  merely  to  furnish  our  proceedings  to  the  present 
subscribers  of  the  papers  in  this  city. 

iMr.  STEWART.  I  desire  to  make  a  few  remarks  on 
th  s  subject.  I  agree  with  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  Jacob]  in  regard  to  this  resolution.  This 
is  altogether  a  business  matter,  and  it  is  right  and  proper 
that  this  Convention  should  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  it  in  a  business  manner.    I  am  very  well  aware 


of  the  inconvenience  to  which  our  delay  is  subjecting 
the  gentlemen  engaged  in  this  enterprize,  and  I  wish 
very  much  to  see  the  Convention  decide  this  matter 
speedily  ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  I  think  it  is  altogether 
wise  and  proper  that  while  we  act  with  suitable  speed 
in  regard  to  it,  we  should  also  proceed  with  becoming 
discretion  and  judgment.  Now,  I  cannot  see  how  this 
Convention  is  prepared,  at  this  time,  to  decide  upon  this 
subject.  The  report  has  been  printed  and  laid  on  the 
table  this  morning,  and  we  are  called  upon  in  a  few  mo- 
ments after  this  has  been  done,  to  vote  upon  it.  We  can- 
not vote  understandingly  on  this  proposition  now,  be- 
cause we  have  had  no  time  whatever  to  investigate  its 
merits.  Let  us  take  this  paper  to  our  rooms  and  exam- 
ine it,  and  let  us  have  time  and  opportunity  to  see  all 
the  other  propositions  that  have  been  submitted,  and 
then  we  can  judge  how  to  proceed  in  the  end.  In  order 
to  enable  the  Convention  to  act  understandingly  in  the 
matter,  I  move  to  lay  the  report  and  resolutions  on  the 
table,  to  be  taken  up  at  some  other  time,  perhaps  Mon- 
day, when  we  meet  again.  This  will  enable  us  to  in- 
vestigate the  subject.  It  will  enable  us  also  to  examine 
other  propositions  which  have  been  or  may  be  laid  be- 
fore us.  The  cost  of  this  matter  may  seem  very  small 
to  some  gentlemen,  but  when  we  take  into  consideration 
the  cost  of  this  printing,  and  all  the  other  costs  of  this 
Convention,  and  of  the  proceedings  consequent  upon  the 
adoption  of  a  revised  Constitution,  it  will  be  found  to 
amount  to  a  very  considerable  sum.  But  whether  the 
cost  shall  be  small  or  great,  it  is  a  duty  we  owe  to  the 
people  who  sent  us  here,  to  take  care  that  this  Convention 
costs  as  small  a  sum  as  possible.  The  object  I  have  in 
view  in  wishing  to  have  time  to  consider  this  matter  is, 
that  we  may  do  this  business  as  a  set  of  business  men. 
No  man  in  this  Convention  ought  to  look  at  this  thing 
with  any  view  of  favoritism.  For  my  part  I  have  no 
personal  ends  to  answer.  For  the  editors  and  publish- 
ers of  the  papers  in  this  city  I  have  the  highest  respect, 
and  it  is  not  to  embarrass  their  proceedings  in  any  way 
that  I  wish  to  have  this  matter  laid  on  the  table,  for  the 
present.  I  am  satisfied  that  this  supplemental  sheet 
before  us  here  is  a  creditable  work,  but  whether  it  will 
serve  the  purposes  of  the  Convention  and  the  people,  is 
quite  another  question.  One  great  object  in  publishing 
the  debates  is,  that  we  may  inform  the  people  of  the 
State  what  we  are  doing  here,  and  that  we  may  enable 
them  to  judge  of  the  various  questions  which  may  come 
before  us  for  consideration.  Now,  how  are  we  to  attain 
this  object?  The  circulation  of  twenty  copies  by  each 
member  of  the  Convention  will  be  but  a  mere  drop 
in  the  sea,  and  will  not  accomplish  this  object. 
It  will  only  enable  us  to  offend  a  portion  of  our  con- 
stituents, those  to  whom  we  do  not  send  them,  instead 
of  to  spread  information  among  the  mass  of  them.  We 
have  20  copies  to  send  to  a  large  district  comprising 
perhaps  some  five  or  six  counties,  and  to  whom  shall 
we  send  them  ?  We  shall  be  forced  to  make  a  discrim- 
ination. To  send  to  one  man  one  day  a  paper  contain- 
ing a  portion  of  a  debate,  and  to  another  on  the  next 
day  another  portion,  would  be  a  mere  mockery.  If  I 
am  to  send  these  proceedings  to  my  constituents,  I 
wish  to  send  them  in  a  connected  form,  and  not  give  it 
to  them  in  the  form  of  disjecta  membra.  Now,  how  are 
we  to  do  this  ?  I  have  heard  from  a  variety  of  sources 
that  the  newspaper  press  of  this  city  would  not  circulate 
the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  to  more  than  half 
the  people  of  this  State.  I  wish  to  know  how  this 
matter  stands.  I  wish  to  know  the  truth  of  this,  but 
I  think  I  know  sufficient  of  the  circulation  of  the  papers 
in  this  city,  judging  from  like  causes  which  produce 
like  effects  in  every  thing,  to  say  that  it  is  confined  to 
the  Eastern  part  of  the  State.  If  this  is  so,  how  in  the 
name  of  common  sense  will  the  people  of  Western 
Virginia — that  great  extent  of  country  from  the  Ohio 
to  the  Tennessee  line,  and  from  the  Blue  Ridge  to  the 
Ohio  again — obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of 
this  Convention?  Now,  some  gentlemen  seem  to  look 
upon  us  as  though  we  were  all  reformers  beyond  the 


\ 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


35 


mountains.  "Well,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  I  believe  that 
nineteer.-twentieths  of  the  people  of  Western  Virginia 
are  reformers  •  but  at  the  same  time  we  are  not  such 
thorough,  educated  and  intelligent  reformer?,  that  we 
can  do  without  hearing  anything  of  the  proceedings  of 
this  Convention.  The  fact  that  our  people  are  so 
thoroughly  in  favor  of  reform,  is  the  very  reason  why 
they  wish  to  know  why  it  is  and  upon  what  ground  the 
anti-reformers — if  there  be  any  in  the  Convention— are 
so  opposed  to  their  peculiar  views.  We  are  as  much 
interested  in  hearing  the  views  of  our  Eastern  friends 
as  they  are  in  hearing  ours,  and  while  we  seek  to  spread 
information  before  the  people,  let  us  spread  it  before  a 
whole  and  not  a  portion  of  them.  And  if  we  have  all 
these  plans  before  us,  we  can  see  which  will  accomplish 
the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,  and  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  and  will  vote  for,  whoever  may  be  bene- 
fited by  it.  On  the  subject  of  printing,  I  am  aware 
that  there  is  great  error  in  the  minds  of  men  who 
know  nothing  or  have  no  experience  in  regard  to  it. 
I  tell  you  that  it  is  a  labor  not  so  cheaply  to  be  accom- 
plished as  many  may  suppose,  and  I  am  opposed  to 
making  a  contract  with  an  editor  or  publisher  upon 
starvation  prices.  As  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
(Mr.  Claiborne)  said  the  other  day,  I  am  opposed  to 
all  starvation  laws.  I  wish  to  give  any  printer  who 
may  undertake  to  do  our  work,  such  a  price  as  will 
enable  him  to  do  it  well,  and  make  some  money  for 
himself.  "  The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,"  whether 
he  sets  type,  practices  law,  pegs  shoes,  or  does  any 
thing  else,  and  I  imagine  none  of  us  in  this  Convention 
would  work  for  nothing  and  find  ourselves.  While  I 
would  not  wish  editors  or  printers  to  speculate  upon 
us,  yet  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  them  fair,  living 
prices,  such  as  will  not  only  enable  them  to  do  our 
work  well,  but  to  make  a  respectable  profit,  such  as 
any  man  might  expect  to  make  in  a  similar  business. 
With  these  considerations,  I  hope  this  report  will  be 
laid  upon  the  table,  and  that  sufficient  time  may  be 
given  the  Convention  to  get  all  these  plans  and  propo- 
sitions before  them,  so  that  they  may  judge  which  is 
best  calculated  to  answer  the  purpose  intended.  I 
make  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  This  is  a  matter  in  regard 
to  which  I  have  very  little  information — 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  motion  to  lay 
on  the  table  is  not  a  debateable  one. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  hope  then  that  the  gen- 
tleman will  withdraw  it  for  the  present. 

Mr.  STEWART.    Certainly  sir. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  it  must  be  appa- 
rent to  us  all  that  the  debates  when  we  get  under  way, 
will  very  largely  transcend  six  columns  of  the  supple- 
ment, and  I  do  not  know  why  it  is  that  the  estimate 
has  been  formed  upon  that  number  of  columns.  I 
should  like  to  be  informed  by  the  committee  who  have 
made  this  report,  as  to  the  relation  which  the  prices 
set  down  in  this  report  bear  to  the  prices  at  which  the 
public  printing  of  this  body  is  now  being  done.  It  will 
be  recollected  by  all  of  us,  that  the  public  printing  of 
this  body  is  now  being  executed  by  contract,  and  if  I 
am  rightly  informed,  it  is  executed  at  a  cost  greatly  less 
than  that  at  which  it  is  proposed  to  be  done  by  this 
report.  I  had  supposed  that  the  best  mode  by  which 
the  Convention  could  give  circulation  to  these  debates, 
would  be  through  the  medium  of  the  political  press  in 
this  city.  Together  I  understood  they  had  a  large 
circulation  throughout  the  different  portions  of  this 
Commonwealth.  I  had  supposed  that  the  publishers  of 
these  papers  would  derive  a  profit  of  no  inconsider- 
able amount  by  means  of  the  extension  that  would 
be  given  to  their  circulation,  by  reason  of  the  publi- 
cation of  these  debates ;  and  in  looking  to  that  source 
of  profit,  they  would  find  it  compatible  with  their 
interest  to  publish  these  debates  at  a  rate  at  least  as 
low  as  the  public  printing  of  the  body  is  now  being 
done  under  contract.  It  is  with  a  view  to  elicit  infor- 
mation upon  this  point,  more  than  any  thing  else,  that  I 


have  troubled  the  Convention  with  these  remarks.  I 
repeat,  that  I  should  like  to  know  from  the  chairman 
of  the  committee,  or  some  member  of  it,  what  relation 
the  prices  of  this  report  bear  to  the  prices  at  which 
the  public  printing  of  this  body  is  now  done. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  I  really  always  feel  a  very  great 
reluctance  to  trouble  the  Convention,  but  I  suppose  on 
this  occasion  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  make  some  an- 
swer to  the  question  which  my  friend  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  has  proposed.  I  presume  that  the  object  of 
preparing  the  reports  and  publishing  them  in  any  form, 
is  to  give  such  information  with  regard  to  the  proceed- 
ings and  deliberations  of  the  Convention,  as  may  enable 
the  voters  of  the  State  to  vote  understandingly  upon  the 
Constitution  which  we  may  submit  to  them.  The  first 
question  that  presents  itself  is,  in  what  manner  shall 
we  get  these  proceedings  most  extensively  before  the 
people  ?  I  confess  that  I  have  not  heard  any  mode  pro- 
posed that  appears  likely  to  accomplish  this  object  so 
well,  as  that  of  submitting  it  to  them  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  political  papers  of  the  city  of  Richmond. 
By  that  means  we  accomplish  a  circulation  of  fifteen 
thousand  five  hundred  weeklv — 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  "Thirty-one  thousand  week- 
ly. The  circulation  of  these  papers  is  fifteen  thousand 
live  hundred  semi- weekly. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  That  is  it— thirty-one  thousand  week- 
ly— fifteen  thousand  five  hundred  semi-weekly.  The 
members  of  the  Convention  have  then  no  difficulty  or 
trouble  in  making  a  discrimination  with  regard  to  their 
constituents.  By  this  means,  this  information  is  diffused 
broadcast  throughout  the  State,  and  diffused  too,  with- 
out any  additional  trouble  or  tax,  so  far  as  postage  and 
mailing  is  concerned.  I  can  think  of  no  better  plan  than 
this.  Now,  with  regard  to  the  expense  :  I  presume  that 
the  number  of  six  columns  was  proposed  because  it  was 
supposed,  that  in  a  session  of  from  12  to  3  o'clock, 
there  would  be  about  that  amount  of  speaking  dai- 
ly. That,  I  understand,  is  about  what  is  the  experi- 
ence in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  is  the 
calculation  made  by  the  reporters  and  publishers  at 
Washington.  I  understand  that  the  printer  for  the  Le- 
gislature gets  sixty-two  and  a  half  cents  for  what  the  pub- 
lishers of  the  proposed  supplement  would  receive  sixty- 
five  cents.  The  two  and  a  half  cents  additional  is  add- 
ed to  cover  the  extra  labor  attendant  on  the  mailing  and 
distributing  of  them ;  so  that,  taking  this  into  consider- 
ation, it  is  nearly  if  not  quite  as  cheap  as  the  prices 
charged  by  the  public  printer.  I  have  no  particular  de- 
sire that  the  plan  recommended  by  the  committee  should 
be  adopted,  if  any  other  feasible  plan  can  be  suggested. 
But  the  committee  very  carefully  looked  over  the  whole 
ground,  and  examined  the  several  plans  that  have  been 
proposed,  and  really  there  was  none  in  their  judgment 
which  combined  all  the  advantages  of  this  one,  at  the 
same  time  with  its  cheapnesss.  There  are  objections  to 
it,  I  admit,  but  there  are  a  great  many  other  and  strong- 
er objections  to  any  other  mode  which  I  have  heard  pro- 
posed. On  the  whole,  I  think  this  to  be  the  cheapest 
and  best  plan,  considering  all  things,  that  we  can  adopt. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  may  not  quite  understand  the  pro- 
posed plan  that  is  before  the  Convention.  But  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  the  Convention  is  incurring  the  expense 
of  publishing  this  work  for  the  benefit  of  the  subscribers 
to  the  metropolitan  papers.  Now,  in  many  parts  of  the 
State,  the  metropolitan  press  is  not  read  to  any  great  ex- 
tent, and  to  that  portion  of  the  State  these  extras  will 
not  go.  The  extras  accompanying  the  papers  of  this  city, 
will  only  go  where  the  circulation  of  the  papers  of  this 
city  goes.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  would  be  a 
very  unequal  distribution  of  papers  published  at  the  pub- 
lic expense.  Suppose  in  my  district  there  should  be  but 
very  few  subscribers  to  the  city  papers,  why  the  inform- 
ation would  not  be  distributed  there  at  all.  We  must 
all  see  that  there  is  great  difference  in  the  circulation  of 
the  metropolitan  papers  in  different  parts  of  the  State  ; 
that  while  in  some  districts  they  circulate  largely,  in  oth- 
ers they  ffo  not  circulate  at  all.    The  effect  of  the  prop- 


36 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ositionthen  is,  that  we  are  to  use  the  public  money  for  the 
benefit  of  a  particular  class  of  readers,  the  subscribers  to 
the  city  papers.  This  I  think  we  should  not  do.  I  should 
be  glad  to  know,  however,  if  I  have  understood  this  prop- 
osition correctly. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    My  friend  from  Alexandria 
(Mr.  Sxowden)  either  did  not  understand  me,  or  he  has 
failed  to  respond  to  the  inquiry  which  I  made.  The  ques- 
tion which  I  propounded  related  to  a  comparison  of  the 
prices  estimated  in  this  report,  with  the  prices  at  which 
the  printing  of  this  Convention  is  done  under  contract.  I 
understand  my  friend  from  Alexandria  to  make  the  com- 
parison between  these  prices  and  the  prices  at  which  the 
public  printing  is  done  for  the  Legislature.    Now  we 
know  the  prices  at  which  that  work  is  done.    We  know 
the  manner  in  which  the  contract  for  the  legislative 
printing  has  been  entered  into.   We  know  how  the  pub- 
lic printer  of  the  State  is  appointed,  by  whom  he  is  ap- 
pointed, by  whom  his  compensation  is  fixed,  and  how  he 
is  paid.    We  know  also  that  when  this  body,  desirous  of 
having  its  printing  done  at  a  less  cost,  caused  an  adver- 
tisement to  be  made  for  proposals,  the  contract  was  ta- 
ken at  prices  greatly  less  th<*n  the  public  printing  of  the 
State  is  now  and  has  for  years  been  done.    I  desire  to 
know  why  it  is  that  the  printer  for  this  Convention, 
who  has  given,  as  I  understand,  abundant  security  for 
the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty,  and  who  is  now  in 
the  actual  discharge  of  these  duties,  can  find  it  to  his  in- 
terest to  do  this  printing  at  a  price  reduced  so  much  be- 
low that  at  which  the  printing  of  these  debates  is  pro- 
posed to  be  done.    It  seems  to  me,  as  I  said  before,  that 
when  we  look  to  the  fact  that  by  means  of  the  publica- 
tion of  these  debates  in  their  papers,  in  all  probability  a 
much  wider  circulation  will  be  given  to  the  city  press, 
and  a  large  number  added  to  the  list  of  their  subscribers, 
that  the  profit  derived  to  them  by  this  extended  circula- 
tion, in  the  shape  of  additional  numbers  of  subscribers, 
would  put  it  in  their  power,  and  make  it  compatible  with 
their  interest,  to  print  the  debates  at  a  price  at  least  as 
low  as  those  perform  the  work  who  now  are  engaged  in 
the  public  printing  for  this  body.    I  agree  entirely  with 
my  friend  from  Alexandria,  (Mr.  Snowden,)  and  with 
the  committee,  that  the  most  feasible,  if  not  the  only 
feasible  mode  by  which  the  object  which  the  Convention 
has  in  view  to  communicate  extensively  information  of 
their  proceedings,  is  to  be  accomplished,  is  by  the  circu- 
lation of  those  proceedings  by  means  of  the  political 
press  of  this  city.    And  if,  as  the  gentleman  from  Pres- 
ton (Mr.  Brown)  says,  it  will  operate  unequally  among 
the  various  sections  of  the  State,  that  inequality  is  to  be 
guarded  against  or  obviated  by  persons  who  desire  in- 
formation concerning  our  proceedings  becoming  subscri- 
bers to  these  papers  during  the  sessions  oi  this  Conven- 
tion.   If  they  have  not  curiosity  enough,  or  if  they  have 
not  desire  enough  to  get  information  in  regard  to  our  pro- 
ceedings, sufficient  to  cause  them  to  become  subscribers 
for  a  limited  time,  for  some  one  or  other  of  the  papers 
published  here,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  they  would  not 
have  the  interest  or  curiosity  to  read  them  if  they  were 
furnished  them  gratis. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  presume  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier will  understand  that  in  various  parts  of  the  State, 
there  are  other  papers  taken  and  read  than  those  pub- 
lished in  the  city  of  Richmond.  He  will  perceive  there- 
fore that  those  who  take  the  papers  of  this  city  for  their 
general  news,  will  have  this  extra  information  grati', 
while  those  who  take  and  are  well  supplied  with  other 
papers,  published  at  different  points  than  Richmond,  will 
be  compelled  to  subscribe  for  an  additional  paper  from 
the  metropolis  in  order  to  obtain  this  information.  This 
they  will  have  to  do,  when  the  regular  eubscribers  to  the 
metropolitan  press  get  it  thrust  upon  them  even  with- 
out their  asking  for  it. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  And  it  is  for  the  reason,  that 
the  people  in  all  parts  of  the  State  will,  in  a  measure,  be 
laid  under  obligation  to  subscribe  for  these  papers,  that  I 
think  they  can  afford  to  do  our  printing  cheaply.  It  is  im- 
possible for  us,  without  an  expenditure  costing  beyond 


what  will  be  justified  by  the  occasion,  to  provide  for  the 
publication  of  these  debates  in  all  the  papers  of  the  State. 
But  if  we  were  to  select  a  smaller  number  than  those  pro- 
posed, we  should  put  it  in  the  power  of  all  the  people  of 
the  Commonwealth,  at  a  very  small  expense,  to  possess 
themselves  of  the  proceedings  of  this  body.  We  cannot 
give  it  to  them  all  gratuitously,  but  by  a  very  small  ex- 
pense, small  when  compared  with  the  great  object'  in 
view,  we  can  put  it  in  the  power  of  all,  at  a  very  small 
cost,  to  possess  themselves  of  this  valuable  information.- 
And  when  we  do  that,  in  my  judgment,  we  do  all  that 
can  rightly  be  required  of  us.  I  adhere,  therefore,  to 
the  opinion,  that  the  best  form  in  which  this  circulation 
can  be  procured,  is  through  the  medium  of  the  papers 
published  here.  But  I  do  not  see  why  the  proprietors 
of  these  papers  cannot  do  this  printing  as  cheaply  as  the 
contractor  who  has  given  his  bond  to  us  does  our  other 
printing.  I  presume  that  the  political  papers  of  Rich- 
mond, if  we  fail  to  give  them  this  contract,  will  scarcely 
preserve  a  silence  on  the  subject  of  the  proceedings  of 
this  Convention.  They  would  be  scarcely  doing  justice 
to  their  readers,  and  they  would  find  the  consequence 
of  such  a  procedure  visited  upon  them  by  a  diminution 
of  their  list  of  subscribers.  I  take  it  for  granted,  there- 
fore, that  whether  we  give  them  this  contract  or  not, 
that  the  leading  papers  of  this  city  will,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, furnish  their  readers  with  the  principal  matter  of 
the  debates  here,  And  when  I  advocated,  before  the  ad- 
journment, the  separation  of  the  contract  for  the  publi- 
cation of  the  debates  from  the  contract  for  reporting 
them,  it  was  in  the  expectation  that  the  proprietors 
of  these  papers  would,  in  the  interval  of  our  recess,  con- 
fer together,  consider  this  matter,  and  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  would  be  enabled,  in  consideration  of 
the  consequent  increase  of  their  list  of  subscribers,  to  do 
this  work  at  a  small  cost.  But  when  I  come  to  look  at 
the  proposals  embodied  in  this  report,  if  I  understand  the 
explanation  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  they  pro- 
pose to  do  it  at  a  cost,  not  only  exceeding  that  at  which 
the  printing  for  the  Convention  is  done,  but  at  a  rate  ac- 
tually exceeding  that  given  to  the  public  printer  of  the 
Commonwealth !  Under  these  circumstances,  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  this  matter  ought  to  undergo  some  fur- 
ther revision,  and  that  through  the  agency  of  the  com- 
mittee who  have  made  this  report,  further  communica- 
tion should  be  had  with  these  proprietors,  in  order  to 
ascertain  whether,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  they  cannot  do  this  work  at  a  less  price  than  they 
now  propose. 

[Mr.  Sheffey  here  yielded  the  chair  to  Mr.  Watts.] 
Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  re-com- 
mitment of  this  matter,  if  it  be  the  judgment  of  this 
Convention  that  the  idea  indicated  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  shall  prevail — that  is,  that 
this  report  shall  be  re-committed  to  the  committee,  for 
further  consultation  with  the  editors  and  proprietors 
of  the  six  political  papers  in  this  city.  I  can  assure 
you,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  been  guided,  as 
I  think  every  member  of  the  committee  was,  by  the 
great  consideration  of  diffusing  as  far  as  possible  these 
debates  and  proceedings  through  the  great  channels  of 
information,  to  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth.  At 
the  short  session  two  months  ago,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  by  which  the  editors  and  proprietors  of  the  po- 
litical papers  of  the  city  of  Richmond  were  requested 
to  submit  their  proposals  for  the  publication  and  cir- 
culation of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  this  body, 
This  proposition  was  made  with  the  joint  concurrence 
of  the  proprietors  of  all  the  political  papers  of  this 
city,  and  we  questioned  the  proprietors  of  these  papers 
in  regard  to  the  cost  of  publication  and  circulation. 
I  will  not  undertake  to  say  any  thing  in  regard  to  the 
contract  for  the  printing  of  the  public  documents  by 
the  printer  of  this  Convention.  I  only  inform  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  of  afactwhich  I  received  from 
the  proprietors  of  the  political  papers,  that  they  pay 
to  the  compositor  for  setting  up  the  matter,  within  one 
cent  and  a  quarter  a  thousand  ems,  of  the  price  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


37 


public  printer  receives  for  his  entire  compensation. 
And  they  say  that  the  public  printer  may  take  this  con- 
tract, so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  for  they  cannot  do 
it  for  less  than  the  contract  for  your  legislative  print- 
ing. Sixty-two  and  a  half  cents  per  thousand  ems  is 
the  contract  price  of  the  public  printer  to  the  General 
Assembly.  Sixty-five  cents  is  charged  in  this  case, 
being  two  cents  extra,  and  for  what?  Why,  for  the 
trouble  and  cost  of  circulating  per  week  31,000  addi- 
tional copies  to  their  ordinary  circulation.  They  will 
be  compelled,  as  the  clerks  in  all  the  different  offices 
have  informed  me,  to  employ  additional  force  in  order 
to  circulate  this  matter,  and  the  additional  charge  of 
two  and  half  cents  will  not  pay  for  half  this  additional 
labor.  You  have  employed  a  stenographer  at  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  per  week,  and  according  to  the 
estimate  made  here  for  fifteen  weeks  the  amount  you 
will  pay  to  him  is  §3,750.  The  cost  of  publication,  ac- 
cording to  this  estimate,  will  amount  to  $10,594,  mak- 
ing about  §14.000,  for  the  reporting,  publication,  and 
distribution  of  these  documents  through  the  channel 
of  the  city  papers,  and  the  extra  circulation  of  2,700 
copies  of  each  number  of  the  supplement.  My  friend 
from  the  county  of  Preston  (Mr.  Brown)  has  stated, 
that  as  a  western  member,  he  objects  to  the  diffusion  of 
this  information  throughout  that  particular  portion  of 
the  State  where  the  largest  circulation  of  the  city  pa- 
pers, he  presumed,  existed.  I,  as  a  western  man,  want 
these  papers  to  go  into  that  very  region  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. Our  people,  as  has  been  stated  on  this 
floor,  

Mr.  BROWN.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  I 
will  say  that  I  have  no  objection  to  this  information 
going  to  any  part  of  the  State.  I  raised  the  objec- 
tion that  it  followed  the  city  press  wherever  it  might 
go,  and  that  it  was  connected  with  the  metropolitan 
press.  I  did  not  object  to  the  information  going  to 
any  particular  quarter  of  the  country. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  agree  perfectly  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  that  the  agency  of  the 
metropolitan  press  is  the  only  agency  we  can  employ 
for  the  general  circulation  of  these  debates  through- 
out the  Commonwealth.  Suppose  the  proposition  sub- 
mitted was  to  employ  the  provincial  press  as  it  is  call- 
ed, could  that  press  do  the  publication  to  half  the  ex- 
tent required,  even  at  a  cost  that  would  exhaust  the 
public  treasury  ?  Why,  no  sir.  Suppose  you  were  to 
send  the  reports  of  the  proceedings  to  the  Staunton 
Spectator,  Lynchburg  Republican,  to  the  Winchester, 
the  Clarksburg,  and  other  papers?  Why  their  circu- 
lation is  a  hundred  fold  more  limited  than  the  city 
circulation.  If  you  were  to  employ  any  other  medium 
of  circulation  than  the  metropolitan  press,  giving 
the  debates  the  same  circulation,  you  would  swell  the 
cost  to  the  Commonwealth  to  one  or  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  The  question  then  is  between  that 
plan,  and  the  extra  sheets  to  be  issued  from  the  press 
of  this  city,  and  to  be  circulated  by  members  of  this 
Convention.  Now,  I  undertake  to  say,  that  my  friend 
from  the  county  of  Ohio  (Mr.  Jacob)  would  find 
himself  just  in  the  same  difficulty  in  distributing  two 


cheerfully  acquiesce.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  price 
can  be  reduced,  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  as  a  mem- 
ber of  that  committee  to  make  the  effort  and  do  my 
best  to  promote  the  public  interests. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  with- 
draw his  motion  and  allow  me  to  offer  a  substitute. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    I  withdraw  the  motion. 

[Here  Mr.  Sheffet  resumed  the  chair,  which  had 
been  temporarily  occupied  by  Mr.  Watts.] 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  offer  the  following  substitute: 
Strike  out  all  after  the  word  Resolved,  and  insert  the 
following  : 

"  That  the  Secretary  be  authorized  to  contract  for 
the  publication  of  300  copies  of  the  debates  and  pro- 
ceediEgs  of  the  Convention  in  pamphlet  form,  for  the 
use  of  the  members." 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  now  move  to  re-commit  the  report 
and  resolution,  together  with  the  amendment  just  of- 
fered. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  I  hope  there  will  be  no 
difference  of  opinion  in  the  Convention  in  regard  to  re- 
committing this  report,  together  with  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin.  (Mr.  Claiborne.) 
because  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  more  this  sub- 
ject is  investigated,  the  more  thoroughly  the  minds  of 
members  will  become  convinced  that  the  report  of  the 
committee  as  it  now  stands,  proposes  the  most  efficient, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  cheapest  mode  of  distributing 
this  information  throughout  the  Commonwealth.  I  wish 
to  make  one  remark  in  reply  to  what  has  fallen  from 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  in  regard  to 
the  expense  attendant  upon  this  plan.  You  are  having 
your  printing  done  now  at  such  rates,  that  I  undertake 
to  prophecy  here  tc-day,  and  I  beg  gentlemen  to  bear 
it  in  mind,  that  before  the  Convention  adjourns,  appli- 
cation will  be  made  either  here  or  to  the  Legislature  by 
the  printer  to  the  Convention,  for  more  pay  than  his  con- 
tract now  gives  him.  You  have  contracted  with  him 
that  he  shall  do  the  work  at  thirty-five  cents  a  thousand, 
when  the  public  printer  to  the  Legislature  is  allowed 
sixty -two  and  a  half  cents  a  thousand  ;  and,  as  was  prop- 
erly remarked  a  little  while  ago  by  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  the  thirty-five  cents  is  within  a 
cent  and  a  half,  certainly  not  exceeding  two  cents,  of 
the  whole  cost  of  setting  up  the  type,  without  including 
any  other  of  the  expenses  of  printing.  This  is  an  in- 
stance of  putting  up  printing  to  the  lowest  bidder,  and 
I  think  it  is  a  strong  evidence  of  the  impropriety  of 
the  system.  The  debates  of  the  Convention  are  new  be- 
ing reported,  and  you  are  paying  at  the  rate  of  §250  per 
week  for  the  last  six  days'  reporting  here  ;  and  unless 
you  adopt  some  plan  for  their  publication  and  distribu- 
tion, I  shall  vote — although  originally  a  decided  advo- 
cate of  having  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  report- 
ed— to  do  away  with  the  reporting.  I  have  no  idea  of 
paying  that  price,  and  at  the  end  of  the  session  after  we 
have  got  through  and  paid  ?3,750  for  15  weeks'  report- 
ing, find  left  on  our  hands  a  mass  of  matter  which  will 
not  get  before  the  people.  If  this  reported  matter  is  not 
to  go  to  the  people  for  the  purpose  of  informing  them  as 


hundred  as  in  distributing  twenty  copies 
have  to  select  his  friends — his  two  hundred  favorites 
— in  his  district  to  supply  with  this  matter,  or  have 
numbers  enough  printed  to  supply  every  reading  man 
in  his  district.  Again,  I  believe  that  every  such 
publication,  unless  issued  as  a  supplement  to  an  estab- 
lished newspaper,  will  be  chargeable  with  pamphlet 
postage,  to  be  paid  either  by  your  constituents,  or 
out  of  the  public  money  by  order  of  this  Convention. 
The  postage  upon  this  amount  of  matter,  upon  each 
number,  Avould  more  than  make  up  the  difference 
betAveen  the  charge  which  these  proprietors  make 
and  the  cost  as  estimated  by  other  gentlemen.  I  have 
no  partiality  in  regard  to  this  proposition,  and  if  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  desires  to  make 
a  motion  to  re-commit  the  report  to  the  same  committee , 
in  order  that  further  conference  mav  be  had  with  the 


He  would  w^a*  Ave  are  doing  here,  the  contract  becomes  a  to- 
tally useless  one.  Before  the  question  is  taken  on  the 
motion  to  re-commit,  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Conven- 
tion for  a  moment  while  I  refer  briefly  to  the  report  of 
the  committee,  for  I  am  satisfied  that  if  the  minds  of 
members  are  once  brought  to  its  consideration,  they  will 
be  fully  satisfied  with  the  practical  effect  of  the  plan 
which  it  proposes.  The  calculation  is  that  15,500  copies 
of  the  reports  of  the  debates  are  to  be  published  semi- 
weekly,  making  an  aggregate  of  31,000  copies  weekly. 
Now  I  put  this  question  to  every  gentleman  in  the  Con- 
vention, can  the  wit  of  man  devise  any  other  mode  by 
which  31,000  copies  of  the  debates  of  the  Convention  can 
I be  distributed  in  any  single  week  ?  Can  you  put  this 
information  before  the  people  at  a  less  cost  and  with 
I  less  trouble  than  is  here  proposed  ?  No,  it  cannot 
I  be  done.    It  not  onlv  secures  the  information  to  the 


proprietors  of  these  papers  to  ascertain  whether  !  subscribers  of  the  papers  of  the  city,  but  it  provides  that 
the  price  which  is  charged  cannot  be  reduced,  I  shall  '2700  copies  shall  be  distributed  semi-weekly,  making 


38 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


5400  copies  weekly,  among  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, for  them  to  circulate  among  their  constituents. 
Twenty  copies  are  to  be  distributed  to  each  member 
twice  a  week  on  the  days  on  which  the  semi-weekly  pa- 
pers of  the  city  are  issued.  Now  from  the  district  of 
Norfolk— I  take  that  district  by  way  of  example  mere- 
ly— there  are  five  members,  and  into  their  hands,  by  this 
arrangement,  100  copies  of  the  reports  of  the  debates  are 
placed  for  the  purpose  of  distribution  among  their  people. 
This,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  in  addition  to  the  circulation 
given  them  by  the  city  press  through  their  regular  sub- 
scribers, If  gentlemen  desire  more  copies,  if  they 
desire  to  double  the  number  they  shall  receive,  the  ex- 
pense will  not  be  very  greatly  increased.  They  can  then 
take  their  40  copies  if  they  please,  and  the  publisher 
will  forward  them  to  such  persons  as  the  members  may 
direct.  And  if  the  gentleman  from  Preston  (Mr.  Brown  ) 
who  has  objected  to  this  plan  as  giving  only  a  partial 
distribution,  will  submit  an  amendment  providing  that 
that  there  shall  be  sent  to  one  or  more  of  the  papers  in 
his  district,  regularly,  a  number  of  copies  correspond 
ing  with  the  amount  of  their  circulation,  I  will  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.    (In  his  seat.)    So  will  I. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  I  am  willing  to  put  the 
press  of  the  gentleman's  district  on  the  same  footing  pre- 
cisely with  the  press  of  the  district  from  which  I  come. 
Then  let  the  gentleman  designate  the  papers,  let  him 
give  the  number  of  their  circulation,  and  then  let  the 
copies  of  the  supplement  be  sent  them  by  mail.  If  he 
will  make  that  proposition  I  will  vote  for  it,  for  I  desire 
of  all  things,  if  this  scheme  is  to  be  executed  at  all,  that 
it  shall  be  thoroughly  executed,  and  this  information  be 
diffused  throughout  every  quarter  of  the  Commonwealth. 
I  have  submitted  these  considerations  for  the  reflection 
of  gentlemen  before  this  question  shall  come  up,  because 
I  trust  that  when  it  does  come  up  again,  we  shall  pass 
upon  it  finally,  for  until  we  do  so,  there  is  nothing  con- 
nected with  this  matter  that  is  certain  and  fixed.  I  will, 
before  I  conclude,  add  another  remark  in  reply  to  the  in- 
quiry of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.)  I 
do  not  believe  there  is  among  the  political  press  of  Rich- 
mond, an  establishment,  besides  that  of  Mr.  Gallaher's, 
that  can  do  the  work.  I  am  satisfied  that  neither  the 
"Examiner,"  "Enquirer,"  "Whig,"  nor  any  other  political 
paper  of  this  city,  possesses  the  means  of  doing  this  work, 
and  that  Mr.  Gallaher's  is  the  only  establishment  among 
them  that  can  do  the  work  efficiently  and  properly.  I 
prefer  therefore  to  contract  with  him,  yet  I  will  not  do 
anything  that  will  look  like  pressing  the  question  pre- 
maturely upon  the  Convention. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  desire  very  briefly  to  give  my 
reasons  for  offering  an  amendment  to  the  report  of  the 
committee.  When  this  question  was  under  discussion 
before  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention,  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  remarked,  that  he  was 
not  willing  to  discriminate  among  his  constituents.  This 
is  my  principal  reason  for  voting  against  the  report  of 
the  committee.  I  am  not  willing  to  discriminate  in  fa- 
vor of  twenty  of  my  constituents,  and  against  twelve 
hundred  and  eighty.  The  county  in  which  I  live,  alone 
of  my  district,  has  thirteen  hundred  voters.  I  am  to 
receive  by  this  report,  twenty  copies  semi- weekly,  of  the 
supplement  containing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Convention,  and  if  I  furnish  these  twenty  copies  to 
twenty  of  my  constituents,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  discri- 
minate in  favor  of  twenty  particular  ones,  against  the  re- 
maining 1280.  I  must  either  do  this,  or  send  the  pro- 
ceedings to  them  by  piece-meal— sending  one  uumber  of 
the  supplement  on  one  day  to  one  man,  and  another, 
and  a  different  number,  on  the  next  day,  to  another  man, 
and  so  on,  until  every  man  in  my  district  may  perhaps 
be  supplied  with  an  unconnected  fragment  of  our  debates. 
This,  in  my  humble  opinion,  would  be  worse  than  no- 
thing. Now  I  presume,  that  the  15,500  copies  of  the 
political  papers  of  this  metropolis  that  now  go  out  into 
the  State  twice  every  week,  will,  in  any  event,  contain, 
if  not  a  full  report  of  the  debates  of  this  Convention,  at 
least  a  sketch  of  the  most  important  of  what  has  been 


done  here.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  every  press  in  this 
Commonwealth,  copying  from  the  first  Richmond  paper 
that  reaches  it,  will  give  to  its  readers  a  history  of  all 
that  is  transpiring  in  the  Convention.  I  presume  that 
those  who  subscribe  to  those  papers,  are  entitled  to  that 
much  at  the  hands  of  their  editors ;  and  I  take  it  for  grant- 
ed that  they  will  get  it,  without  our  being  called  upon 
to  pay  $10,000  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  these  gentle- 
men to  furnish  matter  to  their  readers  that  they  are 
bound  to  furnish  them.  I  do  not  care  about  sending  to 
the  peoj)le  of  Virginia  a  part  of  the  report  of  our  pro- 
ceedings unless  we  could  send  them  all.  I  am  not  wil- 
ling to  send  one  number  one  week  to  one  man,  and  ano- 
ther number  another  week  to  another  man.  I  am  not 
willing  to  furnish  one  man  with  information  upon  the 
legislative  department,  another  upon  the  executive,  and 
the  third  upon  the  judicial  department.  I  am  not  wil- 
ling to  send  a  copy  of  this  supplement,  containing  the 
debates  of  this  body  for  the  last  four  days,  to  any  man 
in  my  district.  And  although  I  do  not  doubt  that  I  have 
participated  as  much  as  any  member  in  those  debates, 
yet  I  have  no  desire  that  the  discussion  should  reach  the 
eye  of  a  single  solitary  individual  in  the  district  I  repre- 
sent. I  presume,  notwithstanding  I  give  this  body  cre- 
dit for  more  intelligence,  patriotism  and  judgment,  than 
my  friend  from  Orange,  (Mr.  Woolfolk,)  that  the  peo- 
ple do  not  desire  to  see  every  thing  that  will  be  uttered 
while  we  are  in  session.  My  proposition  is,  to  print  300 
copies  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  this  Convention, 
semi- weekly,  in  pamphlet  form,  for  the  use  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention.  I  propose  to  give  each  member 
a  copy  for  his  own  use,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  send- 
ing home.  I  do  not  propose  to  send  them  home  and 
oblige  gentlemen  to  discriminate  among  their  consitu- 
ents,  but  to  preserve  them  either  for  their  own  use  here, 
or  to  carry  home  after  the  session  has  closed.  I  voted 
for  the  appointment  of  a  stenographer,  and  I  will  not 
retrace  my  steps  upon  that  subject.  I  desire  that  the 
debates  of  this  body  should  be  preserved,  and  even  if 
they  should  be  found  to  turn  out  perfectly  worthless, 
when  we  build  another  monument  to  the  memory  of 
Washington,  they  will  do  to  put  among  other  documents 
to  be  deposited  in  the  corner  stone,  or  to  preserve  among 
the  archives  of  the  State.  It  is  just  and  it  is  right,  that 
they  should  be  deposited  in  the  libraries  of  the  State 
and  in  the  archives  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  I  am  wil- 
ling to  pay  the  price  we  have  agreed  to  pay  the  stenog- 
rapher, for  the  purpose  of  placing  them  there.  How 
can  you  adopt  any  plan  by  which  you  can  send  this  in- 
formation to  the  country,  without  forcing  me,  and  for- 
cing other  members  of  this  Convention,  to  discriminate 
in  favor  of  one  portion,  against  another  portion  of  our 
constituents  ?  Suppose  we  adopt  this  plan,  what  will  be 
its  practical  operation,  taking  my  own  case  as  an  illustra- 
tion ?  I  shall  receive,  during  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks, 
600  copies  of  the  semi-weekly  supplement,  and  if  I 
were  to  circulate  the  whole  of  them  only  in  the  county 
of  Franklin,  leaving  out  the  balance  of  my  district,  and 
send  each  copy  to  a  different  individual,  still  I  should 
only  be  able  to  supply  less  than  one-half  of  my  consti- 
tuents. I  ask  gentlemen  if  there  is  any  good  to  grow 
out  of  this  thing,  and  if  it  is  not,  therefore,  an  utter 
waste  of  money  ?  I  am  the  last  man  in  the  world  to 
stand  back  for  a  few  dollars,  and  if  a  proposition  shall 
be  introduced  to  furnish  every  man  in  this  Common- 
wealth with  this  supplement,  cost  what  it  will,  I  am 
prepared  to  vote  for  it.  If  wTe  are  to  go  into  this  busi- 
ness at  all,  we  ought  to  furnish  the  whole  people  with  the 
information,  and  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  a  part.  But 
I  think  the  people  would  be  satisfied  if  we  go  to  work 
and  prepare  a  Constitution  for  them.  No  body  intends 
that  they  shall  gulp  down  the  Constitution  without  look- 
ing at  it,  or  that  the  vote  shall  be  taken  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  the  day  after  the  Convention 
adjourns;  but  we  propose  to  give  time  to  the  people  to 
examine  it,  give  time  to  the  papers  of  the  State  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  upon  it,  and  to  give  the  members  of  the 
Convention  an  opportunity  to  go  home  and  tell  their  tale 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


3fJ 


with  regard  to  the  reforms  proposed.  For  one,  I  trust 
that  ample  time  and  opportunity  will  be  afforded  the 
people  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  Constitution  adopted 
by  this  Convention,  before  they  shall  be  called  upon  to 
give  their  final  vote  for  or  against  its  ratification.  I  ask, 
then,  if  we  are  to  expend  the  public  money  in  this  way, 
whether  the  price  we  shall  have  to  pay,  and  the  number 
of  copies  we  are  to  receive  of  this  supplement,  will  jus- 
tify us  in  discriminating  among  our  constituents,  or  an- 
swer the  purposes  which  the  committee  intended  ? 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two,  more  es- 
pecially as  I  have  had  some  hand  in  exciting  this  discus- 
sion and  opposition  to  the  report  of  the  committee.  I 
desire  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  city,  (Mr. 
Scott,)  that  my  hostility  to  the  report  grows  out  of  no 
hostility  to  the  city  press — the  metropolitan  press  as  it 
is  called  by  some.  I  have  no  feelings  of  that  kind  what- 
ever. There  is  a  homely  proverb  which  illustrates  my 
view  of  that  subject.  It  is  this  :  "  The  shoemaker's  wife 
is  always  the  worst  shod  of  any  woman  in  the  parish. " 
I  have  found  in  regard  to  the  city  of  Richmond,  so  far 
as  my  experience  has  gone,  that  she  gets  as  few  favors 
as  any  other  portion  of  the  Commonwealth.  I  have  no 
difficulties  on  that  score,  therefore,  but,  it  is  true  that 
I  am  not  willing,  at  the  public  expense,  to  do  that  which 
in  fact  does  little  more  than  facilitate  the  circulation  of 
the  report  of  our  proceedings  and  debates  among  the 
present  readers  of  the  metropolitan  press.  That  was  the 
true  foundation  of  my  objection  at  the  time.  If,  howev- 
er, you  cannot  devise  any  other  plan  effectual  for  circu- 
lating a  history  of  what  we  do  and  say,  among  the  peo- 
ple, then  I  will  submit  to  it.  But  I  am  under  the  im- 
pression that  something  more  can  be  done,  and  indeed 
that  so  far  as  spreading  this  information  among  the  pre- 
sent readers  of  the  city  press  is  concerned,  it  can  be  done 
without  aiy  public  expense.  I  am  not  old,  though  some 
people  think  I  am,  [laughter]  yet  I  am  old  enough  to  re- 
member the  proceedings  of  a  Convention  that  held  its 
sessions  here  20  years  ago.  I  recollect  the  discussions 
had  in  that  body,  and  I  thought  before  the  country  was 
agitated  in  reference  to  this  present  Convention  that  I 
remembered  pretty  well  the  debates  of  that  body.  It  is 
true,  after  the  close  of  its  sessions  I  bought  a  volume  of 
the  debates  at  one  of  the  bqpk-stores  in  the  country,  but 
I  never  looked  into  it  until  within  the  last  ninety  days. 
When  I  did  take  up  the  book  and  commenced  reading  the 
debates,  I  found  that  my  general  information  of  what  was 
done  in  that  body  was  quite  correct.  Where  did  I  get 
it  ?  From  one  of  the  Richmond  papers — the  Richmond 
Enquirer.  And  if  I  am  not  misinformed,  the  publication 
of  the  debates  of  that  Convention  cost  the  public  no- 
thing. 

A  MEMBER.  But  the  printer  lost  a  great  deal  of  mo- 
ney by  its  publication. 

Mr.  JACOB.  Now,  I  was  under  the  impression — 
though  that  impression  maybe  wrong — that  when  we  em- 
ployed a  stenographer  to  report  our  proceedings,  some 
plan  could  be  devised  by  which  our  reports  might  be  pub- 
lished in  the  newspapers  here  and  elsewhere — they  thank- 
fully receiving  them  from  us — without  our  paying  the  full 
price  for  their  printing.  Such  impressions  were  on  my 
mind.  They  may  be  wrong,  but  still  I  think  there  is  some- 
thing in  them.  Again,  I  have  moved  a  re-commitment  of 
the  report  to  the  committee,  and  among  other  reasons,  for 
the  following :  I  was  in  hopes  that  the  committee  might 
not  only  be  able  to  enter  into  a  new  arrangement  of  some 
kind  which  would  cost  less,  greatly  less  than  that  now  pro- 
posed, but  possibly  some  discrimination  might  be  made 
as  to  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  published. 
Now,  for  instance,  as  has  been  remarked  by  the  member 
over  the  way,  in  his  seat,  the  proceedings  of  this  body 
for  the  last  six  days,  have  clearly  been  of  no  importance 
to  the  public,  and  there  was  no  use,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
of  their  making  six  solid  columns.  I  do  not  know  that 
we  can  discriminate,  and  yet  I  can  well  imagine  that  the 
Convention  might  devise  some  plan  by  which  the  volume 
of  the  reports  might  be  reduced  one  half  at  least.  I 
wish  time  also  to  consider  that  proposition.    As  to  the 


remark  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,) 
that  I  would  find  as  much  difficulty  in  circulating  200 
newspapers  as  20,  so  far  as  my  constituents  were  con- 
cerned, I  have  this  to  say :  In  the  first  place  I.objectedto 
the  20  copies  not  with  the  expectation  that  I  was  going' 
to  get  200.  Not  at  all.  But  if  you  will  give  me  the  200 
copies,  I  think  I  can  show  that  my  constituents  will  be 
pretty  well  provided  for.  There  are  about  4000  voters 
in  the  District  which  I,  in  part,  represent,  and  there  arc 
four  of  us  to  represent  it.  If  we  each  send  200  copies, 
making  800  in  all,  we  can  send  a  copy  into  each  neigh 
borhood  of  four  or  five,  and  thus  give  every  man  in  the 
district  an  opportunity  of  reading  it,  and  of  thoroughly 
understanding  what  we  are  doing  here.  I  should  desire 
to  give  every  opportunity  to  all  classes  in  the  District  to 
read  the  account  of  our  proceedings,  but  I  beg  leave  to 
say  that  my  object  in  objecting  to  the  resolution  of  the 
committee  was  not  to  secure  the  200  copies,  or  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plan  I  have  indicated.  My  objection  to  it 
was,  that  I  did  not  wish  to  be  obliged  to  discriminate  in 
favor  of  a  small  portion  of  my  constituents  and  against 
all  the  residue. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech 
on  this  question,  but  merely  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
the  Convention  some  information  in  relation  to  the  dif- 
ferences in  the  prices  proposed  for  this  printing  and  that 
which  has  been  contracted  for  with  the  printer  to  this 
body,  and  the  reasons  for  the  difference,  as  they  strike 
my  mind.    I  do  so  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quer,  (Mr.  Scott,)  who  wishes  to  know  why  it  is  that  al- 
most double  the  price  is  proposed  to  be  charged  for  this 
printing  that  is  charged  for  the  printing  done   for  this 
Convention  under  the  contract.    I  will  state  a  fact  that 
may  not  be  known  to  every  member  of  this  body.  The 
printer  to  this  Convention  if  he  prints  a  resolution 
of  three  lines  on  a  page,  is  entitled,  I  believe,  to  pay 
for  the  whole  page.    Hence  he  can  print  these  three 
lines  cheaper   than  the  whole   page.    In  addition  to 
that,  I  understand,  our  printer,  in  order  to  make  up 
the  deficiency  of  his  contract — a  deficiency  which  must 
be  apparent  to  every  practical  man — prints,  perhaps  a 
resolution,  on  one  page  of  a  sheet,  doubles  the  sheet  to- 
gether, and  charges  the  Convention  for  every  page  in  it, 
blank  and  all.    This  is  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  ma- 
king up  the  deficiency  in  his  bid  for  public  printing.  It 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  this  Convention  will  agree  to 
the  payment  of  those  charges,  but  this  should  satisfy  ev- 
ery member  of  the  Convention  and  every  man  acquainted 
with  printing,  that  they  are  intended  to  cover  the  defi- 
ciency in  the  bid.    I  am  satisfied  from  the  best  informa- 
tion I  am  able  to  obtain  as  a  member  of  the  committee 
that  this  printing  is  proposed  to  be  done  as  cheap  as  it 
can  be  done  by  the  press  of  this  or  any  other  city,  and  if 
this  information  is  to  go  among  the  people  at  all,  it  must 
go  in  some  such  form  as  this.    The  people  of  Virginia 
are  to  be  denied  the  privilege  of  knowing  what  is  trans- 
piring in  this  body,  and,  according  to  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  (Mr.  Claibornk,)  the  reports 
of  our  proceedings  are  to  be  preserved  in  bound  volumes 
and  laid  among  the  dusty  archives  of  the  State.  And 
for  what  purpose  ?    For  that  of  enlightening  the  public 
mind  ?     No — but  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  from 
the  public  mind,  as  it  were,  a  knowledge  of  our  proceed- 
ings.   I  do  not  object  to  a  full  and  fair  report  of  our 
proceedings,  for  the  last  three  or  four  days,  going  before 
the  people  of  Virginia.    It  has  not  been  very  interesting 
to  us,  but  it  must  be  interesting  to  every  reader  in  the 
Commonwealth  to  know  what  is  going  on  here,  and  why 
this  delay  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  for  which  we 
were  convened  ?    I  have  no  objection  to  re-commit  this 


report  to  the  committee,  and  I  am  willing  that  we  shall 
avail  ourselves  of  all  the  means  that  can  be  furnished  us 
to  ascertain  whether  a  cheaper  and  more  efficient  plan 
can  be  procured  for  the  dissemination  of  this  informa- 
tion, but  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  suppressing  this  matter 
and  depriving  the  people  of  Virginia  of  the  fullest  and 
most  accurate  account  of  our  proceedings  here.  I  hope 
that  the  report  will  be  re-committed,  and  I  have  made 


40 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


this  statement  of  facts  merely  with  a  view  to  unde 
ceive  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  as 
to  this  matter  of  charges  for  the  public  printing,  and  to 
6how  why  more  is  charged  for  doing  this  work  than  is 
received  by  the  printer  to  the  Convention  according  to 
his  contract. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  am  not  satisfied  either  that  any 
good  can  result  from  the  re-commitment  of  this  report, 
or  that  the  motion  itself  is  in  order.  I  understand  the 
motion  is  to  re-commit  without  instructions,  that  is,  mere- 
ly to  send  the  report  back  to  the  committee,  who  have 
already  duly  and  fully  considered  the  subject,  and  pre- 
sented" this  report  as  the  result  of  their  deliberations. 
Now  I  apprehend  that  the  committee  will  do  no  more 
than  they  have  done,  if  the  motion  to  re-commit  should 
prevail.  This  report  is  the  result  of  their  judgment,  of 
their  deliberations,  and  the  best  they  could  do,  and  if  we 
send  it  back  to  them,  they  will,  I  suppose,  report  back  to 
us  nearly  the  same  thing  again.  I  rose  to  inquire,  hoAV- 
ever,  whether  tin's  was  not  a  select  committee,  appoint- 
ed expressly  to  consider  this  subject?  If  it  was,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it,  the  parliamentary  rule 
upon  the  subject  is,  that  a  select  committee  appointed 
to  consider  any  particular  subject,  is,  from  the  time  it 
reports,  absolutely  dissolved,  and  cannot  again  act  with- 
out an  express  vote  of  the  House  reviving  its  authority. 
[He  read  from  Scob.  51,  and  Grey  4,  361,  to  sustain  his 
view.] 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  committee  did  not 
report  fully,  but  only  in  part.  They  designed  to  make  a 
further  report  in  respect  to  the  Register  of  Debates. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  That  fact,  of  course,  removes  the 
case  entirely  from  the  application  of  the  parliamentary 
rule  to  which  I  referred.  Still,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we 
are  going  backwards  and  forwards  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter, more  than  is  necessary.  I  prefer  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  (Mr.  Stewart)  to  lay  the  mat- 
ter on  the  table,  so  that  members  may  have  time  to  con- 
sider the  subject  and  get  all  the  information  they  can, 
in  relation  to  it;  and  I  will  therefore  renew  the  motion 
to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  Will  the  gentleman  withdraw  that 
motion  for  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  HOPKINS.    With  pleasure,  sir. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  very  liberal  scheme 
of  printing  and  distributing  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  this  Convention,  and  I  am  willing  to  pay  therefor  a 
reasonable  compensation,  but  I  think  we  should  consider 
well  the  exact  nature  of  any  contract  that  we  may  make. 
Entertaining  this  view,  I  am  in  favor  of  re  committing 
this  report  to  the  committee  from  which  it  emanated, 
but  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  (Mr. 
Hopkins,)  that  we  ought  to  give  the  committee  some  in- 
structions in  relation  to  their  action.  I  have,  therefore, 
drawn  up  some  instructions  which  I  propose  to  offer  to 
the  committee,  and  which  I  will  read  for  the  information 
of  the  Convention.  My  proposition  is,  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  word  "  resolved,"  in  the  resolutions  of  instruc- 
tion proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  (Mr. 
Claiborne,)  and  substitue  in  lieu  thereof,  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Printing 
and  Publishing  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention, be  re-committed  to  the  said  committee,  with  in- 
structions to  consider  of  a  plan  for  printing  said  debates 
and  proceedings  in  a  suitable  form  for  binding  and  pre- 
servation, and  for  furnishing  the  country  press  with  co- 
pies thereof  for  distribution  amongst  their  subscribers — 
and  to  ascertain  and  report  a  proper  division  of  the 
2700  extra  copies  among  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, acccording  to  the  number  of  voters  in  their  respec- 
tive districts. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  proper  motion  will 
be  to  re-commit  the  report  and  resolutions,  with  the  in- 
structions proposed. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.    I  will  make  that  motion  them 
Mr.  HOPKINS.    I  will  merely  remind  the  Convention, 
that  if  this  subject  be  re-committed  to  the  committee, 
tksy  will  perhaps  have  it  under  consideration,  for  several 


days,  when  they  will  report  it  back  to  the  Convention 
in  probably  the  same  form  in  which  it  now  exists,  and  a 
debate  arise  upon  it  in  which  several  days  will,  it  is  like- 
ly, be  consumed.  I  have  consulted  with  the  chairman  of 
the  committee,  since  I  made  the  motion  to  lay  the  sub- 
ject on  the  table,  and  he  informs  me,  as  he  has  before 
stated  to  the  Convention,  that  the  committee  have  tho- 
roughly considered  the  matter  in  all  its  bearings,  and 
have  submitted  this  report  as  the  result  of  their  best  de- 
liberation and  soundest  judgment.  It  seems  to  me,  then, 
that  we  had  better  adopt  the  suggestion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan,  (Mr.  Stewart,)  and  lay  the  whole 
subject  on  the  table,  and  permit  members  to  consi- 
der upon  it  until  Monday.  Then  we  can  again  take  it 
up  and  dispose  of  it,  probably,  in  a  few  moments.  This 
course,  I  think,  will  greatly  facilitate  the  dispatch  of  the 
business,  while,  to  refer  the  subject  back  again  to  the 
committee,  will  be  attended  with  great  delay.  I  there- 
fore again  renew  the  motion  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on 
the  table. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  was  agreed  to. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  move  that  when  the  Convention 
adjourns  to-day,  it  be  to  meet  at  the  Universalist  church 
on  Wednesday,  the  15th  inst.,  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  hope  the  Convention  will  not  de- 
termine to  adjourn  from  this  hall  to  any  other,  until  it 
is  compelled  to  do  so,  but  that  it  will  continue  its  ses- 
sions here  until  the  committees  are  ready  to  report. 
Until  then,  it  will  not  be  required  of  us  to  meet  more 
than  one  hour  each  day,  and  that  will  give  ample  time 
and  opportunity  for  such  gentlemen  as  may  desire,  to  ex- 
ercise their  speaking  talent,  preparatory  to  the  discus- 
sions of  the  great  questions  w7hich  are  to  come  before  us. 
As  for  the  Universalist  church,  I  doubt  if  many  members 
know  where  it  is.  It  is  the  next  thing  to  the  •  'jumping 
off  place,"  so  far  as  Richmond  is  concerned — at  all  events, 
you  have  to  get  pretty  well  out  of  Richmond  to  find  it. 
[Laughter.]  I  hope,  until  the  committees  are  ready  to 
report,  at  any  rate,  this  Convention  will  hold  its  sessions 
here. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  The  hour  of  12  is  now  striking,  and  I 
move  that  the  Convention  adjourn. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.    Will  the  gentleman 
withdraw  his  motion  until  a  report  from  the  1st  Audi- 
tor is  communicated  to  the  Convention  ? 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    Certainly  sir. 

REPORT  OF  THE  FIRST  AUDITOR  CENSUS  RETURNS,  AC. 

The  following  communication  from  the  first  Auditor, 
was  then  read  by  the  Secretary: 

Auditor's  Office  ) 
Richmond,  Jan.  lltb,  1851.  f 
SiR:  Since  the  date  of  my  last  communication,  (during 
the  recess  of  the  Convention)  I  have  furnished  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Convention,  as  required  by  resolution  of 
that  body,  a  "corrected  table  showing  the  amount  that 
would  be  pava^e  bv  each  county,  city,  and  town,  under 
the  recent  assessment  of  lands,  at  the  rate  of  *  axation 
now  prescribed  by  law ;"  also  a  table  showing  "  the 
amount  of  taxes  accruing  on  each  subject  of  taxation,  for 
the  year  1850  ;"  also  a  table  showing  "the  disbursements 
through  this  office,  from  the  first  day  of  October,  1849, 
to  the  30th  day  of  September,  1850  inclusive,  clasr-ified 
as  far  a9  practicable  by  counties,  cities  and  grand  divis- 
ions." The  tabular  statement  showing  the  free  white, 
free  colored,  and  slave  population  of  each  county,  city  and 
town  of  this  Commonwealth  in  the  years  1790,  1800, 
1810, 1820, 1830, 1840  and  1850,"  is  complete  except  as  to 
population  in  1850  of  the  counties  of  Stafford,  Isle  of 
Wight,  Lunenburg,  Halifax  and  Patrick.  I  have  fur- 
nished to  the  printer  of  the  Convention,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Secretary,  the  two  completed  divisions  of  this  ta- 
ble, and  will  furnish  him  with  the  other  two  divisions,  in 
their  incomplete  condition  as  soon  as  he  desires  to  go  to 
work  on  them,  with  the  expectation  of  being  able  to  fill  up 
the  blanke  before  fee  is  ready  to  pt.rike  off  tbe  document 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


41 


I  have  pursued  this  course  that  there  may  be  as  little 
delay  as  possible  after  completing  the  table  in  furnish- 
ing it  to  the  Convention  for  the  use  of  its  members. 
With  high  respect,  I  am  your  obedient  servant, 

Ro/ Johnson,  First  Auditor. 
Hon.  John  Y.  Mason,  President  of  Va.  State  Convention, 
The  question  was  then  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Claiborne 
to  adjourn  until  Wednesday  next,  which  motion  that 
gentleman  "withdrew  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Floyd. 

DECLINATION  OF  SERVICE  ON  A  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  FLOYD.  I  ask  to  be  excused  from  further  ser- 
vice on  the  Executive  Committee,  as  I  have  been  ap- 
pointed to  fill  a  vacancy  in  the  Committee  on  the  Basis 
and  Apportionment  of  Representation. 

The  Convention  excused  Mr.  F.  as  requested  by  him. 

FILLING  OF  A  VACANCY  IN  A  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  FLOYD.  I  have  a  colleague  who  is  the  only  mem- 
ber of  this  body  whose  services  are  not  required  on  any 
committee,  and  I  would  suggest  that  he  (Mr.  Trigg)  be 
placed  on  the  Executive  Committee,  to  fill  the  vacancy 
occasioned  by  my  resignation. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  Mr.  Trigg  was  ac- 
cordingly appointed  a  member  of  the  Executive  Com 
mittee. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier,  the  Convention 
adjourned  until  Monday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 


MONDAY,  January  13,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  Saturday  was  read 
and  approved. 

PRINTING   OF   THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN  moved  that  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee on  printing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the 
Convention,  be  now  taken  up  for  consideration. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the 
resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  Camden  as  a  substitute  for 
the  resolution  of  instruction  to  the  committee  on  print- 
ing, proposed  on  Saturday  by  Mr.  Claiborne. 

Mr.  Claiborne's  resolution  was  read  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  authorized  to  con- 
tract for  the  publication  of  three  hundred  copies  of 
the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention  in 
pamphlet  form,  for  the  use  of  the  members. 

Mr.  Camden's  substitute  for  the  above  was  read  as 
follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Print- 
ing and  Publishing  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the 
Convention,  be  re-committed  to  said  committee  with 
instructions  to  consider  of  a  plan  for  printing  said  de- 
bates and  proceedings  in  a  suitable  form  for  binding 
and  preservation,  and  for  furnishing  the  country  press 
with  copies  thereof  for  distribution  amongst  their  sub- 
scribers— and  to  ascertain  and  report  a  proper  division 
of  the  2700  extra  copies  among  the  members  of  the 
Convention  according  to  the  number  of  voters  in  their 
respective  districts. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  My  object  in  submitting  the  amend- 
ment was  to  have  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention 
printed  in  a  suitable  form  for  binding  and  preservation. 
1  learn,  however,  that  this  is  not  to  be  effected  except 
at  a  very  heavy  additional  expense,  an  expense  which 
T  am  not  willing  to  incur — 

Mr.  STEWART.  Tf  the  gentleman  from  Harrison 
(Mr.  Camden)  will  allow  me  a  moment  

Mr.  CAMDEN.    Certainly  sir. 

Mr.  STEWART.  In  regard  to  this  question  of  print- 
ing, I  have  been  animated  solely  by  a  desire  to  get  at 
the  best  scheme  and  to  do  justice  to  all  parties, — to 
ourselves  and  to  the  different  gentlemen  offering  com 
peting  propositions  here.  I  beg  leave  to  send  to  the 
Chair  the  following  paper,  and  ask  that  it  may  be  read, 
when  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  can  judge  whether 
it  meets  his  views  or  not. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  paper  referred  to,  as 
follows  : 


To  the  Hon.  the  President  and  Members  of  the  Convention: 
The  undersigned,  in  November  last,  proposed  to  pub- 
lish the  proceedings  and  debates  of  your  honorable 
body,  in  a  Conventional  Register,  on  the  plan  of  the 
Congressional  Globe.  Believing  still  that  this  plan 
combines  advantages,  in  a  very  great  degree,  over  any 
other  plan  which  has  been  submitted,  we  beg  leave  to 
renew  our  proposition  for  the  publication  in  that  form. 
It  is  a  form,  which,  while  it  accomplishes  fully  all  the 
purposes  of  the  newspaper  supplement,  recommended 
by  a  committee  of  your  body,  will,  at  the  same  time, 
be  a  convenient  form  for  binding  into  a  book  of  neat 
and  portable  size,  for  the  use  of  libraries,  offices,  &c, 
at  the  close  of  the  publication.  We  have  caused  to  be 
placed  on  your  Secretary's  table,  a  book,  as  a  speci- 
men of  the  size  and  form  which  we  allude  to,  to 
which  we  invite  your  attention.  It  is,  we  repeat,  a 
convenient  and  enduring  form,  which  all  who  receive 
the  paper,  can  have  bound  up  as  soon  as  the  publica- 
tion shall  be  completed,  into  an  admirable,  and  cer- 
tainly valuable  book.  If  printed  in  large,  unwieldy, 
newspaper  supplemental  sheets,  the  probability  is,  that 
few,  if  any,  will  ever  assume  the  form  of  a  book,  but 
that  they  will  most  likely  be  blown  and  scattered  about 
like  the  leaves  of  the  forest. 

We,  therefore,  propose  to  your  honorable  body,  to 
print  the  Register  in  quarto  form.  (We  do  not  be- 
lieve, in  view  of  the  many  grave  and  important  sub- 
jects which  you  have  to  deliberate  upon  and  discuss, 
that  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  your  body  could 
be  embraced  in  a  book  of  smaller  size  ;  that  is  to  say, 
in  one  volume  of  octavo  form  ;  and  it  certainly  is  de- 
sirable that  the  whole  should  be  embraced  in  one  book.) 
We  propose  to  furnish,  if  desired,  such  newspapers  as 
may  be  designated,  Avith  any  number  of  copies  for  dis- 
tribution with  their  papers,  as  extras  ;  to  furnish,  if 
required,  the  members  of  your  body  with  any  specified 
number  of  copies  ;  or  to  comply  with  such  regulations 
in  regard  thereto,  as  you  may  think  proper  to  adopt. 
And  this  we  propose  to  do  on  the  following  terms  : 
50  cents  per  thousand  ems  for  the  composition, 
50  cents  per  token  for  the  press  work — and 
$ 4  per  ream  for  the  paper. 

These  are  rates,  below  which  the  work  cannot  be 
done  neatly,  correctly  and  properly  in  all  respects, 
without  a  sacrifice.  We  propose  to  print  the  Register 
in  a  larger  and  plainer  type  than  is  contained  in  the 
book  which  we  present  as  a  specimen. 

We  are  prepared  to  execute  the  work  as  rapidly,  and 
in  as  good  style,  as  it  can  be  done  in  any  office  in  Vir- 
ginia. 

All  of  which  is  most  respectfully  submitted. 

John  J.  Palmer, 
Colin,  Baptist  &  Nolan. 

Richmond,  Jan.  13,  1851. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  I  was  stating  to  the  Convention,  when 
I  was  up  before,  that  I  had  supposed  that  to  print  these 
debates  in  a  form  suitable  for  binding,  would  cost  much 
more  than  I  was,  for  one,  prepared  for,  and  I  was 
about  to  ask  leave  of  the  Convention  to  withdraw  the 
proposition  I  submitted  on  Saturday.  The  proposition 
that  has  just  been  read,  however,  may  change  my  vote, 
if  I  an*  satisfied  that  it  is  practicable  to  print  these  de- 
bates in  the  form  indicated  at  no  additional  expense. 
This  matter  of  printing,  however,  is  one  with  which  I 
am  wholly  unacquainted,  and  I  can  therefore  form  no 
opinion  with  reference  to  the  probable  cost  of  the  two 
propositions.  If  I  am  satisfied  that  it  can  be  printed  in 
the  form  I  desire,  at  the  same,  or  with  but  little  addi- 
tional expense,  I  should  prefer  it.  For  the  present,  there- 
fore, I  will  make  no  motion  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  STEWART.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  with- 
draw his  motion,  but  that  this  whole  subject,  including 
all  the  propositions  and  resolutions  submitted,  will  be 
re-committed  to  the  select  committee  for  further  exami- 
nation and  report.  I  sm  satisfied  that  the  proposition 
which  has  just  been  read  to  the  Convention  is  about  the 
best  we  have  had.  It  is  the  one  I  submitted  to  this  Con- 
vention before  we  adjom-ned  for  the  recess,  on  the  last 


4:2 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  COVNENTION. 


day  of  our  meeting,  and  which  went  by  the  board  amid 
the  hurly-burly  which  prevailed  here  on  that  day.  The 
only  object  I  have,  for  I  care  not  who  gets  this  printing, 
is  that  we  may  get  our  work  done  right,  in  a  creditable 
manner,  and  in  some  portable,  neat  style,  which  will 
enable  us  to  have  it  bound  in  book  form,  as  well  as 
to  send  to  our  constituents  and  enable  them  to  do  the 
same.  This  supplement,  it  is  manifest,  can  never  be  of 
any  use  in  that  way,  for  it  will  be  so  unwieldy  that  the 
people  will  never  have  it  bound  up.  And  if  we  do  or- 
der these  15,000  or  30,000  copies — which  will  only  serve 
a  temporary  purpose,  and  then,  it  is  most  likely,  be  used 
for  waste  paper — they  will,  the  greater  part  of  them, 
be  distributed  in  Eastern  Virginia,  for,  by  the  best  cal- 
culation that  can  be  made,  not  more  than  4,000  of  them 
will  go  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  Now  the  idea  that  we 
might  thus  prevail  on  the  public  mind  in  that  quarter  to 
listen  to  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  white  basis,  I 
have  taken  into  consideration,  yet  at  the  same  time, 
while  the  white  basis  has  a  large  majority  in  its  favor 
west  of  the  mountains,  we  are  not  afraid  to  have  the  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  the  mixed  basis  go  there,  but  rather 
wish  them  to  go  there.  And  I  wish  all  the  arguments 
on  all  questions  to  go  before  the  people ;  and  if  we  are 
to  expend  the  public  money  in  having  our  debates  pub- 
lished at  all,  I  ask  that  it  may  be  done  in  some  manner 
and  in  such  a  shape  as  will  be  creditable  to  this  body  and 
to  the  city  of  Richmond  also.  For  that  reason,  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  any  necessity  for  our  being  in  great 
haste  in  this  matter.  It  is  better  that  we  should  take 
the  thing  calmly  and  considerately,  and  frame  some  plan 
which  will  enable  us  to  have  the  work  done  as  it  ought 
to  be.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  this  whole  subject  will  be 
re-committed  to  the  committee,  and  that  the  proposition 
just  read  will  also  go  before  them  for  consideration.  I 
care  not,  I  repeat,  who  gets  this  printing,  so  long  as  it  is 
done  creditably.  The  gentleman  who  is  at  the  head  of 
this  s  upplement  publication  proposes  also  to  publish  a 
register  of  the  debates  in  the  form  of  the  Congressional 
Globe ;  other  gentlemen  have  proposed  the  same  thing, 
and  with  that  form  I  am  satisfied  the  Convention  will  be 
better  suited  than  with  the  supplement.  This  plan 
seems  to  have  been  adopted  for  the  accommodation  of 
the  different  papers  here,  but  does  it  accommodate  them  ? 
Does  it  send  the  debates  regularly  by  the  mails  ?  I  am 
informed  that  it  does  not,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to 
print  the  full  quantity  of  supplements  in  time  for  the 
mails.  I  ask  that  if  any  gentleman  has  any  information 
on  the  subject  he  will  give  it  to  the  Convention.  We 
have  not  come  here  to  play  into  the  hands  of  any  one, 
and  it  is  our  duty  to  give  this  information  to  all,  without 
favor.  Let  us  have  this  work  done  in  a  manner  that  will 
accommodate  the  Convention  and  the  people ;  and  I  am 
satisfied  that  we  shall  do  this  if  we  have  it  published  in 
some  such  form  as  the  Congressional  Globe. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  suppose  I  will  be  in  order  to  move 
to  re-commit  the  whole  subject,  including  the  report 
of  the  committee  and  every  thing  relating  to  it.  This 
is  a  subject  upon  which  I  have  very  little  information, 
but  I  desire  to  publish  our  debates,  and  I  prefer  doing 
it  on  the  cheapest  plan.  A  new  proposition  has  come 
in  this  morning,  and  I  think  the  Committee  on  Printing 
ought  to  take  it  into  consideration.  I  therefore  move 
that  the  whole  subject  and  every  thing  appertaining  to 
it,  be  re-committed  to  the  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Harrison  (Mr.  Camden)  is  not  in  the  form 
of  an  amendment.  It  is  a  proposition  to  re-commit 
with  instructions,  and  the  motion  just  made  is  to  re- 
commit without  instructions. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  Under  these  circumstances  I  will 
withdraw  the  instructions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  re-commit  with 
instructio  is  being  withdrawn,  the  question  would  be  on 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  (Mr. 
Claiborne,)  but  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier  moves 
the  re-commitment  of  the  whole  subject. 

The  motion  to  re-commit  was  agreed  to. 


Mr.  PRI^E.  As  we  seem  to  have  no  business  to 
transact  I  suppose  our  sitting  here  will  be  productive 
of  very  little  good,  and  I  therefore  move  that  the  Con- 
vention adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to — 
_  And  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morn- 
ing at  10  o'clock. 


TUESDAY,  January  14,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Doggett,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 1 

THE  INDIAN  TRIBES  OF  VIRGINIA. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  have  a  resolution  which  I  ask  to 
have  printed  and  referred  to  the  Legislative  Committee. 
It  is  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights  be 
instructed  to  inquire  and  report  if  anv,  and  what  provi- 
sions are  necessary  to  be  inserted  in  the  new  Constitu- 
tion, concerning  the  Pamunkey  and  Mattaponi  Indians  or 
any  other  remnants  of  the  old  tributary  Indians,  who 
may  be  still  remaining  in  this  Commonwealth. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Legislative  Committee,  as  gentle- 
men must  be  aware,  has  already  had  too  much  referred 
to  it,  and  this  proposition,  I  think,  ought  to  be  referred 
to  some  other  committee.  I  do  not  see  that  the  duties 
of  the  Legislative  Committee  have  any  proper  connec- 
tion with  the  tribes  of  Indians. 

Mr.  ^DOUGLAS.  I  had  supposed  that  this  subject 
might  be  taken  into  consideration  together  with  the  sub- 
ject of  free  negroes.  The  Indian  tribes,  I  am  aware,  are 
entitled  to  certain  immunities,  but  there  are  very  few 
persons  except  mulattoes  and  free  negroes  in  the  two 
Indian  towns  in  King  William  county. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by 
striking  out  the  words  "Legislative  Committee,"  and  in- 
serting in  lieu  thereof,  the  words  "  Committee  on  the  Bill 
of  Rights."  As  has  been  suggested  to  me  with  very 
great  propriety,  there  is  no  people  under  the  sun  whose 
rights  have  been  more  outrageously  abused  than  the  In- 
dians, and  therefore,  it  is  very  proper  that  the  commit- 
tee on  the  natural  rights  of  man  should  take  the  subject 
under  their  consideration.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  will  accept  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Mecklenburg,  (Mr.  Goode.) 

The  resolution  was  modified  accordingly  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights.  The  Convention 
however,  refused  to  print  it. 

LIQUIDATION  OF,  AND  LEGISLATIVE  POWER  TO  CREATE,  STATE 
DEBT. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  I  desire  to  offer  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions, which  I  ask  may  be  printed  and  referred  to  the 
appropriate  committee.    They  are  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  following  resolutions  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  of  the  Go- 
vernment for  inquiry  and  report. 

Resolved,  That  there  shall  be  set  apart  annually,  by  the 
Auditor  and  disbursing  officers  of  the  Treasury,  from  the 
revenue  accruing  from  taxation  and  the  fund  for  inter- 
nal improvements,  a  sum  equal  to  eight  per  cent,  of  the 
State  debt  existing  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  1852. 
The  fund  thus  set  apart  shall  be  called  the  sinking  fund, 
and  shall  be  set  aside  and  applied  by  the  officers  afore- 
said, to  the  payment  of  the  interest  of  the  State  debt 
and  the  principal  of  such  part  as  may  be  redeemable.  If 
no  part  be  redeemable,  then  the  residue  of  the  sinking 
fund,  after  the  payment  of  interest,  shall  be  invested  in 
the  bonds  or  certificates  of  debt  of  this  Commonwealth, 
or  of  the  United  States,  or  of  some  of  the  states  of  this 
Union,  and  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  State  debt,  as 
it  shall  become  redeemable.  For  the  purpose  of  setting 
apart,  making  and  superintending  this  investment,  the 
said  officers  shall  constitute  a  board,  with  all  necessary 
power  to  carry  into  effect  this  article,  the  organization  of 
which  board  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


43 


Whenever  a  debt  shall  be  contracted  after  the  first 
day  of  January,  1852,  the  said  officers  shall,  in  like  man- 
ner, set  apart,  annually,  for  24  years,  a  sum  equal  to 
eight  per  cent,  of  the  debt,  at  the  time  of  its  contraction, 
for  the  space  of  24  years  from  that  time,  which  sum 
shall  be  a  part  of  the  sinking  fund,  and  shall  be  applied 
in  the  manner  before  directed.  The  revenue  thus  appro- 
priated, shall  not  be  subject  to  appropriation  by  the  Le- 
gislature, except  in  time  of  war,  insurrection  or  invasion. 

2nd.  Resolved,  That  the  Legislature  shall  not  pledge 
the  faith  of  the  State,  or  bind  it,  in  any  form,  for  the 
debts  or  obligations  of  any  company  or  corporation 
whatever. 

3rd.  Resolved,  That  the  Legislature  shall  not  contract 
loans,  or  cause  to  be  issued  certificates  of  debt,  or  bonds 
of  the  State,  irredeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  State, 
for  a  period  greater  than  twenty-four  years. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  This  is  a  subject  which  has  attract- 
ed much  attention  out  of,  as  well  as  in  the  Convention, 
and  as  it  is  one  of  very  great  importance,  I  move  that 
the  resolutions  be  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  motion  already  before 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  STROTHER.  I  would  suggest  to  the  mover  of 
these  resolutions,  that  they  be  laid  on  the  table  and  print- 
ed. I  should  like  to  have  an  opportunity  to  examine 
them  and  see  what  they  are,  in  order  to  determine  on 
the  question  of  reference. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  would  suggest  to  my  friend  from  Rap- 
pahannock, (Mr.  Strother,)  if  it  be  allowable  to  say  a 
word  pending  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table — 

Mr.  STROTHER.    I  will  withdraw  the  motion,  sir. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  desired  to  say,  that  this  subject  is  al- 
ready under  consideration  in  one  of  the  committees  in 
this  body,  but  it  has  been  deemed  as  one  of  sufficient 
magnitude  to  present  to  the  consideration  of  the  mem- 
bers generally,  and  I  would  therefore  suggest  to  the  mo- 
ver, the  propriety  of  having  his  resolutions  printed,  so 
that  the  attention  ot  members  generally,  may  be  direct- 
ed to  the  subject.  The  committee  have  already  acted  on 
the  question  to  some  extent,  and  i  would  prefer  that 
these  resolutions  should  also  be  referred  to  them.  And 
if  they  be  thus  disposed  of,  it  will  be  fully  competent  for 
any  member,  in  the  future  action  of  the  committee,  to 
offer  them  as  an  amendment  or  substantive  proposition. 
I  hope,  therefore,  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  refer  the  resolutions. 

Mr.  STROTHER.  I  have  no  particular  objection  to 
the  resolutions  going  at  once  to  the  committee,  but  I 
thought,  as  they  embraced  very  important  propositions, 
it  was  desirable  that  they  should  be  laid  on  the  table  and 
printed,  so  that  the  Convention  might  not  only  consider, 
but  also,  if  it  was  thought  proper,  vary  or  add  to  them. 
I  thought,  upon  the  consideration  of  the  subject,  sug- 
gestions might  occur  to  members  of  value  and  impor- 
portance  connected  with  it,  and  it  was  with  that  view 
that  I  suggested  that  the  resolutions  should  be  laid  on 
the  table ;  but  I  am  indifferent  as  to  what  disposition 
shall  be  made  of  them,  and  will  not  renew  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolutions  in  the  form  in 
which  they  now  stand,  would  operate  as  an  instruction 
to  the  committee. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  move  then,  to  make  them  resolutions 
of  inquiry, 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  I  designed  that  the  resolutions 
should  be  in  that  form. 

The  resolutions  were  then  modified  so  as  to  direct  the 
committee  to  inquire  and  report  upon  the  subject,  and 
in  that  form  were  referred  to  the  Legislative  Committee, 
and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN,  from  the  committee  appointed  on 
the  subject  of  printing  and  publishing  the  debates  of  the 
Convention,  stated  that  the  committee  had  had  another 
meeting,  and  came  to  a  further  determination  in  relation 
thereto,  and  desired  him  to  submit  the  following  report, 
which  was  read  by  the  Secretary  : 


The  committee  appointed  to  consider  and  report  a 
plan  for  printing  and  publishing  the  debates  and  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention,  have  again  considered  the  sub- 
ject, and  respectfully  report:  That  after  having  weighed 
the  various  schemes  submitted  to  their  consideration, 
they  adhere  to  the  plan  recommended  in  their  former 
report.  They  believe  that  it  will  secure  the  most  prompt, 
correct  and  impartial  publication  of  the  authorised  reports  ; 
that  it  will  place  these  reports  in  the  hands  of  the  great- 
est number  of  readers  ;  that  it  will  put  it  out  of  the 
power  of  the  Richmond  press  to  exert  its  potent  influence 
on  one  side,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  side,  of  any 
great  question  of  reform  ;  that  it  will  remove  from  its 
editors  the  temptation  to  make  improper,  or  what  will, 
by  some,  be  deemed  improper  discriminations,  by  publish- 
ing only  what  will  accord  with  their  peculiar  views,  and 
thereby  it  will  keep  down  discontents  in  the  Convention, 
promote  the  harmony  of  its  deliberations,  and  the  pros- 
pect of  unanimity,  in  preparing  and  adopting  a  wise 
Constitution. 

In  addition  to  circulating  18,200  cojDies  of  the  supple- 
ment, proposed  in  their  former  report,  the  number  may 
be  greatly  increased  at  a  very  trifling  additional  expense. 
At  a  cost  of  four  cents  a  week,  or  sixty  cents  for  a  ses- 
sion of  fifteen  weeks,  any  person  in  the  Commonwealth, 
who  is  not  a  subscriber  to  either  of  the  Richmond  pa- 
pers, may  procure,  through  his  representative  in  the 
Convention,  or  otherwise,  full  and  perfect  reports  of  all 
that  is  said  and  done  in  the  Convention. 

In  the  table  of  charges  exhibited  in  their  former  re- 
port, the  committee  have  ascertained  there  was  an  error. 
The  cost  of  composition  was  set  down  at  $2,106.  It 
ought  to  have  bsen  $1,823.20.  The  error  originated  out 
of  a  mistake  in  supposing  that  a  column  of  the  supple- 
ment contained  six  thousand,  when  it  contains  only  five 
thousand  two  hundred. 

The  committee  will  further  state,  that  if  the  Conven- 
tion desire  it,  Mr.  Gallaher  will  reduce  the  charge  for 
paper,  but  that  an  inferior  sort  of  paper  must  necessarily 
be  furnished.  Your  committee  decline  recommending  any 
change  in  this  item  of  charge,  as  they  suppose  the  Con- 
vention wish  the  work  well  done,  if  done  at  all.  In  this 
connexion  it  may  be  remarked,  that  in  almost  every  ream 
of  paper  there  are  a  greater  or  less  number  of  damaged 
sheets.  Mr.  Gallaher  proposes  to  charge  the  Common- 
wealth only  with  the  paper  that  is  used,  and  to  bear  the 
loss  of  the  imperfect  sheets.  It  will  also  cost  Mr.  Galla- 
her sixty  dollars  a  week  to  distribute  the  supplements 
through  the  offices  of  the  city  press.  The  committee 
will  now  proceed  to  show  that  there  exist  very  exagge- 
rated ideas  of  the  cost  of  disseminating  these  reports 
among  the  people.  It  will  be  remembered  that  it  was 
proposed  in  the  former  report  to  publish  the  supplement 
twice  a  week,  and  the  calculation  was  based  upon  the 
supposition  that  each  issue  would  contain  eighteen  col- 
umns, or  matter  equal  to  the  size  of  six  columns  a  day. 
The  charges,  after  correcting  the  error  referred  to  in  a 
former  part  of  this  report,  were  as  follows  : 

Composition,       -       -       -  $1,823  20 

Press  work,  etc,     -  2,418  00 

Paper,  &c,   4,450  50 

Total  for  31,000  copies  a  week,  -  $S,691  70 
It  has  been  supposed  that  if  two  columns  a  day  be 
added  to  the  matter,  the  cost  will  be  increased  thirty- 
three  and  a  half  per  cent.,  when,  in  fact,  the  only  addi- 
tional cost  will  be  that  of  the  composition  for  the  two 
columns,  the  paper  and  press-work  being  the  same.  Six 
columns  a  day  would  make  eighteen  columns  to  each 
semi-weekly  issue,  leaving  a  blank  space  for  six  columns. 
Eight  columns  would  make  twenty -four  columns  each 
issue,  which  would  just  fill  the  sheet  of  the  supplement. 
The  additional  cost  then  of  eight  over  six  columns  a  day 
for  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks  would  be  only  $610.40. 

Your  committee,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption 
of  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  contract  with  Robert  H. 
Gallaher,  and  the  proprietors  of  the  Richmond  Whig, 


44 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Enquirer,  Times,  Examiner,  and  Republican  Advocate, 
for  the  publication  and  distribution  of  the  debates  of  the 
Convention  as  set  forth  in  the  report  heretofore  made  by 
this  committee,  and  at  the  following  rates :  Three  dol- 
lars and  thirty-eight  cents  for  composition  of  matter 
equal  to  a  column  of  the  supplement ;  $4.60  per  ream  for 
paper  actually  printed,  the  paper  to  be  of  first  quality ; 
sixty-four  cents  a  token  for  press  work,  folding,  <kc.\  and  I 
two  cents  a  copy  for  2100  copies  of  the  supplement  to  be 
wrapped,  directed,  and  mailed  by  the  publishers  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  may  direct ;  and  that  the  Secreta- 
ry take  bond  with  security  for  the  faithful  performance 
of  the  contract. 

The  PRESIDENT  announced  the  question  to  be  on 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  reported  by  the  commit- 
tee. 

Mr.  DAVIS.    I  confess  I  have  an  insuperable  objec- 
tion to  one  portion  of  that  report.    It  is  in  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  information  is  to  be  distributed  to 
the  people  of  Virginia.    I  have  no  objection  to  pay  the 
editors,  nor  have  I  any  objection  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  printing  shall  be  done  by  what  has  been  termed  the 
"  allied  powers  "  of  the  press  of  this  city.  I  have  no  ob- 
jection, not  a  particle  of  objection,  to  its  being  print- 
ed by  the  six  political  editors,  nor  have  I  any  objec- 
tion to  the  pay,  I  would  not  care  if  the  amount  were 
twice  or  three  times  as  much,  but  I  do  object  to  the 
mode  of  distribution,  and  I  hope  that  this  Convention, 
being  a  Reform  Convention,  will  not  permit  the  informa- 
tion to  be  diffused  to  any  favored  class  of  the  community. 
I  trust  that  this  Convention  will  take  upon  itself  the  la- 
bor of  distributing  such  information  as  we  have  to  offer 
to  the  people,  at  least  fairly  ;  that  we  shall  not  select  a 
class  of  persons  who  shall  first  be  supplied  with  the  in- 
formation emanating  from  this  body,  and  then  if  there  be 
any  remnant  left,  that  we  will  distribute  that  remnant  to 
a  class  not  so  favored  as  the  subscribers  of  the  political 
press  of  this  city.    We  shall  have  a  most  ardent  contest 
here,  perhaps,  before  the  ides  of  March — certainly,  we 
shall  have  a  most  ardent  contest,  if  the  signs  of  the  times 
do  not  deceive  us,  before  the  labors  of  the  Convention 
shall  be  brought  to  a  close — and  can  any  one  question, 
that  after  we  shall  have  formed  a  Constitution,  we  will 
not  have  to  fight  the  battle  over  again  before  the  body  of 
the  people  ?    Is  there  any  man  here  who  can  expect  that 
the  work  which  we  shall  turn  out  will  be  received  with- 
out objection?    If  there  is  any  man  in  this  Convention 
who  can  flatter  himself  that  we  shall  be  able  to  reform 
the  abuses  of  our  government — that  we  shall  be  able  to 
enact  a  Reform  Constitution  which  will  be  received  with- 
out the  most  ardent  opposition — I  beg  leave  to  say  to 
such  member,  he  greatly  deceives  himself,  at  least  in  my 
humble  judgement.    I,  "for  one,  am  for  preserving  this 
body  in  all  its  popularity  with  the  working  men  of  this 
community.    I  am  for  cherishing  the  good  opinion  of 
the  people  towards  this  body  down  to  the  humblest  me- 
chanic who  may  have    a  right  to  cast  his  vote  for  or 
against  the  Constitution  we  shall  make,  if  we  shall  be 
fortunate  enough  to  make  one  at  all.    Send  out  your  in- 
formation to  a  favored  class,  and  to  whom  do  you  address 
yourselves  ?    Why,  too  often,  I  think,  it  will  be  found 
you  address  yourselves  to  the  persons  who  are  in  pos- 
session of  this  government ;  you  address  yourselves  to 
those  men  who  are  the  very  last  in  the  community  to  be 
satisfied  with  any  amendment  that  you  mav  propose  to 
the  existing  form  of  our  government,  and  who  will  be  dis- 
pose^ from  the  very  first  incipient  stage  of  our  debates, 
to  ridicule  this  body  and  bring  it  into  contempt  before 
the  masses  of  the  people.    Let  us  then  diffuse  our  infor- 
mation at  least  fairly  to  the  people  ;  let  us  make  no  se- 
lections of  a  favored  class ;  let  us  take  upon  ourselves 
the  labor  of  distributing,  at  least  fairly,  that  information 
which  may  emanate  from  this  body"    There  are  inanv 
gentlemen  in  this  community  who  are  subscribers  to  some 
half  dozen  newspapers.    To  such  an  individual  you  send 
half  a  dozen  of  these  extra  sheets  of  the  supplement, 
and  thus  he  has  the  distribution  of  them,  not  because  he 
is  a  voter,  but  because  ha  is  a  subscriber  to  half  a  dozen 


political  papers,  while  to  his  indigent  neighbor,  who  is 
perhaps  equally  intelligent,  equal  by  nature  at  least,  you 
send  no  paper  at  all.  I  ask  whether  such  an  individual 
might  not  inquire,  why  is  it  that  my  wealthy  neighbor 
has  the  distribution  of  half  a  dozen  of  these  supplements 
and  I  have  none  ? — why  is  it  that  this  man  who  used  the 
utmost  of  his  power  to  prevent  the  election  of  Mr.  such 
a  one  and  such  a  one  who  is  elected  to  the  Convention,  is 
favored  with  some  half  a  dozen  supplements  to  distribute 
to  his  neighbors,  while  he  who  exerted  himself  to  the  ut- 
most of  his  whole  ability  to  secure  the  election  of  a  re- 
form candidate,  is  favored  with  no  information  at  all. 
I  think  that  it  will  be  well  calculated  to  do  injury  to  the 
work  which  we  may  turn  out  and  to  render  this  body  an 
unpopular  body,  and  for  that  reason  I  am  opposed  to  the 
mode  of  distribution.  In  every  other  respect  I  am  in  fa- 
vor of  the  report  of  the  committee,  but  as  to  the  mode  of 
distribution,  I  must  beg  leave  to  enter  my  dissent.  I 
will  not  assent  to  a  proposition  that  shall  give  to  one 
class  of  this  community  advantages  over  any  other  por- 
tion of  the  community.  I  think,  with  all  the  deference 
and  the  high  respect  I  entertain  for  the  committee,  that 
the  plan  of  the  report  will  have  this  effect. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  I  believe  that  no  goodwill  come  to 
the  people  from  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  but 
that  it  will  be  a  matter  of  speculation  for  the  printers. 
The  Convention  has  employed  a  reporter  to  report  the 
proceedings  of  our  debates,  and  furnish  facilities  to  the 
editors  and  printers  here  to  publish  them.  If  they  do 
not  choose  to  avail  themselves  of  these  facilities,  some 
other  papers  will.  I,  therefore,  move  the  indefinite  post- 
ponement of  the  whole  subject,  and  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  FERGUSON".  If  the  object  of  the  gentleman  is 
to  prevent  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  being 
published  at  all,  then  he  has  fallen  upon  a  happy  expedi- 
ent to  effect  his  purpose.  If  he  desires,  however,  that 
the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  shall  go  forth  and  be 
read  by  the  people,  he  must  advocate  the  proposition 
contained  in  the  report  of  the  committee.  I  took  the 
trouble,  yesterday,  to  visit  the  printing  offices,  and  ex- 
amined the  process  of  printing.  That  examination  satis- 
fied me  that  the  committee  had  adopted  the  only  feasi- 
ble plan  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceedings  of  this 
Convention  among  the  people.  If  the  gentleman  will 
take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  amount  of  matter  that 
has  been  furnished  for  publication  during  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  Convention  thus  far,  he  will  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  satisfying  himself  that  the  publishers  of  the 
papers  cannot,  and  will  not,  appropriate  their  columns 
to  the  publication  of  these  proceedings.  And  if  we  re- 
fuse to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  leave  it 
to  the  papers  to  publish  the  proceedings  at  their  own 
expense,  without  being  paid  for  it  in  any  form  by  the 
Convention,  then  they  will  be  necessarily  compelled 
either  to  select  such  speeches,  and  such  parts  of  the  de- 
bates, as  they  shall  prefer  to  select  and  publish  in  their 
papers,  or  they  will  have  to  give  the  whole  the  go-by, 
and  send  the  people  no  information  whatever  of  the  de- 
bates of  this  body..  These  papers  cannot  appropriate 
their  columns  in  any  other  way  to  the  publication  of 
these  proceedings  than  in  this  extra  sheet,  which  is  pro- 
vided for  in  the  report  of  the  committee.  Now,  I  de- 
sire the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  to  be  published 
and  distributed  among  the  people.  I  care  not  for  the 
amount  that  it  may  cost  the  State.  It  is  true  I  should 
not  be  in  favor  of  a  wasteful  expenditure  of  the  public 
money  ;  but  I  am  willing  to  pay  what  amount  is  neces- 
sary to  put  the  people  in  possession  of  our  proceedings, 
so  that  they  may  understand  them  when  they  are  called 
upon  to  vote  for  the  Constitution  which  we  shall  submit 
to  them.  I  have  always  been,  and  still  am,  opposed  to 
any  system  under  which  editors  will  be  compelled  to 
make  selections  among  the  speeches  made  in  this  body 
to  give  to  the  people,  or  compel  them  to  refuse  to  publish 
the  proceedings  at  all,  and  thereby  leave  the  pet  pie  in 
the  dark  as  to  the  reasons,  or  motives,  which  operate 


VRGIINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


15 


upon  the  minds  of  members  in  their  action  Upon  the 
various  questions  which  may  come  before  us  for  con- 
sideration. I  imagine  that  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention  have  been  sufficiently  directed  to  this 
subject,  and  that  they  are  now  prepared  to  act  upon  it, 
I  did  not  rise  with  the  hope  that  I  could  throw  any  light 
upon  the  subject,  but  to  enter  my  protest  against  the 
proposition  for  an  indefinite  postponement  of  the  whole 
subject,  unless  the  mover  desires  thereby  to  prevent  any 
publication  whatever  of  what  is  done  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  approve  very  much  the  views  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond  city  upon  the  subject  of  this 
report.  I  have  not  heard  from  the  chairman  of  this  com- 
mittee, or  any  member  of  it,  the  reason  why  this  parti- 
cular number  or  class  of  men,  the  subscribers  to  the  city 
papers,  have  been  singled  out  as  the  special  objects  of 
the  favor  of  this  Convention.  I  think,  if  the  opinions 
of  the  members  around  me  are  entitled  to  any  respect, 
that  this  plan,  so  far  from  costing  the' State  only  §10,000, 
in  all  probability  will  cost  §20,000,  or  probably,  as  a 
gentleman  at  my  right  suggests,  $30,000.  By  making  a 
calculation,  according  to  this  report,  there  are  15,000  per- 
sons singled  out  arbitrarily  who  alone  are  to  receive  31,000 
copies  weekly,  of  the  whole  amount  of  the  supplement  con- 
taining the  proceedings  of  the  Convention.  That  is  to  say, 
you  arbitrarily  take  31,000  copies  weekly,  and  give  them 
to  15,000  subscribers,  which  multiplied  by  the  number 
of  weeks  we  shall  be  in  session  is  465,000,  to  be  given  to 
these  15,000  voters.  What  provision  is  there  made  here 
for  the  other  65,000  voters  of  the  Commonwealth?  I 
presume  no  gentleman  here  suppose  that  after  these 
15,000  have  been  provided  for,  that  there  will  not  be 
65,000  voters  standing  in  as  much  need  of  enlightenment 
from  this  body  as  the  favored  15,000.  Now  what  provi- 
sion is  to  be  made  for  the  65,000  voters  who  are  not  subscri- 
bers to  the  city  press  ?  The  committee  propose  that  the 
members  shall  receive  5,400  copies  of  the  supplement 
weekly,  which  in  a  session  of  15  weeks,  would  amount 
to  81,000,  and  these  are  to  supply  65  or  70#00  voters, 
giving  each  individual  only  a  single  sheet,  by  which  he 
is  to  form  his  judgment  upon  the  great  work  of  this 
Convention.  It  is  impossible  then  that  any  one  man, 
according  to  this  mode  of  distribution,  would  get  more 
than  a  very  partial  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  this 
body.  He  might  get  a  speech  on  one  great  question, 
but  that  he  could  get  a  connected  view  of  any  one  ques- 
tion is  impossible.  In  this  form  the  work  of  this  Conven- 
tion would  be  thrown  out  by  piece-meal,  and  in  scraps, 
and  only  a  partial  view  of  it  would  be  given  to  the 
voters  of  the  country.  Instead  of  a  source  of  informa- 
tion and  knowledge  to  the  people,  it  will  give  them  a 
partial  view  and  be  a  source  of  error  to  them  in  forming 
their  judgment  upon  the  work  of  this  Convention. 
I  have  been  asked  how  this  matter  was  managed  in 
lS29-'30.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was  any  provision 
on  this  subject  then,  but  I  believe  that  then,  as  now,  if 
the  subject  was  left  as  a  fair  matter  of  competition  among 
the  political  editors  here,  that  self-interest  would  prompt 
some  one  or  more  of  them  to  take  up  this  business  of  pub- 
lication, for  as  all  know,  there  is  a  very  anxious  desire 
throughout  the  country  to  ascertain  the  labors  of  the 
Convention  in  some  regular  form.  I  say  then,  as  the 
gentleman  from  the  city  of  Richmond  (Mr.  Davis)  said, 
that  I  do  not  desire  to  distribute  by  order  of  the  Conven- 
tion 31,000  copies  of  this  report  weekly  to  any  particu- 
lar class  of  persons.  I  should  prefer  that  they  be  given 
to  the  members  of  the  Convention,  for  each"  to  distri- 
bute according  to  his  knowledge  of  the  wants  of  his  con- 
stituents. You  will  find  this  to  be  the  most  feasible 
plan,  and  if  you  make  this  order,  you  will  find  in  less 
than  20  days  from  this  time,  that  the  15,000  persons  who 
it  is  proposed  by  the  committee  shall  be  so  especially  the 
objects  of  the  favor  of  the  Convention,  will  be  provided 
for  by  the  regular  issue  of  the  papers  to  which  they  are 
subscribers.  Then  this  vast  amount  of  matter  ordered 
by  the  Convention  may  be  thrown  into  other  portions  of 
the  country  where  it  is  needed  much  more  than  it  is  by 
those  to  whom  it  is  proposed  to  be  distributed.  I  repeat, 


I  think  the  plan  of  the  committee  a  most  exceptionable 
one,  inasmuch  as  it  proposes  to  give  to  a  class  of  people 
in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia — the  subscribers  to  the 
city  papers — for  intelligence  and  wealth  not  surpassed  by 
any  other  perhaps,  this  information  exclusively,  and  to 
withhold  from  the  remaining  65  or  70,000  voters  of  the 
State  all  the  information  which  would  enable  them  to 
form  a  correct  opinion  as  to  the  work  of  the  Convention, 
or  to  send  it  to  them  in  a  disconnected  form,  from  which 
no  man  could  receive  a  connected  view  of  our  labors. 
Such  a  plan  in  my  opinion  is  worse  than  none  at  all. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  It  is  very  easy,  with  a  telescope,  to 
see  spots  upon  the  sun,  but  very  hard  I  imagine  for  gen- 
tlemen to  make  a  better  one.  The  gentleman  can  pick 
flaws  and  find  defects  in  almost  any  work  of  human  con- 
trivance, but  I  would  like  him,  or  some  other  gentleman, 
to  get  up  and  propose  a  better  scheme  for  the  printing 
and  distribution  of  the  debates  than  the  one  now  pend- 
ing. What  is  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  ?  Why, 
that  by  sending  15,500  copies  of  these  reported  debates 
afloat  through  the  agency  of  your  city  press,  you  are 
arbitrarily  distinguishing  between  different  portions  of 
your  people.  And  how  does  he  propose  to  remedy  that? 
Why,  by  supplying  15,000  copies  of  these  reports  to 
members  on  this  floor  to  do  the  very  same  tiling — to 
make  an  arbitrary  distinction — 

Mi*.  HILL.  Permit  me  to  explain.  I  said  if  there 
was  to  be  any  distribution  under  this  plan  at  all,  that  I 
preferred  that  the  members  of  the  Convention  should 
distribute  for  themselves,  rather  than  by  a  general  order 
of  the  Convention.  I  am  not  for  the  scheme  of  the  com- 
mittee, any  how. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Then  the  gentleman  is  for  no  scheme 
which  will  disseminate  this  information  among  the  peo- 
ple. Aye,  that  is  the  secret  of  this  objection  to  any 
scheme  that  is  proposed.  It  is  not  desired  by  certain 
gentlemen  upon  this  floor  that  these  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings should  be  circulated  among  the  people.  Other- 
wise, while  objecting  to  this  scheme,  if  they  desired  to 
accomplish  the  great  result  of  diffusing  this  information 
among  the  people,  why  do  they  not  submit  some  other 
scheme  ?  I  defy  the  ingenuity  of  gentlemen  to  propose 
a  scheme  which  will  enable  any  man  in  this  Common- 
wealth, who  desires  to  see  what  the  representatives  of 
the  people  are  doing  in  this  hall,  to  accomplish  that  pur- 
pose for  the  low  charge  of  4  cents  per  week,  or  60  cents 
for  a  session  of  15  weeks.  If  the  gentleman's  constitu- 
ents are  extremely  anxious  to  know  what  has  been  done 
in  this  hall,  they  can  do  so  under  the  plan  proposed  by 
the  committee  at  a  charge  of  4  cents  per  week  or  60 
cents  for  a  session  of  15  weeks.  Show  me  a  cheaper 
scheme  than  that.  If  the  people  are  thristy  for  infor- 
mation, they  can  slake  their  thirst  almost  without  money 
and  without  price.  But  the  gentleman  says  that  there 
are  80,000  voters  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  and 
that  we  propose,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  city 
press,  to  supply  only  15,000,  and  that  the  remaining  six- 
ty-five thousand  would  thus  have  a  right  to  complain  of 
such  a  distribution.  Well,  if  the  gentleman  is  in  favor 
of  issuing  80,000,  here  is  at  it.  If  he  is  in  favor  of  sup- 
plying every  man  in  the  Commonwealth  that  can  vote, 
with  this  information,  why  I  agree  that  it  should  be  done, 
if  it  can  be  done  within  the  reach  of  the  treasury  of  the 
Commonwealth.  But,  in  attempting  to  diffuse  such  in- 
formation, we  must  always  act  as  practical  men,  and  do 
it  in  the  best  practical  mode,  to  accomplish  the  general 
result — that  of  giving  the  people  the  opportunity — yes, 
the  opportunity,  of  learning  what  is  said  and  done  here. 
In  1829-30  it  is  said  that  the  debates  and  proceedings 
were  published,  not  at  public  cost,  but  by  private  en- 
terprise. Yes,  they  were  published  by  Mr.  Ritchie, 
and  in  doing  so  Mr.  R.  sunk  just  what  Messrs.  Palmer, 
Colin,  Baptist  <fe  Nolan  offer  to  print  this  matter  for, 
about  87,000.  Is  it  expected  that  the  six  political  prin- 
ters in  this  city  will  go  on  and  buy  fifteen  hundred  dol- 
lars worth  of  type,  and  new  presses,  each  incurring  an 
expense  of  88000  apiece,  for  the  purpose  of  disseminating 
this  information,  with  the  hope  of  possibly  getting  ten 


46 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


or  fifteen  hundred  additional  subscribers  ?  They  cannot 
afford  to  do  it ;  it  cannot  be  done, — and  therefore  it  is 
that  this  Convention  is  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
complishing this  great  result.  The  press  of  this  city  will 
afford  the  facility  of  their  circulation  to  the  Convention 
for  disseminating  this  information.  And  one  of  the  pro- 
prietors of  the  Richmond  press,  who  is  alone  able,  hav- 
ing alone  the  means  to  accomplish  this  work,  agrees  to 
do  it  at  the  rates  which  you  pay  the  public  printer  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  furnish  extra  sheets  for  all  the 
other  presses  in  the  city,  at  his  own  charge,  in  order  that 
these  proceedings  may  go  abroad  to  the  people.  Well, 
now,  select  any  other  plan  that  you  choose,  or  lay  the  re- 
ports of  your  stenographer  upon  the  table,  to  be  picked 
over  by  the  editors  of  these  papers,  and  what,  then,  will 
be  the  hue  and  cry  ?  Why  the  same  that  assailed  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  at  the  first  session 
of  this  Convention.  It  was  then  said  that  the  Richmond 
press,  under  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, would  have  the  opportunity  of  doing  injustice  to 
certain  great  measures  of  public  policy  to  be  agitated  in 
this  Convention,  and  that  they  would  select  certain 
speeches  which  suited  their  views  or  the  views  of  a  ma- 
jority of  their  readers  and  publish  only  those.  I  say  such 
must  be  the  result.  These  Richmond  papers  will  publish 
certain  portions  of  the  report,  and  they  will  publish  those 
portions  which  will  be  most  in  accordance  with  their  own 
views  or  most  agreeable  to  their  readers.  But,  we  wish 
to  compel  the  entire  press  of  the  city  of  Richmond,  by 
obligation  as  contractors  with  this  Convention,  to  do 
equal  and  ample  justice  to  every  great  interest  and  every 
great  measure  of  reform  which  may  be  agitated  upon 
this  floor.  We  wish  the  antidote  to  go  with  the  poison, 
side  by  side  and  column  by  column.  And  if  any  editor 
in  this  city  shall  choose  to  sway  the  potent  influence  he 
may  exert  over  the  public  mind  against  my  view,  or  the 
view  of  any  other  gentleman  on  the  subject  of  constitu- 
tional reform,  this  will  be  the  means  of  counteracting  it. 
Any  other  scheme  opens  the  door  for  unjust  and  improper 
discrimination.  I  trust  the  Convention  will  adopt  this 
scheme.  Not  that  it  is  without  defect — nobody  pretends 
that  it  is — but  because,  as  I  believe,  it  will  accomplish  the 
great  result  of  diffusing  this  information  among  the  larg- 
est number  of  people.  It  will  operate  most  beneficially 
in  promoting  harmony  amongst  the  members  on  this  floor, 
and  in  avoiding  that  jealousy  and  discontent,  in  respect  to 
the  conduct  of  the  Richmond  press  to  the  prejudice  of  mem- 
bers on  this  floor,  which  have  already  been  experienced 
by  members  heretofore.  I  trust  that  this  resolution  will 
be  adopted,  and  that  the  Convention  will  thus  dispose  of 
this  question  at  once. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  If  it  were  not  that  I  unfortunately 
find  myself  differing  from  my  worthy  colleague  over  the 
way,  (Mr.  Hill,)  I  should  remain  silent  on  this  subject. 
When  it  was  before  us  a  few  days  ago,  I  certainly  had 
not  made  up  my  mind  as  to  the  vote  which  I  should 
give  on  the  question.  Since  then,  however,  I  have 
duly  and  thoroughly  considered,  so  far  as  I  can  do  so, 
as  to  the  best  mode  to  be  adopted  by  this  Convention 
for  the  circulation  of  this  information,  and  I  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  plan  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee is  the  most  feasible,  the  most  extensive  in  its 
operation,  and  the  cheapest  that  can  be  adopted  by  this 
Convention.  I  am  never  backward  when  a  question 
arises  as  to  circulating  information  among  the  people, 
to  give  that  information  the  most  extensive  range 
which  can  be  accorded  to  it,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  can  be  no  other  mode  devised — certainly  none  has 
been  either  presented  or  suggested  here — that  can  so 
thoroughly  accomplish  this  end  as  the  plan  of  the  com- 
mittee. And  I  agree  with  my  friend  from  Augusta, 
(Mr.  Sheffy,)  that  the  question  now  to  be  settled  by 
this  Convention,  is  whether  this  plan  shall  be  adopted, 
or  whether  any  plan  at  all  for  the  diffusion  of  this  in- 
formation among  the  people,  shall  be  adopted.  We 
were  graphically  told  by  a  gentleman  at  a  very  early 
day  of  the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  that  the  anxiety 
of  the  people  as  to  the  proceedings  of  this  body  was 


intense,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  true.  Our  action  is  of 
vital  importance  to  them  and  if  there  is  any  one  thing 
which  the  people  now  desire  more  than  any  other,  it  is 
to  see  and  understand  our  proceedings  and  delibera- 
tions. My  worthy  colleague  objects  to  this  scheme  as 
partial  in  its  operations,  inasmuch  as  it  selects  a  certain 
class  of  people  as  those  to  whom  this  information  shall 
be  extended,  and  excludes  all  others.  Now  I  apprehend 
that  no  scheme  can  be  presented  to  this  body  that  is  not 
liable  to  the  same  objection,  and  which  will  not,  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  distribute  this  information  to  what 
may  be  termed  a  favorite  class  of  people.  We  know 
very  well  that  the  general  reading  classes  of  the  com- 
munity are  subscribers  to  the  newspapers.  They 
subscribe  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  getting  full  infor- 
mation of  the  news  of  the  day ;  but  does  not  every  man 
know  that  the  information  thus  received  is  not  imparted 
alone  to  the  subscriber  to  those  papers?  Do  not  the 
neighbors  of  the  men  who  subscribe  for  the  papers  call 
on  them  for  the  loan  of  these  papers,  and  are  they  not 
thus  scattered  over  each  neighborhood?  Thus,  even  if 
we  send  this  information  to  one  man  in  a  neighborhood, 
he  will  not  be  silent  but  will  freely  communicate  it  to 
others,  so  that  when  we  put  this  scheme  in  operation, 
this  publication  will  penetrate  to  the  remotest  quarters 
of  the  Commonwealth,  giving  to  the  people  as  much  in- 
formation as  can  be  diffused.  Now  let  me  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact,  that  already  we 
have  employed  a  stenographer  for  the  purpose  of  re-_ 
porting  our  debates  and  proceedings,  at  a  cost  which 
may  amount  at  the  end  of  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks  to 
$3,750.  And  what  utility  can  there  possibly  be,  let  me 
ask,  in  employing  a  stenographer  for  the  purpose  of  tak- 
ing down  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  if  no  plan 
shall  be  devised  for  the  purpose  of  diffusing  this  report 
among  the  people  ?  Clearly  the  amount  of  money 
to  be  paid  him  will  be  an  entire  loss,  for  no  sort  of 
benefit  to  the  people  can  result  in  consequence  of  if. 
This  is  but  the  second  step  in  carrying  out  the  action  of 
the  Convention  in  the  employment  of  a  stenographer. 
Now  if  we  rely  upon  the  city  press  alone  to  publish  the 
reports  of  our  proceedings,  do  we  not  know  that  their 
publication  will  be  partial?  Do  we  not  know  that  if 
they  undertake  to  publish  all  our  proceedings  in  their 
regular  issues,  that  they  can  publish  no  other  political 
matter  whatever  ?  And  can  we  suppose  that  the  editors 
of  these  papers  are  going  te  devote  their  columns  entire- 
ly to  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  ?  Have  they  not 
to  report  and  publish  the  proceedings  of  the  Legislature 
now  in  sessions  and  who  are  likely  to  remain  almost  as 
long  in  session  as  we  shall,  and  can  they  publish  in  their 
papers  the  proceedings  of  both  the  Legislature  and  the 
Convention?  No  sir,  the  result  would  be  that  they 
would  give  mere  abstracts  of  the  doings  of  the  Conven- 
tion, which  would  not  inform  the  people  of  more  than 
one-tenth  of  our  proceedings,  and  that  too  in  a  form  per- 
haps not  at  all  satisfactory  to  the  country,  inasmuch  as 
it  would  not  be  done  by  reporters  responsible  to  us. 
Let  us  carry  out  the  plan  originally  suggested.  Having 
employed  a  competent  stenographer  to  take  down  our 
proceedings  in  a  proper  and  accurate  form,  let  us  now 
give  that  report  the  most  extensive  circulation  that  we 
can  through  the  medium  of  the  political  press  of  Rich- 
mond. Is  there  any  other  mode  by  which  we  can  fur- 
nish this  information  to  the  people  ?  There  are  15,500 
subscribers  to  the  papers  here,  who  will  receiv  e  a  sup- 
plement twice  a  week,  containing  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention.  They  will  give  their  neighbors  access  to 
that  supplement,  and  thus,  instead  of  furnishing  the  in- 
formation merely  to  those  15,500  subscribers,  three  or 
four  times  that  number  of  people  will  receive  it.  Now 
as  to  the  suggestion  of  my  colleague  (Mr.  Hill)  that  we 
shall  adopt  in  lieu  of  that  plan  the  idea  of  furnishing 
our  published  proceedings  to  members  here,  that  they 
may  themselves  distribute  theffr  to  their  constituents,  if 
carried  out  how  will  it  operate  ?  My  friend  receives  50 
or  100  copies  of  our  proceedings,  and  he  sends  one  copy 
to  one  man  and  another  to  another  man,  and  so  on,  and 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


47 


thus  in  all  probability  no  one  man  will  receive  more  than 
a  report  of  a  single  day's  proceedings  of  the  Convention. 
"What  information  will  that  give  him  ?  Here  is  a  session 
of  more  than  a  week — we  send  the  proceedings  contain- 
ed in  one  issue  of  the  supplement  to  one  man,  and  that 
will  be  his  quantum  of  information.  W e  send  another 
day's  proceedings  to  another  man,  and  that  will  be  his 
share  of  the  information — and  after  they  shall  have  been 
thus  distributed  throughout  the  Commonwealth,  no  man 
perhaps  will  have  received  more  than  the  proceedings  of 
one  or  two  sittings  of  the  Convention !  Of  what  bene- 
fit to  him  will  that  be  ?  But  if  we  adopt  the  mode  pro- 
posed by  the  committee,  then  this  supplement  will  go 
regularly  into  the  hands  of  the  subscribers  to  these  pa- 
pers, will  be  retained  and  filed,  and  in  this  way  we  shall 
furnish  to  each  man  a  full  report  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  its  ses- 
sion, and  thus  enable  him  to  comprehend  the  entire  range 
of  our  proceedings  here.  It  does  seem  to  me  therefore 
that  this  is  the  only  plan  that  can  be  devised,  and  that  a 
refusal  to  adopt  it  will  be  equivalent  to  a  declaration 
that  we  will  send  forth  no  information  whatever  to  the 
people.  The  view  of  my  friend  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Shef- 
fey)  is  entitled  to  great  weight  in  another  respect.  If  I 
understand  the  report  of  the  committee,  any  man  who 
desires  to  receive  this  supplement  can  do  so  at  a  most  in- 
significant cost.  He  can  have  the  entire  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  from  beginning  to  end,  for  a  session  of 
fifteen  weeks,  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  sixty  cents.  And 
I  believe  that  a  vast  number  who  do  not  take  the  Rich- 
mond papers,  would  be  glad  to  take  this  supplement,  at 
a  price  so  low  as  sixty  cents  for  the  session.  Again,  gen- 
tlemen are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  this  information 
will  be  confined  to  subscribers  to  the  city  press  for  an- 
other reason,  as  they  will  find  upon  reflection.  This  sup- 
plement will  go  forth  to  the  editors  of  every  paper  in 
the  Commonwealth, — to  those  beyond  the  Alleganies, 
through  the  Valley,  and  the  entire  East, — and  all  will 
publish  the  most  important  part  of  these  proceedings, 
and  thus  the  subscribers  to  all  other  newspapers  will  be 
furnished  with  our  proceedings  as  well  as  those  to  the 
press  of  this  city.  I  concur  most  heartily  with  my  friend 
from  Augusta,  that  we  should  be  careful  how  we  give  a 
vote  here,  by  which  we  shall  exclude  light  from  the  peo- 
ple. I  desire  that  all  the  debates,  documents,  statistics 
and  information  of  every  sort  before  the  Convention, 
which  will  enable  the  people  to  form  a  wise  and  cor- 
rect judgment  upon  the  subjects  we  are  to  act  upon 
here,  shall  be  diffused  among  them,  East  and  West. 
I  trust,  therefore,  that  we  shall  all  agree  to  settle  the 
question  at  once,  by  adopting  the  plan  proposed  by 
the  committee.  You  appointed  a  very  competent  com- 
mittee to  examine  and  inquire  into  this  question,  and 
they,  after  duly  and  thoroughly  considering  it,  gave 
us  a  report,  a  few  days  ago,  containing  the  result  of 
their  best  judgment  on  the  subject.  After  discussing 
the  subject,  we  referred  it  again  to  that  committee,  they 
again  considered  it,  and  they  have  again  given  us  the  re- 
sult of  their  deliberation,  examination  and  judgment,  re- 
porting back  to  the  Convention  the  same  plan  they  at 
first  recommended.  For  myself,  I  shall  vote  to  concur 
in  the  recommendation  of  the  committee,  with  entire 
willingness  and  pleasure. 

_  Mr.  ANDERSON.  What  authority  has  this  Conven- 
tion to  appropriate  money  to  the  newspaper  editors  of 
Richmond,  to  publish  our  reports  ?  I  must  confess  that 
I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  their  authority.  The 
act  calling  this  Convention  authorizes  themPto  fix  the 
compensation  of  their  officers,  and  unless  gentlemen  can 
show  that  these  newspaper  editors  are  to  become  officers 
of  this  Convention,  we  have  no  authority  whatever  to  ap- 
propriate money  to  pay  them  for  publishing  the  debates. 
I  can  readily  understand  that  your  reporter  is  an  officer 
of  this  Convention.  He  has  been  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reporting  and  writing  out  the  debates  of  this 
Convention.  But  it  is  not  the  particular  province  of  this 
officer,  nor  is  it  the  duty  of  the  Convention,  to  have  its 
debates  published  in  all  the  newspapers  in  the  Common- 


Wealth.  I  cannot  therefore  vote  for  appropriating  a 
large,  or  even  a  small  sum  of  money,  to  the  editors  of 
these  papers  for  publishing  these  debates.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  it  will  be  for  their  interest  to  publish  such 
parts  of  these  debates  as  will  interest  the  people  of  this 
Commonwealth.  I  have  no  doubt  they  will  do  so,  and  I 
am  therefore  willing  to  leave  it  to  the  editors  as  a  question 
of  self-interest,  whether  they  will  publish  any  part  of 
these  debates  or  not.  I  was  for  the  appointment  of 
a  reporter,  and  am  anxious  to  receive  reports  of  our 
proceedings,  so  that  the  Convention  may  dispose  of  them 
as  they  think  proper.  Your  reporter  can,  in  short  hand, 
report  the  debates  of  the  Convention,  and  then  write  them 
out  in  full,  and  the  debates  in  manuscript  can  be  filed  in 
the  Secretary's  office  as  part  of  the  archives  of  the  gov- 
ernment ;  and  the  Legislature  can  hereafter  make  such 
disposition  of  them  as  they  may  think  proper.  In  the 
mean  time  we  have  made  it  the  duty  of  our  reporter  to 
afford  editors  of  papers  the  privilege  of  securing  a  copy 
of  his  reports,  and  they  may  avail  themselves  of  this 
privilege  or  not,  as  they  may  think  proper. 

Mr.  COX.  I  ask  the  gentleman  who  made  the  motion 
for  indefinite  postponement  to  withdraw  it,  at  least  for 
the  present.  It  is  clear  that  some  provision  must  be 
made  for  the  publication  of  the  report  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Convention.  We  have  already  employed  a  re- 
porter, and  the  reports  taken  by  that  officer  must  go  to 
the  people,  or  all  goes  for  nothing ;  and,  as  I  understand 
it,  the  only  question  is,  shall  we  send  them  to  the  peo- 
ple in  the  form  designated  by  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee, or  in  some  other.  It  strikes  me,  such  being  the  case, 
that  if  the  report  of  the  committee  be  not  such  an  one 
as  meets  the  sanction  of  this  body,  it  is  at  least  in  a  shape 
in  which  the  body  could  mould  it  to  their  own  views. 
The  subject  is  before  us,  and  if  the  plan  of  the  committee 
does  not  suit  the  Convention,  let  it  be  so  altered  as  that 
it  will  suit  them.  I  am  opposed  to  the  scheme  of  the 
committee  as  it  at  present  stands,  but  I  believe  it  can  be 
so  amended  as  to  meet  generally  the  views  of  the  Conven- 
tion. I  am  in  favor  of  sending  this  information  to  the 
people,  and  I  will  say  to  the  member  from  Augusta  (Mr. 
Sheffey)  that  I  am  not  only  willing,  but  anxious  that 
all  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  shall  be  known  to 
my  constituents,  and  I  am  willing  to  give  it  to  them  in 
the  fullest  possible  form.  And  1  go  even  further  than 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  for  I  am  in  favor,  not  only 
of  giving  this  information  to  the  people  of  the  whole 
State,  but  of  giving  it  to  them  in  such  a  shape  as  that 
they  can  bind  and  preserve  it.  And  if  the  motion  for 
indefinite  postponement  shall  be  withdrawn  or  voted 
down,  I  will  offer  an  amendment  to  secure  the  transmis- 
sion of  this  information  to  the  people  in  a  publication  of 
octavo  form,  in  which  it  can  be  bound  and  preserved. 
It  may  be  better  for  the  popularity  and  reputation  of 
many  of  us  that  the  publication  should  be  in  a  form  as 
perishable  as  possible,  so  that  no  record  of  our  sayings 
and  doings  here  shall  be  preserved ;  but  I  have  no  such 
desire.  I  desire  that  all  my  constituents  shall  hear  what 
I  say,  and  I  do  not  object  to  my  future  popularity  being 
based  on  the  votes  I  shall  give  in  this  body.  I  do  not 
make  this  motion  therefore  because  I  wish  to  withhold 
information  from  the  people,  but  because  I  desire  that 
our  proceedings  shall  be  published  in  such  a  shape  that 
they  may  be  able  to  preserve  them  for  future  reference. 
The  proposition  I  have  to  offer,  if  the  motion  to  post- 
pone shall  be  withdrawn  or  voted  down,  is  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  report  be  re-committed  to  the 
same  committee  with  instructions  to  receive  proposals 
for  publishing  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  Con- 
vention in  octavo  form,  or  in  a  form  convenient  to  be 
bound  and  preserved. 

If  such  a  proposition  be  adopted,  then  I  will  go  for  the 
report  of  the  committee.  As  for  this  supplement,  it 
must  be  obvious  to  all  that  it  cannot  be  bound  or  pre- 
served. I  hope,  therefore,  the  motion  to  postpone  will 
be  withdrawn,  or  voted  down. 

Mr.  JANNE Y.  I  confess  that  when  the  report  of  this 
committee  was  first  presented,  I  had  very  serious  ob- 


48 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


jections  to  it.  But  I  have  bestowed  upon  it  the  best  re- 
flection which  I  am  capable  of;  and  I  think  the  true  issue 
now  is,  shall  this  form  be  adopted,  or  shall  the  people  be 
without  this  information  ?  I  do  not  think  it  possible  for 
the  wit  of  man  to  conceive  of  any  plan  by  which  the 
people  of  this  Commonwealth  can  be  put  in  possession  of 
these  debates  at  a  less  expense  than  four  cents  per  week. 
There  is,  however,  one  view  of  the  subject  that  is  parti- 
cularly important,  and  I  have  risen  solely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  presenting  it  to  the  Convention.  Unfortunately 
for  the  last  eighteen  months,  in  the  Commonwealth  of 
Virginia,  all  the  discussions  upon  questions  involving  any 
reforms,  have  been  ex-parte  discussions.  Gentlemen  on 
the  western  side  of  the  Blue  Ridge  have  discussed  in  their 
own  way  the  merits  of  their  peculiar  basis  of  representa- 
tion, and  the  reforms  which  they  desire.  And  so,  I  may  say, 
with  very  few  exceptions,  gentlemen  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  BLue  Ridge  have  discussed  the  m  erits  of  their  pe- 
culiar basis  of  representation,  and  the  reforms  which 
they  desire.  And  thus  it  is,  that  on  the  two  sides  of  the 
Blue  Ridge,  but  one  side  only  of  these  questions  has  been 
presentea  for  the  consideration  of  the  people.  If  you 
do  not  take  this,  or  some  kindred  form,  the  same  result 
precisely  will  happen  for  the  next  six  months,  or  nine 
months  to  come,  that  has  for  the  six  months  past.  Some 
gentlemen  say  the  editors  of  the  political  papers  in  the 
city  of  Richmond  will  publish  just  such  speeches  as  they 
please.  Well,  suppose  they  do,  what  then  ?  They  can- 
not publish  all,  and  they  will  not.  No  man  expects  any 
such  thing  at  all.  And  what  will  they  do  ?  They 
will  publish  just  such  of  the  leading  speeches  as  favor 
their  own  peculiar  views  and  the  opinions  of  their  sub- 
scribers, and  they  will  publish  none  else.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  a  paper  which  has  been  laid  upon  my  table  this 
morning — a  new  paper,  the  Republican  Advocate — which 
has  been  established  since  our  adjournment  in  October, 
as  the  organ  of  our  friends  on  the  western  side  of  the 
Blue  Ridge.  If  their  anticipations  are  realised,  and  I 
trust  most  sincerely  that  they  may  be,  this  paper  will 
go  into  the  hands  of  every  man  who  can  read  West  of 
the  Blue  Ridge.  And  if  we  adopt  this  scheme,  every 
subscriber  will  receive  the  arguments  and  views  of  the 
members  on  this  side  of  the  .Blue  Ridge.  So  it  will  be 
on  the  eastern  side.  Publish  all,  and  every  argument 
made  here  by  western  gentlemen  will  go  into  the 
hands  of  every  reader  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Blue 
Ridge.  Now  I  submit  the  question  to  the  Convention  for 
consideration,  if  the  object  of  publishing  these  debates 
at  all  is  to  enlighten  the  minds  of  the  people  with  re- 
gard to  what  we  are  doing  here,  ought  we  not  to  give 
them  both  sides  of  the  question  ?  And  is  there  any 
better  plan  by  which  to  gain  that  object,  than  the  one 
proposed  by  the  committee,  or  some  kindred  scheme  ? 
1  do  not"  see  that  any  of  the  other  propositions  before 
this  Convention  promise  to  do  this.  The  committee  is 
an  enlightened  and  intelligent  one,  one  in  which  we  ought 
to  repose  confidence,  and  I  shall  vote  for  their  report 
with  great  pleasure.  As  to  the  expense,  it  is  my 
opinion  that  whatever  complaint  the  people  may  make 
about  our  expenses  here,  no  man  will  ever  utter  a  soli- 
tary murmer  against  the  cost  of  publishing  these  de- 
bates. I  hope  and  trust  that  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  wish  to  explain,  in  a  few  words, 
the  grounds  of  the  vote  I  shall  give  on  this  ques- 
tion. It  has  been  intimated  that  those  who  are  op- 
posed to  the  resolution  in  question,  secretly  desire  to 
suppress  our  proceedings,  or  their  circulation.  For  my- 
self I  say,  fearlessly,  that  I  desire  no  such  thing.  I  do 
desire,  if  I  desire  any  thing  whatever,  that  our  proceed- 
ings, or  a  knowledge  of  them,  should  go  forth  to  every 
reader  within  this  Commonwealth.  And  it  is  precisely 
in  consequence  of  the  liability  of  having  the  motive  for 
the  vote  I  shall  give,  called  in  question,  that  I  rise  to 
make  this  explanation.  I  myself,  I  apprehend,  before 
the  proceedings  of  this  Convention  shall  close,  will  be 
found  quite  radical  enough  for  the  most  of  gentlemen 
here.    I  should  be  false  to  my  own  nature,  owning  my- 


self a  radical,  not  to  desire  that  our  proceedings  should 
be  published  as  extensively  and  as  universally  as  possi- 
ble. But,  my  objection  still  is  the  same  in  the  main 
that  I  intimated  the  other  day,  that  this  mode  of  distri- 
buting or  circulating  the  information  that  we  desire  to 
be  placed  before  the  people,  is  not  equitable.  No  gen- 
tleman has  yet  satisfied  me  that  it  is  equitable.  Satisfy 
me  of  this  fact,  and  strong  as  my  objections  are  to  the 
expense,  I  am  willing  to  go  it.  I  will  not,  like  some 
gentlemen  here,  say  that  I  care  nothing  about  the  ex- 
pense ;  I  confess  I  do  care  something  about  it.  I  do 
think  I  see  very  plainly,  that  the  expense  will  be  very 
heavy,  but  heavy  as  it  may  be,  if  there  is  no  other  mode 
of  giving  this  information  to  the  people,  I  may  submit 
to  it.  I  have  said  that  I  think  it  inequitable,  and  I  will 
as  briefly  as  I  can,  explain  myself.  If  I  understand  the 
report  of  the  committee,  they  propose  to  send  out  twice 
a  week  fifteen  thousand  five  hundred  sheets  as  a  sup- 
plement to  the  city  press,  exclusive  of  twenty-seven 
hundred  given  to  the  members  for  distribution.  The  fif- 
teen thousand  five  hundred  go  to  the  city  press,  and  I 
apprehend  that  I  should  not  greatly  err,  were  I  to  sup- 
pose that  one  half  of  these  subscribers  reside  within  half 
a  mile  of  the  capital,  or  within  the  county  of  Henrico, 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  apprehend  that  the  gentleman  la- 
bors under  an  entire  mistake.  I  believe  that- the  circu- 
lation of  these  Richmond  papers  is  less,  in  proportion,  in 
Henrico  county,  than  in  almost  any  other  part  of  the 
Commonwealth. 

Mr.  JACOB.  As  to  the  good  people  of  Henrico 
county,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  people  of  Rich- 
mond city,  I  will  say  nothing,  because  I  know  nothing. 
But  I  apprehend  still,  that  my  supposition  is  true  to  a 
sufficient  extent  to  illustrate  my  argument.  If  you 
please  I  will  make  another  supposition. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me 
to  interrupt  him — 

Mr.  JACOB.  Certainly.  I  permit  any  gentleman  to 
interrupt  me  as  much  as  he  pleases. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  wish  merely  to  state  a  fact  as  a 
foundation  for  his  argument.  The  daily  circulation  of 
the  Richmond  Whig  is  about  150  to  800 ;  while  the  se- 
mi-weekly, that  goes  out  of  the  city,  ranges  from  three 
thousand  five  hundred  to  four  thousand.  The  daily  cir- 
culation of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  is  less  than  that  of 
the  Whig ;  while  its  semi-weekly  is  as  large,  if  not  lar- 
ger. So  that  the  gentleman  is  equally  mistaken  in  say- 
ing that  a  large  majority  of  the  circulation  of  these  pa- 
pers centre  in  the  city  of  Richmond. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  admit  every  word  that  the  gentle- 
man has  said,  and  it  is  a  perfect  non  sequitur  that  what 
I  have  said  is  untrue.  It  may  be,  that  the  number  of 
daily  and  weekly  subscribers  to  these  papers  is  j  ust 
what  the  gentleman  says,  and  yet  that  the  distribution 
among  the  good  people  of  this  Commonwealth  may  be 
just  as  inequitable  as  I  have  supposed.  I  ask  if  gentle- 
men will  inform  me  what  is  the  exact  proportion — I  do 
not  care  about  accuracy — accuracy,  as  the  lawyers  say, 
to  a  common  purpose  or  intent,  will  answer  my  purpose 
— let  me  know  whether  it  is  not  true,  for  example,  that 
more  than  half  the  circulation  is  within  fifty  or  sixty 
miles  of  Richmond.  I  will  give  one  example  to  illustrate 
what  I  mean  by  saying  that  this  mode  of  distribution  ia 
unequal.  I  think  I  do  not  err  when  I  say,  that  my  dis- 
trict has  perhaps  in  it  about  four  thousand  voters.  I 
think  I  do  not  err  materially  in  stating,  that  there  are 
not  probably  fifty  papers  of  the  city  press  circulated 
in  that  district.  But  you  may  suppose  that  it  is  much 
more  than  fifty,  and  you  will  still  see  that  the  propor- 
tion is  not  fair ;  or  that  my  position  is  true  that  the  dis- 
tribution is  not  equal.  Well,  now,  I  have  not  been  able 
to  see  why  it  is  that — with  the  number  of  supplements 
proposed  to  be  published,  if  we  must  print  18,200  co« 
pies  twice  a  week,  for  that  I  understand  to  be  the 
substance  of  the  proposition — some  more  equal  plan 
of  distribution  among  the  people  of  all  the  counties  of 
this  State  cannot  be  adopted,  without  materially  increas- 
ing the  cost,  than  that  of  distributing  them  to  the  pre- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


49 


sent  subscribers  to  the  Richmond  press.  Something  has 
been  said,  that  it  is  necessary  to  fall  upon  this  plan,  in 
order  to  prevent  the  charge  of  partiality  on  the  part  of 
the  press  in  the  city  of  Richmond.  I  never  made  any 
complaints  of  that  sort — I  never  have  felt  any  jealousy 
in  regard  to  their  partiality.  I  am  free  to  confess  that 
I  have  been  willing,  and  am  still  willing,  to  leave  it  to 
the  Richmond  press  to  publish  what  they  please,  if  we 
do  not  employ  them.  But  I  beg  leave,  in  this  connection, 
to  make  this  remark  :  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  notwith- 
standing this  supplement  is  printed,  the  newspapers  of 
this  city  will  rmblish  the  speeches  of  many  gentlemen 
on  this  floor.  Is  it  to  be  understood,  and  if  it  is,  I  should 
like  to  hear  some  gentleman  declare  it,  that  by  entering 
into  this  arrangement,  the  newspapers  of  Richmond  are 
to  publish  no  speeches  whatever  ?  I  take  it,  the  news- 
papers of  this  city  will  take  the  liberty,  regardless  of  this 
supplement,  to  publish  just  such  speeches  as  they  please. 
This  is  my  opinion.  If  I  am  in  error,  I  will  cheerfully 
stand  corrected. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Does  the  gentleman  desire  informa- 
tion as  he  goes  along? 

Mr.  JACOB.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  imagine  that  the  Richmond  papers 
will  hardly  be  so  silly  as  to  publish  in  their  regular 
sheet,  the  speeches  that  their  subscribers  will  find  in  their 
accompanying  supplement.  I  do  not  suppose  that  the 
Richmond  press  will  print  one  column  of  speeches  except 
in  the  supplement  which  will  accompany  each  issue. 

Mr.  JACOB.  If  the  gentleman  means  to  pledge  the 
city  press  to  that  course,  that  is  sufficient.  But  the  very 
statement  of  the  fact,  that  the  supplement  will  accom- 
pany the  Richmond  papers,  does  not  negative  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  city  papers  may  publish  the  speeches  of 
many  gentlemen.  I  see  nothing  either  silly  or  foolish  in 
the  editors  of  the  city  papers  publishing  the  speeches  of 
certain  gentlemen.  I  can  well  imagine  that  there  will 
be  speeches  made  on  this  floor,  that  the  editors  of  the 
city  papers  will  publish,  because  they  favor  the  party  to 
which  they  belong,  or  from  personal  partiality,  or  from 
taste,  judgment,  or  any  other  motive.  Then,  again,  it 
has  been  said  that,  because  no  better  plan  has  been  sub- 
mitted, therefore  no  better  plan  can  be  submitted.  I  am 
not  so  sure  of  that,  and  really,  it  does  seem  to  me,  that 
the  committee  have  shown  a  very  strong  attachment  to 
their  own  favorite  on  this  occasion.  They  have  report- 
ed the  same  thing  back  to  us  and  nothing  more.  I  am 
desirous  to  aid  in  disseminating  fully  and  freely  over 
this  Commonwealth,  a  knowledge  of  our  proceedings, 
and  if  a  fair  and  equitable  plan  can  be  devised  for  this 
purpose,  it  shall  have  my  support. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  understand  the  question  before 
the  Convention  to  be  on  the  indefinite  postponement  of 
the  various  propositions  before  us,  and  I  understand  also 
that  motion  to  be  brought  forward  to  test  the  sense  of 
the  Convention  as  to  whether  it  will  adopt  the  report  of 
the  committee  or  not.  Now,  for  one,  I  am  prepared  to 
say,  and  I  mean  to  say  it  by  my  vote  on  this  occasion, 
that  I  cannot  give  my  support  to  that  report.  I  shall 
vote  for  the  indefinite  postponement  for  another  reason, 
and  that  is,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  until  there  is 
some  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  Convention 
adverse  to  the  proposition  or  scheme  of  the  committee, 
we  shall  n  othave  any  other  plan  before  us.  I  think, 
therefore,  that  the  proper  course  will  be,  to  test  the 
sense  of  the  Convention  at  once  upon  this  proposition. 
When  it  shall  be  ascertained,  as  I  trust  it  will  be  upon 
this  vote,  that  the  Convention  are  not  disposed  to  a,dopt 
this  scheme,  then  we  may  get  some  other  plan  less  ob- 
jectionable. I  confess  I  have  listened  with  some  sur- 
prise to  the  remarks  of  gentlemen  on  this  floor,  who  as- 
sume to  represent  those  who  are  not  disposed  to  sanc- 
tion the  proposition  of  the  committee,  as  inclined  to  with- 
hold light  from  the  people  with  respect  to  our  debates 
and  proceedings  here.  One  would  really  suppose,  to  listen 
to  the  remarks  of  some  gentlemen,  that  the  people  of 
Virginia  were  deeply  agitated  with  respect  to  the  publi- 
cation of  our  proceedings.    Now,  does  any  man  suppose 


that  if  we  do  not  pay  the  newspaper  proprietors  here  for 
publishing  our  debates,  that  they  will  not  go  before  the 
people  ?  Have  the  people  of  Virginia  ever  complained 
that  they  were  not  fully  apprised  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Legislature  ? 

A  MEMBER.    Yes,  often. 

Mr.  STANARD.  The  gentleman  has  been  more  fortu- 
nate or  unfortunate  than  I,  for  I  have  never  heard  the  least 
complaint  on  the  subject.  But  if  they  do  complain,  what  is 
the  difference  in  their  position  with  respect  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Legislature  and  in  the  position  in  which  they 
stand  with  respect  to  the  proceedings  of  this  body  ?  The 
legislative  proceedings  have  been  reported  by  such  report- 
ers as  the  press  of  the  city  have  furnished  at  their  own 
expense — gentlemen  not  practical  stenographers  cer- 
tainly, and  who  take  imperfect  sketches — and  that  press 
have  published  these  reports.  Our  reports  are  offered  to 
them,  however,  as  taken  by  an  accomplished  stenogra- 
pher, employed  by  this  body  at  the  expense  of  the  peo- 
ple. For  years  past,  up  to  the  very  period  at  which  I  am 
now  speaking,  no  deliberate  body  that  ever  met  in  this 
State  has  ever  had  the  benefits  of  the  reports  of  a  ste- 
nographer— I  mean  of  one  employed  at  the  public  ex- 
pense. Now  we  have  employed  a  most  accomplished 
gentleman  to  report  our  proceedings  and  provided  that 
he  shall  furnish  his  report  to  all  of  the  editors  who  choose 
to  copy  it ;  and  I  ask  if  it  is  not  worth  while  to  try  the 
experiment  and  see  whether  some  of  them  will  not  avail 
themselves  of  that  offer?  I  think, at  all  events,  we  can 
secure  the  publication  of  those  reports  without  subject- 
ing the  people  to  a  cost  that,  in  my  opinion,  will  not  fall 
short  of  $30,000,  if  it  does  not  exceed  that  sum.  And  I 
will  tell  you  why  I  think  the  cost  will  reach  that  amount, 
in  a  very  few  words.  The  report  of  the  committee  is 
based  on  the  supposition  that  our  session  is  to  continue 
for  fifteen  weeks,  and  that  we  are  to  publish  six  columns 
a  day  at  an  expense  of  $10,500.  Now  I  put  it  to  any 
gentleman  to  say,  whether  he  believes  that  this  Conven- 
tion, from  any  indication  that  has  been  given  or  from  any 
thing  that  has  been  said  on  this  floor  or  elsewhere,  is  go- 
ing to  set  only  for  so  short  a  time  as  fifteen  weeks — one 
of  which  has  already  expired  ?  Fifteen  weeks  will  bring 
us  to  the  middle  of  April,  and  I  think  it  requires  no  spirit 
of  prophecy  to  say  that  we  shall  be  in  session  for  a  long 
time  beyond  that.  But  we  are  not  only,  according  to 
this  estimate,  to  set  but  fifteen  weeks,  of  which  one  has 
already  transpired,  but  we  are  not  to  publish  more  than 
six  columns  a  day.  Now,  I  am  informed  upon  most  cred- 
itable authority,  that  the  slowest  and  most  ordinary 
speaker  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  speaks  about 
four  columns  in  forty -five  minutes,  and  I  am  also  inform- 
ed that  a  fluent  and  rapid  speaker  will  speak  full  six 
columns  in  an  hour.  Thus  you  will  perceive,  that  instead 
of  six  columns  a  day  even  twelve  columns  a  day  will  not 
cover  the  extent  of  the  report,  when  we  get  to  sitting 
three  or  four  hours  a  day,  in  the  discussion  of  the  great 
questions  which  we  are  to  decide  here.  Twelve  columns 
a  day,  then  will  be  the  average,  and  that  will  double  the 
expenses,  even  if  you  sit  only  fifteen  weeks.  Thus  in- 
stead of  $10,000,  you  will  find  that  $30,000  will  not  foot 
the  bill  of  expenses,  even  taking  the  committee's  esti- 
mate of  the  length  of  the  session.  For  one,  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  impose  that  expense  upon  the  people  of  Vir- 
ginia if  it  can  be  avoided,  and  I  believe  it  can.  "What  are 
the  facts  with  respect  to  the  proceedings  of  the  last  Con- 
vention? Did  the  people  know  nothing  of  their  pro- 
ceedings ?  So  far  from  that,  every  man  knows  that  the 
discussions  in  that  Convention  were  circulated  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  and  acted  on  the 
public  sentiment,  which  public  sentiment  re-acted  again 
on  the  members  of  that  body.  Those  debates  were  pub- 
lished and  disseminated  from  one  end  of  the  country  to 
the  other.  Were  they  thus  disseminated  by  a  reporter 
and  printer  employee!  by  the  State  ?  No  sir ;  they  were 
reported  by  a  gentleman  employed  by  one  of  the  papers 
of  the  city,  the  members  themselves  revising  and  writing 
out  their  speeches  in  a  great  measure,  and  the  publisher 
printing  them  at  his  own  expense.    Whether  he  lost  by 


50 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


it  or  not  is  a  question  between  him  and  the  Common- 
wealth ;  but  in  the  present  case  no  one  can  lose  except 
the  Commonwealth,  for  we  pay  the  salary  of  our  re- 
porter and  do  not  ask  any  editor  to  be  at  that  expense 
in  the  dissemination  of  our  proceedings  to  the  people. 
Now,  instead  of  having  this  matter  entrusted  to  private 
enterprize  as  we  have  in  years  heretofore,  we  have  here 
employed  a  most  competent  gentleman  to  report  our  pro- 
ceedings and  made  it  a  part  of  his  duty  to  furnish  the 
papers  with  copies  of  his  report.  Who  shall  say  then 
that  we  suppress  information  and  desire  to  withhold 
light  from  the  people,  unless  we  consent  to  go  to  an  ex- 
pense of  forty,  fifty  or  sixty  thousand  dollars — or  rath- 
er, unless  we  agree  to  its  publication  in  the  form  as  pro- 
posed by  the  committee  ?  For  one,  if  gentlemen  are 
right,  which  I  do  not  believe  they  are,  in  saying  this 
scheme  must  be  adopted  or  none  will  be  adopted,  I  am 
ready  to  meet  the  issue  on  this  motion  for  indefinite 
postpone  men".  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  another 
sehem  e  cannot  be  adopted.  I  shall  say  nothing  on  that 
point,  though  I  have  much  objection  to  the  present  form 
of  the  publication,  but  treating  the  question  in  the  as- 
pect in  which  it  is  presented  to  us,  that  is  as  a  question 
whether  we  shall  or  shall  not  adopt  this  particular 
scheme,  I  shall  most  cheerfully  vote,  for  the  reasons 
I  have  stated,  for  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely. 
I  am  willing  to  try  the  experiment,  at  least  for  a  short 
time  longer. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  should  like  to  know  if  the  motion 
for  indefinite  postponement  should  prevail,  whether  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond  will  give  us  the  benefit  of  his 
reflections  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  STANARD.  There  is  one  very  simple  suggestion 
to  offer  on  this  subject.  As  to  the  details  of  this  scheme, 
I  certainly  prefer,  if  the  debates  are  to  be  published  at  all, 
the  pamphlet  or  book  form.  But  I  will  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey)  that  not  having  the 
honor  to  be  a  member  of  the  committee,  I  do  not  profess 
to  have  given  the  subject  that  attention  which  perhaps  I 
ought ;  nor  am  I  here  to  put  any  particular  scheme  be- 
fore the  committee.  I  rise  to  meet  the  issue  presented 
by  the  committee,  and  urged  with  such  pertinacity  again 
and  again  and  again  reported  to  us  as  the  only  scheme 
that  can  be  devised.  Let  this  test  question  be  decided 
against  this  plan,  and  then  another  scheme  may  be 
brought  forward  disconnected  from  the  difficulties  which 
arise,  from  the  fact  that  this  particular  scheme  has  its  ad- 
vocates in  this  hall.  So  long  as  there  is  a  probability  of 
our  adopting  this  scheme,  no  other  one  will  be  proposed. 
Let  us  dispose  of  this  one  and  we  shall  probably  get 
another  and  a  better  plan.  At  all  events,  we  shall  not 
be  worse  off  than  we  now  are. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  1  shall  vote  against  the  motion  to  post- 
pone indefinitely.  And  at  the  same  time  I  announce  my 
determination,  under  no  circumstances  whatever,  to  vote 
for  the  report  of  the  committee.  I  can  answer  the  ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey)  as 
to  a  better  mode  of  having  these  proceedings  published; 
and  in  that  answer  consists  my  only  objection  to  the  re- 
port of  the  committee.  It  is  to  the  perishable  form 
in  which  it  is  presented.  If  the  motion  to  postpone  be 
voted  down,  and  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Chesterfield  (Mr.  Cox)  shall  be  adopted,  I  shall  then 
be  prepared  to  vote  for  the  report  of  the  committee 
with  that  amendment.  Up  to  this  time  we  have  had 
this  supplemental  sheet  furnished  to  us,  containing,  on 
an  average,  about  two  columns  of  reading  matter  con- 
nected with  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  and  some 
eight  or  ten  or  more  columns  of  advertisements,  which 
we  have  been  required  to  distribute  throughout  this 
Commonwealth,  and  in  which  we  have  no  interest.  Now, 
for  the  first  time,  we  have  a  supplemental  sheet  filled  up 
on  both  sides  with  these  reports.  And  yet  I  perceive  a 
species  of  economy  is  practised  in  this  sheet  by  the 
printer,  that  of  printing  it  upside  down  on  one  side,  in 
order  to  print  two  sheets  at  a  time,  leaving  no  margin 
by  which  it  is  possible  to  have  it  preserved  by  being 
bound  up.    And  if  it  could  be  done,  the  reader  would 


have  to  turn  his  book  upside  down  every  time  he  read  a 
page.  [Laughter.]  Now,  what  I  desire  to  know  is  this  : 
The  publisher  of  this  supplemental  sheet  has  already 
proposed  to  publish  a  "  Register  of  Debates,"  and 
has  appointed,  as  I  perceive  from  his  own  columns,  nu- 
merous persons  as  agents  to  obtain  subscribers  for  that 
Register.  He  is  the  employee  of  the  Convention,  and  de- 
rives his  emolument  from  this  Convention  for  publishing 
these  very  debates  which  he  is  to  publish  in  his  Register. 
And  I  desire  to  know  why  we  are  to  be  treated  worse 
than  his  subscribers  to  the  Register  of  Debates.  If  Ave 
pay  him  for  the  publication,  why  are  We  to  receive  these 
supplemental  sheets  in  perishable  from,  when  he  gives  it 
in  a  better  form  to  those  who  come  after  us  ?  Why,  this 
Register  of  Debates  will  be  as  useful  to  us  as  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Commonwealth  to  whom,  he  proposes  to  send 
it.  We  shall  want  the  Register  for  our  own  use,  during 
the  debates,  for  Constant  reference.  A  gentlemen  pre- 
sents his  views  upon  an  important  question  to-day,  to 
which  another  gentleman  may  not  have  an  opportunity 
of  replying,  perhaps,  for  several  weeks — does  he  not  want 
a  report  of  that  gentleman's  remarks  constantly  before 
him,  in  order  that  he  may  not  misunderstand  and  mis- 
represent him  ?  Can  you  have  it  in  this  supplemental 
form  ?  I  am  not  one  of  these  advocates  of  that  rigid 
system  of  economy  in  State  affairs,  which  generally  con- 
sists in  letting  out  at  the  bung,  while  you  stop  at  the 
spigot.  [Laughter.]  We  have  already  spent  more  than 
enough  in  this  discussion  to  pay  the  difference  between 
this  form  and  the  pamphlet.  I  do  not  practice  this 
species  of  economy  at  home,  and  I  will  not  practice  it 
for  the  State;  and  I  would  rather  spend  a  $100  of  the 
public  money  than  $10  of  my  own,  because  the  State 
can  better  afford  it.  [Laughter.]  I  will  have  this  thing 
done  well,  or  I  will  not  vote  to  have  it  done  at  all.  I 
shall,  therefore,  as  we  have  gone  to  the  expense  of  em- 
ploying a  reporter  at  the  price,  I  think,  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars  a  week,  require,  if  these  proceedings 
are  to  be  published  at  all,  that  they  be  published  for  our 
use,  as  well  as  for  the  use  of  our  constituents  ;  and  pub- 
lished too  in  a  form  in  which  they  can  be  preserved. 
Why,  what  is  to  be  the  consequence  ?  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  there  is  any  object  in  it— I  make  no  charge,  or 
imputation  on  any  one  whatever — but  what  is  to  be  the 
consequence?  The  register  of  these  debates  is  to  be 
published  and  every  member  of  this  Convention,  who 
desires  to  procure  a  copy,  is  to  become  the  purchaser 
from  the  very  individual  whom  we  employ  to  publish 
this  sheet  for  us.  It  looks  to  me  very  like  a  specu- 
lation on  this  Convention  that  I  am  not  prepared  to 
submit  to.  I  do  earnestly  trust  that  if  we  incur  the 
expense  of  publishing  at  all,  that  we  will  not  be  guilty 
of  a  niggardly  economy  for  saving  a  few  hundred  dollars 
rather  than  having  it  in  a  form  in  which  it  can  be  service- 
able to  us  now  and  hereafter.  I  hope,  therefore,  the 
motion  for  indefinite  postponement  will  be  voted  down, 
and  that  the  amendment  of  my  friend  from  Chesterfield 
(Mr.  Cox)  will  be  adopted,  let  the  Cost  be  what  it  may. 
I  take  it  for  granted  that  we  shall  not  pay  more  than  it 
is  worth ;  what  it  is  worth  I  am  ready  to  pay,  but  I 
would  rather  pay  more  than  it  is  worth,  than  to  have  it 
in  the  form  proposed  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  The  bell  has  just  struck  12  o'clock 
and  I  move  that  the  Convention  adjourn. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  lost. 

Mr.  STANARD.  Since  I  was  last  up,  a  communica- 
tion has  been  handed  to  me  relating  to  this  subject, 
which  I  desire  to  have  read.  It  is  from  Messrs.  J.  J. 
Palmer,  and  Colin,  Baptist  &  Nolan. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  The  hour  of  12  having  arrived,  and 
this  beino-  the  hour  to  which  the  House  of  Delegates  ad- 
journed here,  and  it  being  apparent  to  every  gentleman 
that  we  cannot  dispose  of  this  question  to-day,  I  think 
it  is  due  to  that  House  that  we  should  adjourn.  As  to 
the  communication,  there  have  been  a  great  many— I  be- 
lieve we  receive  one  daily — from  the  same  firm,  and  I 
prefer  giving  it  due  consideration,  and  therefore  move 
that  the  Convention  now  adjourn. 


VRGIINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


51 


The  motion  to  adjourn  was  negatived — a  count  being 
had — yeas  43,  nays  70. 

The  communication  presented  by  Mr.  STANARD  was 
then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows  : 
To  the  Hon.  President, 

and  Members  of  the  Convention  : 

The  subject  of  "  the  printing  the  debates,"  being  before 
the  Convention,  we  beg  leave  to  present  the  following 
plan,  which  will  secure  the  greatest  general  circulation 
(which  seems  now  to  be  the  great  object)  and  by  giving 
more  time  to  the  printers,  secure  the  most  desirable  of 
all  objects,  perfect  accuracy  and  correctness  ;  the  re 
porters  having  time  to  examine  the  proof  sheets.  We 
propose  to  print  in  book  form  (octavo  or  quarto)  the  pro 
ceedings  and  debates  (during  the  session  of  the  Conven 
tion)  at  the  following  rates— 50  cents  per  thousand  ems 
for  composition,  and  50  cents  per  token  for  press  work 
the  Convention  prescribing  the  quality  of  paper  and  the 
number  of  copies  desired.    The  whole  to  be  ready  for 
distribution  and  delivery  with  the  laws  of  the  General 
Assembly.  J ohn  J.  Palmer,  and 

Jan'y  14,  1851.  Colin,  Baptist  <fe  Nolan. 

Mr.  BR  AXTON.  I  am  at  all  times  disposed  to  gratify 
my  friend  from  Chesterfield,  (Mr.  Cox,)  but  I  was  surprised 
to  hear  such  a  request  come  from  tkat  source.  If  he  has 
any  other  proposition  to  offer,  he  can  present  it  after 
this  question  shall  have  been  disposed  of,  and  therefore 
I  must  decline  to  withdraw  the  motion  to  postpone  in- 
definitely. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to  post- 
pone indefinitely  the  further  consideration  of  the  subject, 
and  there  were  yeas  43,  nays  80,  as  follows : 

Yeas— Messrs.  Anderson,  Banks,  Barbour,  Bocock,  Bow- 
den,  Braxton,  Chambers,  Claiborne,  Davis,  Douglas,  Ed- 
munds, Edwards,  Faulkner,  Flood,  Fuqua,  Garland,  M.  R. 
H.  Garnett,  Goode,  Hill,  Jacobs  Jones,  Kenney,  Kilgore, 
Ligon,  Lynch,  McCandiish,  Miller,  Moncure,  Morris, 
Newman,  Saunders,  Sloan,  Smith  of  King  &  Queen, 
Southall,  Stanard,  Strother,  Taylor,  Turnbull,  Wallace, 
Whittle,  Wingfield,  Woolfolk,  Worsham— 43. 

Nays — Messrs.  J.  Y.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Armstrong,  Arthur, 
Beale,  Bland,  Blue,  Botts,  Bowles,  Brown,  Burges,  Cam- 
den, Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Russell,  Carter  of  Lou- 
don, Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cocke,  Conway,  Cook, 
Cox,  Deneale,  Ferguson,  Finney,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz> 
Gaily,  M.  Garnett,  Hays,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jan- 
ney,  Johnson,  Knote,  Leake,  Letcher,  Lionberger,  Lucas, 
Lyons,  McCamant,  McComas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin 
of  Henry,  Meredith,  Moore,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton, 
Petty,  Price,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Rives,  Scott  of  Fauquier, 
Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Smith 
of  Kanawha,  Smith  of  Ja«kson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier, 
Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Stephenson,  Stewart  of  Morgan, 
Stuart  of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate,  Trigg,  Tunis,  Van 
Winkle,  Watts  of  Norfolk  Co.,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  Wil- 
1  ey,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wise,  Wysor — 80. 

So  the  motion  for  the  indefinite  postponement  was  not 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  COX.  I  now  move  the  re-commitment  of  the  re- 
port, with  the  following  instructions  to  the  committee  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  report  be  re-committed  to  the 
same  committee,  with  instructions  to  receive  proposals 
for  publishing  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  Con- 
vention in  octavo  form,  or  in  a  form  convenient  to  be 
bound  and  preserved." 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  move  that  the  Convention  now 
adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  10  o'clock. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  15,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dibrell,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 


printing  of  the  debates. 

The  PRESIDENT  remarked  that  the  first  business  in 
order  was  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Printing,  that  being  the  unfinished  business  of  yes- 
terday. When  the  Convention  adjourned,  the  question 
pending  was  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cox,  to  re-commit  the 
report  with  instructions. 

Mr.  COX.  I  ask  leave  to  withdraw  the  proposition 
which  I  offered  yesterday,  for  the  purpose  of  offering  in 
effect  the  same  proposition,  but  in  a  form  less  crude  and 
I  think  better  suited  to  accomplish  the  object. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  original  proposition  was 
withdrawn,  and  the  following  substituted  in  lieu  thereof : 
Resolved,  That  the  report  and  resolution  be  recom- 
mitted with  instructions  to  the  committee  to  receive  pro- 
posals for  publishing  numbers  of  the  daily  debates 

and  proceedings  of  the  Convention  in  octavo  form,  or  a 
form  convenient  for  binding  and  preservation,  to  be  dis- 
tributed weekly  among  the  members  of  the  Convention ; 

and  also  for   numbers  to  be  published,  folded  and 

addressed  as  directed  by  members,  each  member  being 
entitled  to  the  same  number  of  copies. 

Mr.  NEWMAN.  I  have  drawn  up  a  resolution  which 
I  will  offer  as  a  substitute  for  that  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Chesterfield,  (Mr.  Cox).  The  main  difference 
between  the  two  is  in  relation  to  the  distribution  to  be 
made  of  the  publication.  The  substitute  is  as  follows : 
Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Reporting,  &c,  be 
directed  to  receive  proposals  for  printing  in  octavo  form 
copies  of  the  debates  of  the  Convention  and  ascertain  the 
cost  thereof,  which  copies  shall  be  disposed  of  as  follows : 
Copies  to  be  furnished  to  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Copies  to  be  furnished  to  subscribers,  $  per  copy. 
Copies  to  bound  for  sale  at  $     per  copy. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  simply  desire  to  know  whether 
this  is  a  proposition  to  re-commit. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  is  to  re-commit. 
Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  prefer  the  substitute,  and  although 
at  first  view  I  would  have  been  willing  to  have  taken  the 
proposition  of  th©  gentleman  from  Chesterfied  (Mr.  Cox) 
yet  upon  reflection,  I  consider  it  just  as  objectionable  as 
the  original  resolution.  Now,  I  presume  that  no  mem- 
ber would  design  to  distinguish  between  his  constitu- 
ents. The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Chester- 
field, if  adopted,  will  devolve  upon  us  the  duty  of  ma- 
king a  distinction  between  our  constituents  the  same  as 
the  other  plan.  I  do  not  like  that.  The  trouble  and  odium 
attending  it  is  what  I  am  not  willing  to  encounter.  My 
own  opinion  is  that  the  substitute  will  answer  all  the 
ends  desired.  Under  the  plan  it  proposes  we  can  have 
this  printing  done  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  all  par- 
ties. We  can  rule  the  prices  down  to  such  a  rate  to 
subscribers  to  the  debates  that  all  who  desire  can  pro- 
cure them.  Any  gentleman  who  has  curiosity  enough 
to  desire  a  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  this  body, 
will  be  perfectly  willing  to  pay  a  dollar  or  a  dollar  and 
a  half  for  a  copy.  And  the  printers  could  furnish  it  at 
that  price,  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that  we  will  pay 
for  the  setting  up  of  the  types,  which  is  the  great  matter 
in  the  cost  of  publication.  This  will  be  the  result  if  we 
adopt  that  substitute.  The  printers  will  be  enabled  to 
furnish  the  debates  at  a  cheap  rate,  and  every  constituent 
we  have,  who  has  curiosity  to  read  them,  will  write  to 
his  representative  to  enter  his  name  as  a  subscriber  for 
this  publication.  Adopt  the  resolution  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Chesterfield  (Mr.  Cox)  and  the  result 
will  be  that  you  will  impose  upon  the  members  of  this 
Convention  the  labor  and.  trouble  and  the  odium  of  dis- 
tinguishing between  their  constituents ;  for  you  cannot, 
and  I  presume  no  gentleman  here  supposes  we  can,  sup- 
ply to  every  man  in  the  Commonwealth  a  copy  at  the 
cost  proposed.  And  if  you  should  attempt  any  such 
thing,  much  of  it  will  be  labor  lost,  for  there  are  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  who  will  not  read ;  there  are  many 
who  cannot  read,  and  there  are  also  many  who  can  read 
them  but  who  cannot  divert  the  time  and  attention  ne- 


52 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


cessary  for  that  purpose  from  their  business.  I  trust 
that  the  substitute  will  be  adopted — adopted  at  once, 
and  then  we  shall  put  it  in  the  power  of  every  one  of 
our  constituents  who  desire  it,  to  procure  the  debates 
and  proceedings  at  a  very  cheap  rate,  we  having  paid  for 
the  setting  up  of  the  types.  I  will  not  detain  the  Con- 
vention with  further  remarks. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  substitute,  and  it 
was  rejected. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  suppose  that  it  wiM  be  just  as 
well  for  the  Convention  now  to  determine  whether 
they  will  choose  the  sheet  form  or  supplement,  or 
the  octavo  form,  on  the  motion  to  instruct.  Well, 
there  is  the  sheet  in  the  octavo  form,  [holding  it  up  to 
view.]  You  will  see  that  there  is  a  plantation  with  one 
long  vacant  avenue  running  through  it,  and  three  others 
equally  large  and  vacant,  cutting  across  it  at  right  an- 
gles, with  the  main  avenue,  almost  as  broad  as  Pennsyl- 
vania avenue,  and  as  barren.  You  pay  for  paper  and 
press  work,  to  cover  these  vacancies,  for  just  in  propor- 
tion as  these  avenues  exist  on  the  face  of  the  sheet,  you 
must  place  your  type  some  where  else.  It  will  increase 
the  cost  of  paper,  which  is  the  most  expensive  item  in 
the  whole  charge,  being  about  one-half  of  the  whole 
cost.  It  will  increase  the  expense  of  press-work,  which 
is  the  second  principal  item  of  charge  in  this  work,  in 
the  same  ratio.  Again,  the  sort  of  paper  that  will  an- 
swer for  the  supplement,  at  a  moderate  price,  will  not 
answer  for  the  pamphlet  form,  which  is  to  be  bound  and 
preserved.  The  paper  on  which  the  public  documents 
are  printed  for  the  House  of  Delegates,  costs  the  Com- 
monwealth from  five  to  five  and  a  half  or  six  dollars  a 
ream ;  and  if  these  debates  are  to  be  put  in  pamphlet 
form,  you  must  have  pamphlet  paper,  and  the  flimsy 
paper  that  does  for  the  newspaper  form,  will  not  do  to 
put  up  in  the  form  of  pamphlet  for  permanent  preser- 
vation. So  that,  in  every  aspect  of  the  case,  you  must 
inevitably  increase  the  cost,  and  the  burden  upon  the 
Treasury.  I  think,  that  the  committee's  proposition  will 
be  found  in  the  result,  a  great  deal  cheaper ;  and  I  predict 
that  it  will  be  found  impracticable  to  work  off  the  num- 
ber that  we  desire  for  circulation  among  the  comxiunity, 
namely,  thirty-one  thousand  copies  a  week ;  and  that  for 
the  reason  that  the  working  off  the  pamphlet,  and  the 
folding  in  pamphlet  form,  must  necessarily  consume  a 
great  deal  more  time,  than  the  running  a  common  sheet 
through  the  press.  If  I  know  any  thing  about  what 
the  people  desire,  it  is,  that  they  may  be  informed  of 
the  current  business  of  the  Convention  from  day  to  day. 
But  in  this  form  your  proceedings  will  be  delayed  so 
long,  that  the  interest  and  excitement  which  gave  rise 
to  the  debate  will  have  died  away,  and  it  will  never  be 
read  at  all.  I  hope  that  the  exhibit  I  have  made 
will  at  once  induce  those  who  believe  that  the  supple- 
mental sheet  will  answer  all  the  main  purposes  we  have 
in  view,  to  Vote  against  the  motion  to  re-commit,  with 
instructions. 

Mr.  COX.  I  shall  detain  the  Convention  but  a  very 
few  moments,  either  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  who  has 
just  taken  his  seat,  or  in  the  advocacy  of  the  plan  offer- 
ed by  myself.  It  seems  to  me,  that  the  gentleman,  in 
the  setting  out  of  the  argument,  begged  the  question. 
He  has  assumed  the  fact  that  the  publication  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  shape  which  I  desire  to  have  them  pub- 
lished, will  cost  the  Commonwealth  more  money  than 
in  the  flimsy  and  perishable  form  in  which  he  proposes 
to  publish  them.  This  is  begging  the  question.  Now, 
what  does  my  amendment  contemplate  ?  And  what  does 
it  direct  ?  It  directs  the  committee  to  receive  proposals 
for  publishing  these  debates  in  a  certain  form.  Wot  un- 
til these  proposals  have  been  received,  can  we  tell 
whether  his  plan  or  my  plan  will  cost  the  most.  When 
they  have  been  received,  I  take  it  that  the  committee, 
according  to  the  resolution,  will  submit  them  to  the  Con- 
vention, and  we  will  then  determine  whether  we  wdl  ac- 
cept  the  proposals  or  not.  The  resolution  does  not  leave 
it  to  the  discretion  of  the  committee  to  accept  proposals 
for  publishing  the  reports  of  these  proceedings — it  mere- 


ly directs  them  to  receive  them  and  report  them  to 
this  body.  We  can  accept  them,  or  not  accept  them, 
as  we  please.  If  we  find  that  it  must  encumber 
the  Treasury  with  debt,  and  cost  immensely  more, 
as  the  gentleman  has  said,  than  his  plan,  we  can  re- 
ject it,  and  adopt  his  plan,  or  any  other.  As  far  as 
my  opinion  goes,  I  think  the  plan  proposed  by  me  will 
cost  less  than  his  plan.  When  these  proposals  are  re- 
ceived, I  think  you  will  find  that,  in  pamphlet  form,  and 
done  even  on  the  good  paper  he  speaks  of,  the  work 
will  cost  a  less  amount  of  money  than  on  the  perisha- 
ble sheet  and  indifferent  paper,  under  the  plan  propo- 
sed by  the  committee.  Let  us  try  the  experiment.  We 
can  do  it  in  a  very  few  days.  The  gentleman  thinks 
that  in  the  pamphlet  form,  it  cannot  be  published  in  the 
short  time  necessary  for  distribution.  I  differ  from  the 
gentleman  in  this.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  cannot  be 
printed  as  readily  and  expeditiously  in  this  form  as  any 
other.  If  the  printers  have  now  no  proper  press,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  they  can  get  one  in  a  few  days.  There  is 
one  great  objection  to  the  form  of  the  supplement  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  merely  paying  the  papers  of  this  city  for 
publishing  in  their  papers,  what  they  will  publish,  if  we  do 
not  pay  them.  It  is  a  bonus  to  them  which  we  do  not  offer 
to  the  editors  of  newspapers  in  other  cities.  You  pay  the 
editors  of  the  newspapers  in  this  city  for  publishing 
the  reports  and  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  when 
this  same  information  will  be  published  by  the  editors 
of  papers  in  Petersburg,  Alexandria,  and  Norfolk,  and 
they  get  no  pay  for  it.  We  give  them  the  reports  in 
manuscript,  and  they  charge  for  publishing  them.  The 
papers  in  those  other  cities  and  provincial  towns,  get 
the  matter  in  a  printed  form,  and  receive  no  pay  for 
publishing  it.  If  you  will  pay  the  editors  of  this  city, 
I  shall  move  that  you  pay  the  editors  of  my  city.  If 
you  give  a  bonus  to  the  editors  in  this  city,  you  should 
give  the  same  bonus  to  the  editors  of  the  newspapers  in 
my  city,  and  the  gentlemen  from  the  towns  of  Alexan- 
dria and  Norfolk,  will  have  the  same  right  to  claim 
a  bonus  for  the  newspapers  in  their  cities.  I  think 
the  most  speedy  way  of  finishing  this  matter,  would 
be  to  send  it  back  to  the  committee,  instructing  them 
to  receive  proposals  for  the  publication  of  these  pro- 
ceedings ;  and  then,  when  these  proposals  are  received, 
we  can  accept  or  reject  them,  as  we  think  best.  I  ask 
for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  COX.  I  would  inquire,  whether  the  blanks 
ought  not  to  be  filled  before  the  question  is  put  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  can  be  filled  after  the  re- 
solution is  adopted. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution  offer- 
red  by  Mr.  Cox,  and  there  were — yeas  67,  nays  50,  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Banks,  Barbour,  Beale,  Bland, 
Bocock,  Botts,  Bowles,  Byrd,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Cham- 
bers, Claiborne,  Cocke,  Cox,  Davis,  Deneale,  Edwards, 
Finney,  Flood,  Fultz,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Goode,  Hill,  Hoge, 
Jacob,  Jones,  Kenney,  Letcher,  Lionberger,  Lynch,  Mc- 
Camant,  Mc Comas,  Martin  of  Henry,  Miller,  Moore,  New- 
man, Pendleton,  Petty,  Price,  Ridley,  Rives,  Saunders, 
Scott  of  Fauquier,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of 
K.  &  Q.,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Snod- 
grass,  Southall,  Stanard,  Stephenson,  Stewart  of  Mor- 
gan, Strother,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate,  Turn- 
bull,  Wallace,  White,  Whittle,  Williams  of  Fairfax, 
Woolfolk,  Worsham,  Wysor— 67. 

Nays — Messrs.  Mason,  (President,)  Armstrong,  Arthur, 
Blue,  Bowden,  Braxton,  Brown,  Burgess,  Camden,  Carter 
of  Russell,  Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Conway,  Cook, 
Douglass,  Edmunds,  Ferguson,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Gaily, 
M.  Garnett,  Hopkins  of  Powhatan,  Hunter,  Janney, 
Johnson,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Leake,  Ligon,  Lucas,  Mc- 
Candlish,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Moncure,  Morris,  Neeson, 
Purkins,  Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Seymour,  Shell,  Shef- 
fey,  Snowden,  Taylor,  Trigg,  Tunis,  Van  Winkle,  Watts 
of  Norfolk  county,  Willey,  Wingfied,  Wise— 50. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


53 


So  the  resolution  to  re-commit  the  report  with  in 
structions,  was  agreed  to. 

_  The  PRESIDENT.  There  are  blanks  in  the  resolu- 
tion. What  is  the  purpose  of  the  Convention,  to  fill 
them,  or  to  refer  it  to  the  committee  as  it  is  ? 

Mr.  COX.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  it  should  go 
to  the  committee  as  it  is,  unless  some  gentleman  would 
prefer  a  definite  number. 

AMOUNT  OF  TOWN,  CITY  AND  COUNTY  TAXES. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  received  a  communication 
from  the  Auditor  of  Accounts,  to  be  laid  before  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  Secretary  read  the  communication  as  follows: 
Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Richmond,  Jan.,  14,  1851.  J 
Sir  :  Herewith  I  have  the  honor  of  handing  to  you  the 
table  showing  the  amount  of  taxes  assessed  for  each 
county,  city  and  town  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virgi- 
nia, iii  the  years  1790,  1800,  1810,  1820,  1830,  and  1840, 
called  for  by  resolution  of  the  Convention,  passed  on 
the  17th  day  of  October  last. 
I  am,  with  high  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Ro.  Johnston,  First  Auditor. 
To  the  Hon.  John  Y.  Mason, 

President  of  the  Virginia  State  Convention. 
The  PRESIDENT.    What  disposition  shall  be  made 
of  the  communication  ?    The  accompanying  documents 
have  already  been  handed  over  to  the  printer. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  move  that  the  communication  and 
accompanying  document  belaid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  move  that  an  extra  number  of  two 
thousand  be  printed. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  should  like  to  hear  some  reason 
for  printing  so  large  an  extra  number  of  these  documents. 
I  do  not  know  why  so  large  an  extra  number  is  neces- 
sary. 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  in- 
quire for  some  reasons  for  publishing  an  extra  number 
of  these  documents.  The  reason  simply  is,  to  enlarge 
the  circulation  as  much  as  possible.  There  is  conside- 
rable interest  felt  on  this  subject  among  the  people,  and 
great  anxiety  for  the  information  which  is  furnished  by 
this  document.  By  printing  an  extra  number  of  two 
thousand,  you  can  give  a  larger  circulation,  and  of 
course  satisfy  this  desire.  I  have  no  particular  desire 
for  the  exact  number  proposed.  If  any  other  gentle- 
man desires  a  smaller  number  than  that,  if  it  will  only 
accomplish  the  end  in  view,  I  shall  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  think,  if  I  understand  the 
Chair,  these  documents  are  already  printed  and  distri- 
buted. Does  the  motion  to  print  embrace  the  letter,  or 
simply  the  accompanying  documents? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  embraces  the  letter 
and  the  accompanying  documents. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  withdraw  the  motion  to  print,  as 
to  the  former. 

A  MEMBER.  I  would  inquire  whether  the  docu- 
ment is  very  voluminous  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  sir. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  was  under  a  misapprehension 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  document.  I  understood  it  was 
only  a  conjectural  estimate  of  population.  I  find  I  was 
mistaken,  and  I  will  make  no  opposition  to  the  motion 
to  print. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  will  remark  that  the  Conven- 
tion directed,  before  its  adjournment,  that  the  commu- 
nications received  on  this  subject,  during  the  recess, 
should  be  presented  to  the  printer,  and  the  printing 
executed  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary.  When 
they  were  received  accordingly,  the  accompanying  docu- 
ments Avere  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer,  in  order 
that  the  members  might  be  more  expeditiously  accom- 
modated with  the  documents.  The  question  on  this 
document  is  now  presented,  and  it  is  necessary  for  the 
Convention  to  decide  whether  it  shall  be  printed  or  not. 
The  first  motion  was  to  lay  on  the  table  and  print  for 


the  use  of  members.  The  gentleman  from  Marion  made 
his  motion  to  print  two  thousand  copies.  The  question 
will  first  be  taken  on  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  and 
print. 

The  question  was  taken  and  the  President  was  about 
to  declare  the  motion  negatived — 

Mr.  DENEALE.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  question  was 
not  understood.  There  certainly  can  be  no  objection  to 
the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  and  print. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS  expressed  the  same  opinion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  the  question  seems  to  have 
been  misunderstood,  it  will  be  again  taken. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  misappre- 
hension as  to  the  state  of  the  facts.  If  I  understood, 
the  motion  made  to  print  was  put  and  carried ;  and  the 
gentleman  from  Marion,  after  the  vote  was  taken,  moved 
for  the  extra  copies. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  the  recollection  of 
the  Chair.  The  Chair  was  stating  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  and  was  about  to  put  the 
question,  but  before  it  was  announced,  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  offered  his  resolution  to  print  two  thousand 
extra  copies.  If  a  divison  of  the  question  is  called  for, 
it  will  be  made. 

A  MEMBER.    It  is. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A  division  of  the  question  is  re- 
quested. The  first  question  is,  on  laying  on  the  table 
and  printing  the  usual  number,  five  hundred  copies. 

This  motion  was  decided. in  the  affirmative.  The  ques- 
tion then  recurred  on  the  motion  to  print  two  thousand 
extra  copies,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  negative. 

PUBLICATION  OF  DOCUMENTS  IN  GERMAN. 

M.i.  KNOTE.  I  move  to  take  up  the  resolution  I  of- 
fered the  other  day  relating  to  the  printing  of  certain 
documents  in  the  German  language,  and  which  was  laid 
on  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  and  the 
resolution  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be,  and  he  is  hereby  in- 
structed to  contract  with  Mr.  George  Deitz,  editor  of 
the  "  Virginia  Staats  Zeitung,"  to  print  in  the  German 
language  copies  of  such  public  documents  as 

may  be  ordered  to  be  so  printed  by  this  Convention,  to- 
gether with  the  new  Constitution,  when  it  shall  be  com- 
pleted: Provided,  such  contract  can  be  made  at  prices 
not  higher  than  are  now  paid  for  public  printing  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  Virginia. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  wish  to  say  but  a  word  or  two.  I 
have  been  asked  since  I  offered  this  resolution,  where 
this  paper  was  printed.  I  presumed  that  this  was  un- 
derstood at  the  time  that  I  offered  the  resolution.  The 
paper  is  printed  in  Wheeling.  Again,  I  have  been  asked 
how  these  documents,  if  they  are  so  printed,  shall  be 
distributed  to  the  people  who  desire  them  ?  j  will  an- 
swer that.  These  documents,  if  printed,  will  be  folded 
and  directed,  and  mailed  at  Wheeling,  by  the  editor, 
free  of  charge.  And  if  members  who  have  constituents 
desiring  the  documents,  will  send  me  their  names,  I  will 
send  them  to  the  editor,  and  they  will  receive  them  at 
any  place  in  the  State  at  the  same  rate  and  at  the  same 
postage  as  they  would  if  they  were  printed  in  the 
capital.  I  do  not  desire  to  say  anything  more  on  the 
subject  at  present.  I  presume  it  is  fully  understood, 
and  I  hope  the  resolution  will  be  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention without  discussion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  propose  to 
fill  the  blanks  in  his  resolution  himself  ? 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  will  move  to  fill  the  blank  that  oc- 
curs in  the  resolution  with  five  hundred. 

Mr.  KENNEY.  I  propose  to  fill  the  blank  with 
five  thousand.  There  are  other  gentlemen  who  have 
German  constituents,  besides  the  gentleman  from  Ohio. 
Many  of  my  constituents  are  industrious  intelligent 
Germans,  who  cannot  read  the  English  language,  who 
would  like,  I  have  no  doubt,  to  familiarize  themselves 
with  the  reasons  for  the  various  changes  which  we  may 
make  in  the  Constitution.    Every  person  who  has  at? 


54 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


tained  the  age  of  twenty-one,  and  undertakes  to  acquire 
a  knowledge  of  another  language,  finds  how  difficult  it  is 
to  understand  any  new  document  in  that  language.  In- 
deed, we  find  that  the  best  scholars,  whose  attention  has 
been  directed  to  the  Trench,  Greek,  or  other  languages, 
when  any  difficult  question  is  to  be  examined,  still 
prefer  seeing  it  in  the  language  with  which  they  are 
most  familiar.  This  is  the  case  with  my  constituents. 
I  therefore  hope  the  Convention  may  indulge  us  with 
that  number.  We  ask  it,  at  least  some  of  us,  as  a  per- 
sonal favor,  in  order  that  all  our  constituents  may  be 
able  to  know  wh^t  is  going  on  here.  We  ask  not  for  the 
entire  debates,  but  for  some  three  or  four  documents 
which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  has  pointed  out. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  represent  about  a  thousand 
Dutchmen,  and  I  rise  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Wheel- 
ing if  all  the  Dutchmen  speak  the  same  language.  I  am 
ignorant  of  the  different  languages  spoken  among  the 
Germans ;  but  those  in  my  district  are  what  are  called 
the  "  High  Dutch,"  and  if  they  speak  the  language  in 
which  the  gentleman  from  Wheeling  proposes  to  have 
this  printing  done,  I  am  bound  to  vote  for  the  resolu- 
lution,  but  if  not,  then  I  shall  vote  for  the  printing  of 
our  documents  in  the  language  of  the  "  High  Dutch." 

Mr.  D  ENE  ALE.  It  is  immaterial  to  me  with  what 
number  the  blanks  may  be  filled,  but  I  do  question  the 
policy  or  propriety  of  that  resolution.  I  can  see  no  ve- 
ry great  benefit  that  can  flow  from  it,  and  I  conceive  it 
to  be  the  true  policy  of  this  government  to  invite  the 
adoption  of  one  and  our  own  language  rather  than  to  en- 
courage, or  perpetuate,  or  aid  in  perpetuating  any  other 
or  a  multiplicity  of  languages  among  us.  Again,  this 
publication  is  to  be  effected  in  a  remote  town,  and  in 
order  that  they  may  be  distributed,  we  shall  be  under 
the  necessity  of  sending  our  drafts  or  orders  to  be  filled 
up,  at  that  distance.  It  is  true  there  are  some  of  our 
German  population  who  cannot  read  the  English  lan- 
guage, but  necessity  has  forced  them  to  give  their  chil- 
dren an  English  education,  and  if  they  do  not  read,  they 
perfectly  understand  the  English.  I  cannot  see  the 
propriety  of  encouraging  a  variety  and  multiplicity  of 
languages  in  our  own  State.  I  prefer  that  our  people, 
language  and  everything  else,  shall  become  homogene- 
ous. 

Mr,  DOUGLAS.  I  beg  leave  to  say  a  word  for  a  pe- 
culiar class  of  my  own  constituents.  My  colleague  and 
myself,  I  believe,  are  the  only  gentlemen  upon  this  floor 
who  represent  any  portion  of  the  Indians.  It  will  be 
recollected  that  the  resolution  I  offered  yesterday,  in 
reference  to  those  Indians,  was  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Bill  of  Rights,"  and  I  suppose  therefore  they 
are  to  be  recognized  as  a  portion  of  our  citizens.  If  so, 
I  hope  we  shall  have  a  few  documents  published  in  the 
language  of  the  Pamunky  and  Mattaponi  Indians. 

Mr,  MARTEN",  of  Marshall.  We  cannot  very  well  hear 
in  this  part  of  the  house,  but  I  think,  if  I  understood  the 
gentleman  correctly,  he  wished  to  offer  an  amendment 
to  the  resolution,  proposing  to  print  these  documents  in 
the  language  of  the  Indians  he  represents.  I  think  there 
is  a  vast  difference  between  printing  these  documents  in 
the  German  language  and  in  the  Indian  language. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  did  not  move  any 
amendment. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  I  do  see  great  propriety  in 
printing  these  documents  in  the  German  language  for 
reasons  which  must  appear  obvious  to  every  member  of 
this  Convention.  The  German  citizens  of  Virginia,  and 
they  are  a  large  proportion,  will  be  called  upon  to  vote 
upon  this  Constitution,  for  its  adoption,  or  rejection  and  I 
would  like  to  know  how  gentlemen  expect  they  can  un- 
derstand what  they  are  Voting  upon  when  they  cannot 
understand  the  language  in  which  it  is  presented  to 
them.  They  will  vote,  I  presume,  as  I  have  been  com- 
pelled to  vote  on  two  or  three  occasions  this  morning, 
without  hearing  or  knowing  anything  about  the  subject 
— by  guessing.  There  is  no  impropriety  in  the  Conven- 
tion's imposing  the  small  burden  on  the  Commonwealth 
of  Virginia,  which  will  be  imposed  upon  it,  by  printing 


a  few  documents  in  that  language — the  Constitution  for 
instance,  and  other  important  documents,  which  will  be 
understood  when  these  voters  will  be  called  upon  at  the 
polls,  to  vote  for  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  this  Con- 
stitution. I  believe  it  is  not  proposed  to  print  the  de- 
bates, but  only  such  documents  as  the  Convention  may 
deem  absolutely  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of 
the  Constitution  when  it  shall  be  presented  to  them.  I 
favor  the  largest  number  with  which  the  blank  is  pro- 
posed to  be  filled,  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  500  will 
not  accommodate,  in  all  probability,  the  German  popu- 
lation of  my  district.  Why,  there  is  a  German  popula- 
tion scattered  over  the  whole  State  which  should  be  in* 
formed  upon  this  subject  and  who  can  be  informed  from 
the  distant  city  of  Wheeling.  In  that  city,  I  believe,  is 
published  the  only  German  paper  in  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  from  that  point  can  be  distributed  these  doc- 
uments in  their  own  language,  to  the  German  voters  in 
every  county,  city  and  town  in  this  Commonwealth,  so 
that  when  they  are  called  upon  to  vote  upon  the  Con- 
stitution, they  will  vote  as  we  vote,  understanding^, 
for  its  adoption  or  rejection.  It  is  a  subject  in  which 
they  are  as  deeply  interested  as  we  can  be,  and  I  hope 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  over  the  way  to  insert  "five 
thousand"  instead  of  "five  hundred,"  will  prevail. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  am  in  earnest  in  my  willingness 
to  support  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Wheel- 
ing. I  presume  that  my  friend  from  King  William 
(Mr.  Douglas)  was  jesting  when  comparing  the  Indian 
population  of  his  district — to  whom  no  man  would  be 
willing  to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage — with  the  best 
portion  of  the  population  of  this  Commonwealth,  as  far 
as  honesty  and  industry  are  concerned. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  will  relieve  the  gentleman's  anx- 
iety. I  do  not  wish  to  put  the  Indians  of  my  district 
upon  a  level  with  either  the  high  or  the  low  Dutch  of 
the  Commonwealth. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  represent  in  this  Convention 
three  hundred  German  voters,  remarkable  for  the  sim- 
plicity of  their  religion,  their  honest  deportment,  and 
their  industry.  They  cultivate  their  lands,  own  the 
best  farms,  and  make  as  good  citizens  as  any  member  on 
this  floor  represents,  I  care  not  whether  they  belong  to 
the  chivalry,  to  the  old  hunkers,  to  the  democrats,  to 
the  whigs,  or  to  any  body  else.  I  protest,  there- 
fore, against  putting  my  German  constituents  on  an 
equality  with  the  Indians  of  the  country  who  have 
never  been  entitled  under  the  laws  of  this  State  to 
the  privileges  of  the  white  citizens  of  the  Common- 
wealth. I  believe  that  nine-tenths  of  the  Germans  in 
my  county  speak  the  English  as  fluently  as  they  do  the 
German  language.  But  I  am  not  willing  to  keep  from 
that  portion  of  our  population  who  have  become  identi- 
fied with  the  people  of  Virginia — whose  interests  are 
our  interests,  whose  feelings  are  our  feelings,  and  who, 
thank  God,  are  almost  to  a  man,  democrats — any  of  the 
light  emanating  from  this  Convention  which  we  pro- 
pose to  give  to  others.  If  this  Convention  shall  deter- 
mine to  print  its  debates  and  proceedings  for  the  use  of 
the  people  of  the  Commonwealth,  I  agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Wheeling  (Mr.  Knote)  that  they  should  be 
furnished  to  every  man-— to  the  Dutchman  as  well  as  the 
American.  And  the  only  objection  I  have  to  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  the  city  of  Wheeling,  is  the 
locality  of  his  printing  press.  I  beg  leave  to  ask  my 
friend  from  Richmond — and  he  will  excuse  me  for  nam- 
ing  him — -Mr.  Scott,  if  printing  cannot  be  done  in  the 
German  language  in  the  city  of  Richmond?  [Laughter.] 
If  the  gentleman  is  not  in  the  house,  I  will  say  that  I 
understand  there  is  no  difficulty  in  having  these  docu- 
ments printed  in  German  in  the  city  of  Richmond ;  and 
I  ask  my  friend  from  Wheeling  to  so  modify  his  resolu- 
tion as  to  require  the  committee  to  inquire  into  the  ex* 
pediency  and  cost  of  having  the  documents  and  debates 
of  this  Convention  printed  in  that  language  in  this  city. 
I  ask  it,  so  that  gentlemen  here  having  a  German  con- 
stituency, may  have  an  opportunity  of  sending  a  few  of 
them  to  their  constituents. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


55 


Mr.  JACOB.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  resolu- 
tion in  question  provides  for  the  certain  publication  of 
nothing  but  the  Constitution  itself.  It  depends  upon  a 
subsequeat  order  of  this  body  whether  any  other  docu- 
ment shall  be  printed.  I  take  it,  it  is  the  desire  of  this 
body  that  every  man  in  the  Commonwealth,  who  can 
read  or  who  desires  to  read  the  Constitution,  if  we  ever 
make  one,  shall  have  an  opportunity  so  to  do.  I  agree 
with  the  gentleman  from  Rockingham,  (Mr.  Deneale,) 
that  it  is  not  the  policy  of  the  State  to  encourage  among 
us  the  existence  of  various  languages.  That  is  a  very 
sound  argument  when  applied  to  the  publication  of  our 
ordinary  legislative  proceedings  every  year,  but  it  loses 
all  its  force  when  applied  to  the  question  of  publishing 
the  great  fundamental  organic  law  of  the  State,  after  it 
has  undergone  revision — which  I  hope  will  not  happen 
oftener  than  once  in  twenty  years  at  least.  Whether 
you  shall  furnish  a  population  who  cannot  read  English 
but  who  can  read  German,  with'  an  opportunity  to  un- 
derstand a  matter  in  which  they  have  so  deep  an  inter- 
est as  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  is  a  question  which 
admits,  in  my  opinion,  of  but  one  side.  Again,  the  Ger- 
man population  of  the  State,  such  as  reside  in  my  dis- 
trict— even  their  very  children — have  not  been  long 
enough  in  the  country  to  learn  to  read  our  language, 
and  if  we  intend  to  enable  them  to  read  the  instrument 
for  themselves,  we  must  print  it  for  them  in  a  language 
in  which  they  will  understand  it,  and  not  in  one  of 
which  they  do  not  understand  a  word.  I  am  afraid  that 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  over  the  way  will  overload 
the  resolution  of  my  colleague,  and  I  will  observe  to  the 
gentleman  from  King  William,  who  has  directly  com- 
pared the  German  population  of  the  State  with  the  In- 
dian population  of  the  country — 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  give  way 
for  one  moment.  I  supposed  that  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  (Mr.  Claiborne)  was  made  in 
j  est,  and  mine  was  made  in  the  same  spirit.  I  had  no 
idea  of  comparing  the  Pamunky  and  Mattaponi  Indians 
with  the  German  population,  and  I  had  always  intended 
to  vote  for  the  resolution. 

Mr.  JACOB.  Done  in  jest?  Had  the  gentleman  him- 
self been  compared  to  the  population  which  surrounds 
him — those  Indians — though  in  jest,  he  would  not  have 
relished  the  joke.  [Laughter.]  Jests  made  at  the  ex- 
pense of  a  respectable  portion  of  the  population  of  the 
Sbate,  and  as  respectable  as  any  other  portion,  are  al- 
ways in  bad  taste.  I  would  ask  that  gentleman — to 
show  the  force  of  his  jest — whether  he  would  have  a 
committee  of  this  house  directed  to  inquire  whether 
some  provision  should  not  be  inserted  in  the  Constitu- 
tion by  which  we  may  look  to  the  possible  expulsion  of 
the  German  population  from  the  State.  Such  a  resolu- 
tion he  moved  yesterday,  I  believe,  with  respect  to  the 
Indians  of  his  district;  and  that  very  resolution  should 
have  shown  him  that  he  ought  not  attempt  to  joke  at 
the  expense  of  one  portion  of  the  good  people  of  this 
State,  who  comprise  in  at  least  an  equal  proportion,  as 
much  of  what  is  pure  and  patriotic  and  honorable  and 
useful  in  the  elements  of  population  as  any  other  por- 
tion of  our  citizens. 

Mi-.  KNOTE.  Before  the  vote  is  taken  on  this  resolu- 
tion, I  beg  leave  to  say  a  word  or  two.  I  have  no  ob- 
jection to  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  of  my  friend 
from  Rockingham,  (Mr.  Kenney,)  if  the  number  propos- 
ed is  not  thought  too  large.  My  own  opinion  was, 
that  a  smaller  number  would  be  sufficient.  I  will  say, 
for  the  information  of  the  Convention,  what  I  have  al- 
ready said,  that  it  is  not  my  design  to  make  this  matter 
a  burden  upon  the  Treasury  of  the  State.  I  desire  that 
only  a  few  of  the  most  important  documents  shall  be 
published,  and  then,  only  in  such  numbers  as  will  be  ac- 
tually useful.  If  it  is  thought  that  five  thousand  will 
riot  be  too  many,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  have  that 
number  printed.  I  believed  that  two  or  three  thousand 
would  have  been  sufficient  for  the  purpose.    It  is  my  in- 


new  Constitution,  when  it  shall  be  printed."  This  was 
my  design  originally,  and  I  had  thought  that  five  hun- 
dred or  a  thousand  copies  of  the  important  documents, 
would  be  sufficient  to  distribute  in  different  portions  of 
the  State.  Five  hundred  or  a  thousand  of  the  most  im- 
portant documents,  with  five  thousand  copies  of  the  new 
Constitution,  I  had  supposed,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to 
meet  the  object.  I  will  state,  in  reply  to  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin,  (Mr.  Claiborne,)  that  the  German  popu- 
lation of  my  district,  are  a  part  of  what  is  called  "  Low 
Dutch,"  and  a  part  of  what  is  called  "  High  Dutch,"  and 
that  although  they  speak  the  language  somewhat  differ- 
ently, yet  they  read  it  alike.  I  believe  the  written  and 
printed  language  is  the  same,  chiefly.  All  portions  of 
them  understand  the  German  language  as  printed  by  our 
community.  In  reply  to  what  has  been  said  in  regard 
to  doing  this  printing,  in  this  city,  instead  of  the  city  of 
Wheeling,  I  would  say,  I  do  not  see  the  uecessity  for  any 
inquiry  on  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no 
German  paper  printed  in  this  city,  and  there  is  in  the 
city  of  Wheeling.  I  stated,  that  if  the  printing  was 
given  to  the  editor  of  this  paper,  he  proposed  to  pub- 
lish in  his  paper  the  same  documents,  which  of  course 
would  be  sent  to  all  his  subscribers.  Od  this  account 
the  printing  had  better  be  done  there.  It  will  be  easy 
for  members  who  wish  to  furnish  their  constituents  with 
these  documents,  to  hand  to  myself,  or  to  my  colleague, 
or  send  to  the  editor  directly,  the  names  and  directions 
of  the  individuals  to  whom  they  desire  documents  to  be 
furnished.  In  this  way,  his  German  constituents  will  re- 
ceive the  document  with  no  more  inconvenience  or  ex- 
pense to  himself  than  if  sent  from  the  city  of  Rich- 
mond— the  postage  being  the  same  from  the  city  of 
Wheeling  as  from  the  city  of  Richmond,  to  any  portion 
of  the  Commonwealth,  except  the  city  of  Richmond 
and  the  county  of  Henrico.  Seeing  that  this  paper  is 
printed  there,  and  on  this  account  that  the  printing  can 
be  done  better,  and  without  any  inconvenience  to  the 
people  of  the  State,  I  trust  that  this  resolution,  without 
being  referred,  will  be  adopted,  I  am  willing  to  adopt 
the  amendment  of  my  friend  from  Rockingham,  (Mr. 
Kenney,)  to  fill  the  blank. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  have  intended  to  vote  for  this 
proposition  in  some  form  or  other,  and  to  ascertain  what 
will  be  the  best,  I  move  that  the  resolution,  with  all 
the  amendments,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Print- 
ing. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  would  much  prefer  settling  the  mat- 
ter now.  It  is  a  very  small  matter,  so  far  as  expense  is 
concerned,  and  small  indeed  in  the  estimation  of  many 
members ;  but  it  is  not  small  in  my  estimation,  nor  in 
the  estimation  of  many  of  my  constituents,  and  I  desire 
very  much  that  it  be  disposed  of  now. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  respond  to  the  in- 
quiry made  by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  (Mr.  Clai- 
borne,) of  the  senior  member  of  the  delegation,  (Mr. 
Scott,)  representing  this  district.  My  colleague  I  do 
not  see  in  his  place,  but  I  am  equally  with  him  in- 
formed of  the  fact,  that  there  is  a  printing  press  in  the 
city,  printing  the  German  language,  at  which  any  quan- 
tity of  printing  can  be  done,  which  members  of  this 
body  may  desire.  And  while  I  am  up,  permit  me  to 
say,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  printing  the  proceedings  of 
this  Convention  in  the  German  language.  I  will  not  de- 
termine whether  they  shall  be  printed  in  what  is  called 
the  high  Dutch  or  low  Dutch,  for  although  I  speak  a 
little  Dutch  myself,  yet  I  confess  I  have  found  some 
difficulty  in  understanding  as  thoroughly  as  I  have  desir- 
ed to  understand,  some  portions  of  that  highly  respec- 
table class  of  men  whom  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  re- 
present here.  I  do  not  think  that  500  copies  would  sup- 
ply my  constituents.  We  have  a  large  portion  of  our 
people  who  read  in  Dutch,  and  they  are  most  respecta- 
ble, industrious  and  intelligent  men — many  of  them,  I 
understand,  are  very  scientific  men,  and  they  have  a 

least 


tention  to  move,  at  the  proper  time,  to  add  to  the  fourth  |  press  at  which  most  excellent  printing  is  done — at  leas 
line  after  the  word  "with,"  the  words  "  5000  copies  of  the  I  can  bear  testimony,  that  they  printed  very  well  during 


56 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  late  canvass.  [Laughter.]  I  hope  that  at  least  3000 
copies  will  be  printed,  as  I  think  500  too  small  a  num- 
ber. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  refer  to  the 
Printing  Committee  was  agreed  to. 

FORMATION  OF  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  have  a  paper  which  I  wish  to  offer  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  with  a  view  of  hav- 
ing it  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Le- 
gislative Department,  as  a  subject  of  inquiry.  It  is  as 
follows  : 

The  Legislature  shall  be  formed  of  two  distinct  branch- 
es, and  shall  be  called  the  General  Assembly  of  Virgi- 
nia. 

One  of  these  shall  be  called  the  House  of  Delegates 
and  the  other  the  Senate. 

Each  House  shall  be  divided  into  two  chambers — one 
to  be  composed  of  the  members  chosen  for  and  by  the 
counties,  cities,  towns,  and  electoral  districts,  situa- 
ted East  of  the  Blue  Ridge  of  Mountains,  and  the  other 
of  the  members  chosen  for  and  by  the  counties,  cities, 
and  electoral  districts,  situated  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge 
of  mountains. 

On  all  money,  bills  and  propositions,  to  raise  money  by 
taxes,  loans  or  otherwise,  and  on  all  measures  for  the  ap- 
propriation of  public  money,  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by 
chambers.  A  majority  of  such  chamber  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  pass  in  the  affirmative  any  such  bill,  measure  or 
proposition. 

On  all  other  occasions,  a  majority  of  the  whole  House 
shall  be  competent  to  pass  the  question  in  the  affirmative, 
provided  that  twenty  members  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, or  ten  members  of  the  Senate  concurring,  shall 
have  the  right  to  demand  that  the  vote  shall  be  ta- 
ken by  chambers,  on  any  question  pending  before  the 
respective  Houses.  And  on  every  such  occasion,  a  ma- 
jority of  each  chamber  shall  be  requisite  to  pass  the 
question  in  the  affirmative. 

Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  paper  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department,  with  instruc- 
tions to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  engrafting  such 
provisions  on  the  Constitution. 

I  do  not  propose  to  detain  the  House  with  any  re- 
marks on  the  proposition  I  have  submitted,  at  the  pre- 
sent time.  If  it  shall  receive  the  favorable  consideration 
of  the  Convention,  I  shall,  on  a  proper  occasion,  express 
my  opinion  and  the  reasons  on  which  it  is  founded.  I 
only  ask  that  it  may  be  printed  for  the  use  of  members, 
and  referred  to  the  Legislative  Committee,  with  the  in- 
structions therein  named. 

The  resolution  was  referred,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
under  the  rule,  and  the  motion  to  print  was  agreed  to  by 
the  Convention. 

OPENING  OF  THE  SESSIONS  WITH  PRAYER. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  desire  to  make  an  inquiry  of  the 
Chair.  In  the  early  part  of  our  first  session,  a  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  inviting  the  clergymen  of  the  city  to 
open  our  daily  sessions  with  prayer,  and  I  wish  to  in- 
quire whether  the  President  considers  that  resolution  as 
still  in  force  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes  sir,  and  arrangements  have 
been  made  accordingly  during  the  present  week. 

ADDITION  OF  TWO  MEMBERS  TO  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  PRINTING. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  it  is  in  order 
to  move  an  enlargement,  or  an  addition  to  the  number  of 
the  Committee  on  Printing  our  Debates. 

The  PRESIDENT  replied  that  it  was. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  then  move  that  the  gentlemen  from 
Chesterfield  (Mr.  Cox)  and  from  Pendleton  (Mr.  New- 
man,) be  added  to  the  committee. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ROOMS  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE  COMMITTEES. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  desire  to  offer  a  resolution 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  in  order  that  the  chairmen  of 
the  several  committees  may  suit  themselves  as  to  rooms 
in  which,  to  hold  their  meetings.    There  are  some  six  or 


seven  rooms  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  church 
to  which  we  are  about  to  remove,  and  which  the  commit- 
tees can  procure  if  they  cannot  find  sufficient  accommo- 
dation here.  In  addition,  I  would  state  that  one  of  the 
largest  and  best  rooms  in  Odd-Fellow's  hall  may  be  pro- 
cured, which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the  purposes  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Basis,  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  $2  a 
week.    The  resolution  is  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  chairmen  of  the  several  commit- 
tees be.  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  to  procure  rooms 
for  the  meetings  of  said  committees  at  a  cost  not  exceed- 
ing two  dollars  each  per  week. 

The  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

ADJOURNMENT  TO  THE  UNIVERSALIST  CHURCH. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  now  move  that  when  the  Con- 
vention adjourn  to  day,  it  be  to  meet  at  the  Universalist 
church  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  not  the  Unitarian  and  not  the 
Universalist  church  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr. 
Garnett,)  is  the  chairman  of  the  committee  who  hired 
the  church,  and  certainly  ought  to  know. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  ask  the  gentleman  if  it  is  not  the 
Unitarian  church? 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  We  contracted  with  them  as 
Universalists,  at  all  events.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  LYONS.  I  would  suggest  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  that  he  withdraw  his  motion  for  the  present. 
I  do  not  think  the  building  will  be  ready  as  early  as  12 
o'clock  to-morrow,  judging  from  the  condition  in  which 
it  was  at  dusk  last  night,  and  from  the  statement  made 
to  me  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the 
city  who  are  supervising  the  work.  He  told  me  that  it 
was  probable,  though  not  certain,  that  it  would  be  ready 
by  Friday. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  have  no  desire  to  press  the  mat- 
ter, but  I  was  at  the  church  this  morning,  and  from  what 
I  saw,  believed  it  might  be  got  ready  for  our  reception 
by  12  o'clock  to-morrow.  I  think  the  gentlemen  there, 
as  well  as  elsewhere,  sometimes  need  a  little  hurrying  up. 
I  withdraw  my  motion. 

And  then  on  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  until 
to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

THURSDAY,  January  16,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  Journal  of  the  preceeding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  have  received  the  proceedings  of  a 
meeting  of  the  people  of  Pocahontas  county,  held  at  the 
court  house,  pursuant  to  previous  notice;  the  resolu- 
tions adopted  at  which,  relate  to  constitutional  reform. 
They  are  short  and  expressive,  and  I  ask  that  they  may 
be  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  of 
Representation. 

The  proceedings  were  read  by  the  Secretary  as  fol- 
lows : 

At  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Pocahontas  county, 
held  at  the  court  house  in  pursuance  of  a  previous 
public  notice.  On  motion,  George  W.  Amiss,  Esq.,  was 
called  to  the  Chair,  and  Robert  F.  Dennis  was  requested 
to  act  as  Secretary.  Mr.  Amiss,  on  taking  the  Chair, 
made  a  few  very  appropriate  remarks,  explaining  the 
object  of  the  meeting.  On  motion,  a  committee  consist- 
ing of  Messrs.  D.  A.  Stofer,  John  Gayr,  Sampson  L. 
Matthews,  Capt.  Cockran,  James  Edminston,  and  Hugh 
McLaughlin,  was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
paring a  preamble  and  resolutions  for  the  action  of  the 
meeting. 

The  committee,  after  a  short  consultation,  reported 
through  their  chairman  the  following : 

Whereas,  we  believe  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Re- 
publicanism to  be,  that  the  white  population  of  the 
State  is  the  sole  depository  of  political  power ;  that 
the  representation  in  the  councils  of  the  State  should 
be  based  upon  its  free  white  inhabitants ;  and  that  this 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


57 


is  the  only  doctrine  compatible  with  the  bill  of  rights 
of  Virginia ;  and  whereas,  we  have  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  our  brethren  of  eastern  Virginia  will  insist, 
through  their  representatives  in  the  Convention,  now 
assembled,  upon  the  odious  principle  of  the  mixed  or 
combined  basis  being  incorporated  in  our  State  Consti- 
tution, upon  which  they  have  met  to  deliberate,  utterly 
regardless  of  tht  rights  of  the  West,  and  opposed  to 
every  principle  of  Republicanism.    Be  it  therefore, 

L  Resolved,  That,  defective  as  is  our  State  policy  in 
many  other  respects,  we  regard  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion as  paramount  to  all  others,  and  we  will  accept  no 
Constitution  that  does  not  contain  the  white  population 
as  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  councils  of  the 
State  ;  and  we  hereby  pledge  ourselves  to  do  every  thing 
in  our  power  to  defeat  the  adoption,  by  the  people^of  any 
Constitution  which  does  not  confer  equality  of  political 
right  upon  the  people  of  every  portion  of  the  State. 

2.  Resolved,  That  while  we  will  accept  no  Constitu- 
tion, except  it  contains  the  white  basis  principle,  we 
will  sanction  no  guarantee  to  the  East,  other  than  the 
advalorwn  system  of  taxation. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  regard  our  Eastern  brethren 
entitled  to  equal  rights  with  ourselves,  ana  we  consider 
ourselves  "their  equals  in  every  respect,  ana  claim  the 
same  acknowledgment  on  their  part." 

4.  Resolved,  That  all  the  counties  comprising  this 
conventional  district,  be  requested  to  co-operate  with 
us  in  the  opinions  and  determinations  herein  expressed. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  delegates  from  this  district  be 
furnished  with  these  proceedings,  and  the  same  be 
signed  by  the  Chairman  and  Secretary,  and  sent  to  the 
Lewisburg  Chronicle,  Kanawha  and  Richmond  papers 
with  the  request  that  they  publish  the  sam  e. 

Before  the  vote  was  taken  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions,  the  meeting  was  ad- 
dressed by  Messrs.  Dennis,  Skeene,  Slater,  Reynolds  and 
Cockrane.    They  were  then  adopted  unanimously. 

Geo.  M.  Amiss,  Chairman. 

R.  F.  Dennis,  Secretary. 
January  7,  1851. 

The  paper  was  then  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis. 

INVIOLABILITY  OF  CONTRACTS    AND  OBLIGATIONS    OF  DEBT. 

Mr.  M'COMAS  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legisla- 
tive Department : 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  the  Legislature  from 
passing  any  law,  impairing  the  remedies  for  the  en- 
forcement of  contracts  or  the  collection  of  debts,  which 
existed  and  were  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of 
such  contracts,  or  the  creation  of  such  debts. 

Mr.  LETCHER  offered  the  following  resolutions,  and 
they  were  read  and  referred  to  the  Legislative  Commit- 
tee : 

COMMISSION  TO  SETTLE  CLAIMS  AGAINST  THE  STATE. 

1st.  Resolved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  organizing  a 
commission  for  the  settlement  of  all  private  claims 
against  the  State,  and  of  requiring  the  Attorney  Gener- 
al to  represent  the  State  before  such  commission  to  pro- 
tect it  against  all  illegal,  fraudulent,  or  unjust  claims 
which  may  be  presented. 

PROHIBITION*  OF  LEGISLATIVE  GRANTS  OF  DIVORCES. 

2d.  Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  prohibiting  the  Legislature  from 
granting  divorces. 

DISCONTINUANCE     OF    ALLOWANCES    FOR    CONVICT  SLAVES. 

3d.  Resolved,  That  the  said  committee  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  prohibiting  the  Legislature  from  mak- 
ing any  allowance  to  the  owners  of  convict  slaves  sen- 
tenced to  death  or  transportation. 

ADJOURNMENT  TO  THE  UNIVERSALIST  CHURCH. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.    I  roove  that  whan  the  House  adjoura 


to-day,  it  be  to  meet  on  Monday  at  12  o'clock,  at  the 
Universalist  church. 

I  Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  good  rea- 
son why  we  should  adjourn  now  until  Monday.  The 
church  is  now  ready  for  our  use,  and  we  might  have  gone 
I  there  at  12  o'clock  to-day,  as  I  moved  yesterday.  At 
\  all  events  it  will  be  ready,  swept  and  garnished  for  us 
,  to-morrow,  and  I  trust  we  shall  go  there  then,  and  not 
adjourn  until  Monday.  While  I  am  up,  I  will  say  to  the 
chairmen  of  the  committees,  that  I  have  been  informed 
:  by  the  owner  of  the  law  buildings,  that  there  are  sev- 
eral excellent  rooms  there  which  can  be  procured  for 
|  their  uses  at  the  price  designated  by  the  Convention. 
Other  rooms  have  been  tendered,  and  there  seems  to  be 
'no  difficulty  in  getting  abundance  of  accommodation. 
,  I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking  out  the  word 
••Monday*'  and  inserting  "to-morrow." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  surprised  that  the  gentleman 
|  from  Essex  (Mr.  Garnett)  can  see  no  good  reason  why 
I  we  should  adjourn.  I  do  not  know  to  what  committee 
:  he  belongs,  but  if  he  was  a  member  of  the  one  of  which 
[my  friend  from  Stafford  (Mi-.  Moncure)  is  chairman, 
i  he  would  find  enough  to  do  to  employ  all  his  time  with- 
out meeting  here  daily.  This  daily  meeting  when  we 
have  no  particular  business  to  transact,  interferes  with 
j  the  sessions  of  the  committees,  in  which  more  labor  can 
'be  profitably  performed  than  here. 

Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  I  can  only  say  that  I  belong  to  a 
committee  who  have  not  yet  met,  and  who  I  do  not  be- 
lieve will  meet  until  you  have  settled  down  in  some  reg- 
ular place  of  meeting.  \Ye  shall  make  no  progress,  in 
my  opinion,  in  our  regular  business,  until  Ave  get  settled 
down  in  our  own  quarters,  and  the  sooner  we  do  that  the 

I  better.  The  very  best  farmer  in  my  county,  one  who 
i  generally  makes  the  best  crops,  usually  begins  all  his 
work  at  the  last  of  the  week.  If  he  has  to  weed  a  corn 
crop,  he  has  it  begun  on  Saturday,  and  thus  all  is  ready 

ion  Monday  morning  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work. 

I I  think  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  copy  his  example. 

;  Mr.  VOOLFOLK.  I  move  to  lay  the  resolution  on 
■  the  table.  I  think  we  should  make  no  provision  for  any 
!  extended  adjournment  until  we  have  disposed  of  this 
!  question  of  printing  the  debates. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  proposition  to 
amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor  to  adjourn  until  Monday, 
by  striking  out  "Monday "and  substituting  therefor 
i "  to-morrow,"  and  it  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — 
ayes  45,  noes  33. 

The  motion  as  amended,  was  then  agreed  to. 
And  then  on  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  to 
|  meet  in   the  Universalist  church  to-morrow,  at  12 
o'clock. 


FRIDAY,  January  17,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  in  the 
!  Universalist  church. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

ABOLITION  OF   CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  AND  IMPRISONMENT  FOR 
DEBT. 

Mr.  BOTTS  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
[was  referred  to  the  Legislative  Committee  : 

Resolved.  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment of  the  government  be  instructed  to  inquire  into 
1  the  expediency  of  adopting  a  provision  in  the  Constitu- 
:  tion  for  abolishing  capital  punishment  and  imprisonment 
\  for  debt. 

DELINQUENT  AND  FORFEITED  LANDS. 

Mr.  VAX  WIXKLE  offered  the  following  resolution, 
and  it  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  auditor  of  public  accounts  be  re- 
quested to  report  to  the  Convention  what  amount  of  mo- 
ney has  been  received  into  the  treasury  for  Lands  sold  by 


58 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  commissioners  of  delinquent  and  forfeited  lands,  un- 
der the  acts  of  1837  and  1838,  concerning  the  western 
land  titles  ;  the  number  of  acres  of  land  sold,  and  what 
portion  of  the  proceeds  of  the  said  sales  has  been  paid  to 
the  original  owners  of  such  lands. 

ADDITIONAL  BUREAUS  IN  THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  WISE  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it  was 
read  and  referred  to  the  Executive  Committee  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Executive  Committee  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  incorporating  into  the  Constitution  the 
following  provision,  to  wit :  In  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment of  the  State,  there  shall  be  a  bureau  of  agriculture  ; 
a  bureau  of  statistics  ;  a  bureau  of  manufactures  and  arts  ; 
a  bureau  of  trade  and  commerce  ;  and  a  bureau  of  civil 
engineering  and  surveys  ;  the  duties  and  operations  of 
which,  shall  be  organized  and  regulated  by  law. 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  WORKS  OF  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS. 

Mr.  WISE  then  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  read. 

Resjved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  be  instruct- 
ed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  incorporating  into 
the  Constitution  the  following  provision,  to  wit :  All  works 
of  State  internal  improvement  shall  be  classed  by  a  com- 
petent chief  of  civil  engineering  and  surveys,  into  four 
classes.  No  appropriation  entirely  from  the  State  trea- 
sury, shall  be  made  to  any  works  of  internal  improve- 
ment except  to  those  of  the  first  class.  None  shall  be 
made  to  those  of  the  second  class,  unless  individuals 
shall  subscribe,  and  actually  pay  in  money,  two-fifths  of 
their  cost  of  construction.  None  shall  be  made  to  works 
of  the  third  class,  unless  individuals  shall  subscribe  and 
actually  pay  in  money,  three  fifths  of  their  cost  of  con- 
struction ;  and  none  shall  be  made  to  works  of  the  fourth 
class,  unless  individuals  shall  subscribe,  and  actually  pay 
in  money,  four-fifths  of  their  cost  of  construction ;  and 
none  shall  be  made  to  new  works  of  internal  improve- 
ment, until  the  works  of  previous  appropriations,  in  the 
same  class  shall  have  been  fully  completed,  and  the  State 
liabilities  therefor  shall  have  been  fully  paid  and  dis- 
charged. 

STATE  DEBT  FIRE  INSURANCE  REPUDIATION,  &C. 

Mr.  WISE  also  offered  the  lollowing  resolution,  and  it 
was  read. 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  be  instruct- 
ed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  incorporating  into 
the  Constitution  the  following  provision,  to  wit :  No 
State  loan  or  public  debt  whatever,  shall  be  created  by 
the  Legislature,  without,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same 
law,  providing  the  means  upon  which,  alone,  the  public 
faith  of  the  State  shall  be  pledged  for  the  debt  or  loan, 
and  whereby  it  shall  be  redeemed  and  paid  ;  and  to  se- 
cure and  preserve  inviolate  the  public  faith  and  credit  of 
the  State,  the  Legislature  may,  whenever  it  deems  pro- 
per, resort  to  a  tax,  in  the  nature  of  a  premium  of  mu- 
tual insurance,  not  exceeding  per  cent  upon  all 

houses  and  other  property  of  the  State,  capable  of  in- 
surance by  the  State  to  its  citizens  ;  against  losses  by  fire 
or  otherwise,  as  may  be  regulated  by  law.  And  though 
at  all  times  the  existence  or  fact  of  a  public  debt  may  be 
contest  ed  or  controverted  by  the  State  at  law  or  inequity, 
yet  the  repudiation  of  a  public  debt  or  the  interest  there- 
on, in  any  form  or  degree  whatever,  by  the  State  go- 
vernment, or  by  any  of  its  departments,  tribunals  or 
officers,  hereby  is  expressly  and  solemnly  prohibited 

Mr.  WISE.  With  the  permission  of  the  Chair  and  of 
this  body,  I  beg  leave  to  explain  as  briefly  as  possible, 
the  objects  and  operation,  if  I  can,  of  a  principle  intro- 
duced into  that  resolution,  which  may  appear  to  gentle- 
men objectionable,  because  it  is  novel.  Sir,  the  State  of 
Virginia  is  now  burdened  with  a  debt  of  at  least  eighteen 
millions,  if  not  more,  and  she  also  is  waking  up  a  spirit 
of  improvement  that  demands,  and  ought  to  demand  a 
very  great  increase  of  that  public  debt.  And  created 
however  it  may  be,  for  whatever  purpose,  and  whatever 
end,  however  beneficial,  however  benificent  or  necessary, 
the  amount  of  public  debt  that  is  actually  required  for 


the .  benefit  of  the  people  and  the  honor  of  the  State,  in 
a  very  few  years,  must  be  very  large  and  very  onerous. 
Every  man  of  the  least  foresight  must  acknowledge  this 
fact  in  the  prospective.  And  there  is  a  fact  of  the  past, 
which  he  must  also  acknowledge,  and  it  is  that,  as  yet, 
compared  with  the  people  of  other  States  of  this  Ui*ion, 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Virginia  scarcely  know  what 
the  burthen  of  taxation  is.  We  may  entertain  great  con- 
fidence in  ourselves,  we  may  impose  implicit  reliance 
upon  the  people  of  this  State,  that  they  will  fortify 
themselves  by  the  best  bulwarks  of  public  faith,  honor, 
and  credit ;  but  they  have  yet,  I  repeat,  to  be  tried  ; 
and  that  is  warning  enough  to  sober-minded  men  !  God 
forbid  that  they  should  be  tried  as  some  of  the  States  of 
this  Union  are  tried,  have  been  tried,  and  are  to  be  tried  ; 
and  that  we  should  rely  alone  upon  the  weakness  of 
poor  human  nature  to  maintain  public  credit  and  pub- 
lic honor.  A  tax-paying  people  must  be  fortified  them- 
selves in  order  that  they  may  fortify  fhe  public  credit 
and  public  honor.  Looking  ahead,  then,  to  one  of  the 
most  important  interests  and  concerns  of  this  State,  and 
this  people,  I  look  to  that  great  question  which  has  ne- 
ver been  provided  for  yet — a  permanent  source  of  revenue. 
One  of  the  principles  contained  in  that  resolution  is  an 
old  principle  well  settled  and  well  recognized,  about 
which  I  presume  there  will  be  no  difference  of  opinion — 
a  principle  that  no  loan  shall  be  negotiated  and  no  debt 
created,  without  at  the  same  time  providing  the  means 
for  its  redemption  and  payment.  I  fear  no  difference  of 
opinion  upon  the  recognition  of  that  provision,  but  the 
question  arises,  how  shall  the  means  be  provided  ?  how 
may  the  means  be  provided  ?  I  have  looked  with  anxiety 
and  with  all  the  reflection  of  which  I  am  capable,  to  the 
means  whereby  the  public  debt  may  be  paid,  and  the 
public  honor  and  credit  be  permanently  secured  and  for  - 
tified. And  like  every  other  inventor,  perhaps  I  am 
seized  with  a  one  idea  ;  but  like  inventors  of  the  present 
day,  at  all  events,  I  boldly  advance  it  for  what  it  is  worth. 
And  I  ask  the  committee  to  whom  that  resolution  is  re- 
ferred, seriously  to  take  up  the  principle  which  I  suggest, 
to  think  and  to  reflect  upon  it,  and  see  if  it  be  with- 
out objections  which  cannot  be  easily  overcome.  What 
is  it  ?  It  is  that  the  State  in  future  may  have  the  pow- 
er— that  it  shall  be  within  the  competency  of  legislation, 
not  making  it  imperative  upon  the  Legislature,  but 
merely  to  give  them  power,  in  case  of  emergency  and  ne- 
cessity— to  lay  a  real  estate  tax  in  such  form  as  shall 
secure  the  property  that  is  taxed  against  all  loss,  on  the 
principle  of  mutual  insurance.  You  have  now  two  hun- 
dred and  seventy-six  millions,  as  reported — I  state  it  in 
round  numbers — of  real  estate.  One  half  of  the  value  of 
that  real  estate,  at  least — counting  the  towns  and  cities — ■ 
consists  of  the  value  of  houses.  One  hundred  and  thir- 
ty-eight millions  of  real  estate,  consisting  of  houses. 
One  half  of  one  per  cent,  upon  that  amount,  in  case  of 
emergency,  would  yield  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  six 
hundred  and  odd  thousand  elollars.  This  would  give 
you  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  per  annum  to  relieve 
ordinary  taxation;  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  cover 
the  average  annual  loss  by  fire  or  otherwise ;  and  would 
give  you  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  as  a  sinking 
fund,  for  permanent  investment.  Not  only  that,  but  you 
book  every  man  in  the  Commonwealth  that  is  taxed  by 
the  State  as  the  insurer.  You  can  provide  by  law  that 
process  shall  issue,  in  case  of  burning  down  a  house  in- 
sured, by  a  writ  of  ad  quod  damnum,  that  a  jury  be  sum- 
moned to  ascertain  whether  there  be  fraud  or  no  fraud, 
and  what  amount  of  loss ;  and  the  report  of  the  jury  to 
the  court,  and  the  judgment  of  the  court,  and  the  certi- 
ficate of  the  clerk,  shall  be  taken  as  a  sufficient  voucher 
for  the  payment  of  the  loss.  More  than  that,  you  strike 
down  one  of  the  most  infamous  crimes  on  the  calender, 
malum  in  se,  the  motive  for  the  crime  of  arson.  But 
this  is  a  mattter  for  your  consideration.  I  present  it  to 
you,  gentlemen,  for  what  it  is  worth,  as  a  principle,  which, 
if  carried  out — a  power  which  if  exercised — only  for  a 
few  years,  will  secure  every  house  in  the  Common- 
wealth,  town  or  county,  against  loss  by  fire.    It  may 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


59 


secure  the  wheat  in  the  ricks,  the  com  in  the  stacks,  the 
farmer's  homestead,  and  his  yearly  product.  If,  I  say, 
the  power  is  exercised  for  a  few  years,  it  will  not  only 
give  this  permanent  security,  but  will  yield  a  fund 
which  itself  will  yield  an  interest  sufficient  to  relieve 
you  from  all  premium  on  insurance  whatsoever.  And  in 
case  of  war,  it  will  be  a  principle  that  would  exercise 
the  duty  of  protection  by  government  to  the  citizen,  in  a 
mauner  that  could  not  be  exercised  so  well  in  any  other 
way.  I  am  sure  that  the  last  principle  in  the  resolution 
will  not  be  objected  to  by  any  body,  and  that  we  will, 
in  all  our  moral  sense,  and  by  all  the  conventional  pow- 
er we  can  exercise,  forever  repudiate,  and  permanently 
repudiate,  the  possibility  of  the  repudiation  of  the  pub- 
lic debt. 

The  resolution  under  the  rule  was  referred,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  to  the  Legislative  Committee. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  resolution 
just  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  embraces  very  important  propositions,  which  can- 
not be  well  understood  by  members  of  the  Convention 
generally,  unless  they  are  printed.  I  am  aware  that 
these  resolutions  go  to  the  committee  to  be  there  acted 
on,  yet  if  they  are  printed,  members  also  will  be  able  to 
have  their  minds  drawn  to  the  consideration  of  them. 
I  therefore  move  that  all  the  resolutions  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac,  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
Convention. 

The  motion  to  print  the  resolutions  was  agreed  to. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SNOWDEN.  The  members  of  the  Convention 
probably  expect  a  report  from  the  Committee  on  pub- 
lishing and  Printing  the  Debates  of  the  Convention  this 
morning,  but  I  would  inform  them  that  the  committee 
still  has  the  subject  under  consideration,  have  been  en- 
gaged with  it  all  the  morning,  and  hope  to  have  their 
report  ready  by  to-morrow. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  desire  to  make  a  motion,  which  I 
hope  will  be  attended  with  better  results  than  the  same 
motion  made  by  me  yesterday.  I  move  that  when  the 
Convention  adjourn  to-day,  it  be  to  meet  on  Monday  next 
at  12  o'clock.  I  would  state  for  the  information  of  mem- 
bers, that  I  believe  all  the  committees  now  are  actively 
engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  their  labors,  and  I  believe 
that  the  public  service  would  be  much  better  promoted 
"by  enabling  the  members  of  the  committees  to  be  in 
session  in  committee,  than  by  compelling  them  to  re- 
main here  when  there  is  nothing  to  be  done. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  move  to  amend  the  motion  by 
striking  out  12  and  substituting  10  o'clock,  so  that  it 
shall  provide  that  when  the  Convention  adjourns,  it  be 
to  meet  on  Monday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.    That  is  destruction  to  my  argument. 

Mr.  ANDERSON  I  prefer  that  our  regular  hour  of 
meeting  shall  be  10  o'clock.  I  do  not  suppose  that  this 
Convention  will  be  required  to  sit  more  than  an  hour  a 
day  until  the  committees  shall  report,  and  it  will  be 
much  more  convenient  to  meet  early  here,  in  order  that 
the  committees  may  hold  their  sessions  at  once  after  we 
adjourn.  To  meet  at  12  o'clock  would  be  dividing  the 
time,  and  interfering  with  the  sessions  of  the  committees, 
and  in  my  opinion,  it  would  be  far  more  convenient  to 
assemble  here  at  10  o'clock,  receive  what  propositions 
gentlemen  may  be  disposed  to  offer,  and  then  adjourn. 
I  am  satisfied  that  if  that  rule  was  adopted,  we  should 
dispatch  business  much  more  speedily,  and  the  commit- 
tees be  enabled  to  make  their  reports  at  a  far  earlier  pe- 
riod than  would  be  the  case  if  we  met  at  12  o'clock. 

Mi*.  TAYLOR.  With  the  consent  of  the  gentleman, 
I  will  modify  the  resolution  so  as  to  provide  that  we 
shall  meet  at  1  o'clock  instead  of  12. 

The  resolution  was  modified  accordingly. 

Mr  JACOB.  Believing  that  by  to-morrow  we  shall 
perhaps  receive  and  dispose  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Printing,  I  prefer  to  meet  here  for  that  pur- 


pose. With  the  view  of  securing  that  end,  I  move  that 
the  Convention  now  adjourn. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  agreed  to — a  count  being 
read — ayes  63,  noes  41. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  12 
o'clock. 


SATURDAY,  January  18,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Mr.  MARK  BIRD,  the  delegate  elected  to  fill  the  va- 
cancy in  the  Shenandoah  district,  was  duly  qualified,  and 
took  his  seat. 

The  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  was  read 
and  approved. 

HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

The  PRESIDENT  announced  the  unfinished  business 
of  yesterday  to  be  first  in  order,  being  the  resolution  in- 
troduced by  Mr.  Taylor,  providing  that  when  the  Con- 
vention adjourn,  it  be  to  meet  on  Monday  at  1  o'clock, 
P.  M.  The  President  remarked,  that  the  resolution  pro- 
posed an  adjournment  from  Friday  to  Monday,  and  this 
being  Saturday,  he  supposed  it  would  be  considered  as 
having  fallen,  and  it  would  be  so  considered  if  it  was  not 
objected  to. 

A  MEMBER.  It  fixes  a  different  hour  of  meeting. 
The  PRESIDENT.  In  that  view  then,  the  resolution 
is  of  force.  It  will  be  considered  as  before  the  Conven- 
tion, and  the  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Anderson 
to  amend  it  by  striking  out  1  o'clock,  P.  M.,  and  insert- 
ing 10  o'clock,  A.  M. 

The  motion  to  amend  was  negatived. 
Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  suggest  whether  it  is  not  proper 
to  make  the  resolution  a  permanent  rule  of  the  Conven- 
tion. As  it  now  stands,  it  provides  that  on  Monday  next, 
only,  the  Convention  will  meet  at  1  o'clock.  There 
ought  to  be  some  pro  vision  for  our  regular  hour  of  meet- 
ing hereafter ;  and  I  move,  therefore,  to  amend  the  reso- 
lution by  adding  after  the  words  "  1  o'clock  ;  the  words, 
"and  so  from  day  to  day,  until  otherwise  ordered." 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to,  and  the  resolution  as 
amended  was  adopted. 

ABOLITION  OF   CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  AND  IMPRISONMENT  FOR 
DEBT. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  It  will  be  recollected  that  on  yes- 
terday, the  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  offered 
a  resolution  which  had  for  its  object  the  abolition  of 
capital  punishment  and  imprisonment  for  debt.  I  de- 
sire to  see  a  resolution  antagonistic  to  that  before  the 
Convention,  also  ;  and  I  hold  in  my  hand  one  which  I  ask 
to  be  read,  and  then  I  design  to  give  the  reasons  why  I 
think  it  should  be  adopted. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as  follows  : 
Resolved,  That  there  should  be  provided  in  the  amend- 
ed Constitution,  that  the  person  of  a  debtor,  where 
there  is  not  strong  presumption  of  fraud,  shall  not  be 
confined  in  prison  after  delivering  up  all  his  estate  for 
the  benefit  of  his  creditors,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be 
provided  by  law. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  think  it  very  important  that  this 
Convention  should  take  some  action  on  this  subject.  It 
is  known  that  we  have  now  in  Virginia,  under  the  re- 
cent act  of  the  General  Assembly,  no  imprisonment  for 
debt,  and  I  undertake  to  say,  that  there  is  not  a  lawyer 
within  the  sound  of  my  voice,  who  has  had  experience 
under  the  provisions  of  that  act,  who  will  not  agree  with 
me,  that  in  effect  it  amounts  to  a  denial  of  justice  to  the 
creditor,  and  an  invitation  to  fraud  on  the  part  of  the 
debtor.  I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  endeavor- 
ing to  prosecute  a  case  under  it,  and  I  believe  we  are 
but  at  the  commencement  of  the  troubles  and  difficulties 
that  are  to  result  from  it.  An  examination  of  the  act 
of  Assembly,  to  which  I  have  referred,  will  convince  gen- 
tlemen of  this  fact,  and  I  think,  therefore,  we  should  in- 
sert in  our  Constitution  the  principle  of  imprisoning  a 
man  who  fails,  or  refuses  to  surrender  all  he  has  for  the 
benefit  of  his  creditors. 


GO 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman's  resolution  is  in 
the  shape  of  an  affirmance  of  the  proposition.  Does  he 
desire  it  to  be  in  that  form  or  in  the  form  of  an  inquiry? 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  My  motion  is  not  to  adopt  the 
resolution,  but  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  the  Le- 
gislative Department. 

Mr.  HAYES.  If  I  understand  it,  the  resolution  is  one 
positively  affirming  the  proposition  which  it  contains. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  That  is  all,  and  my  motion  is, 
that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department. 

Mr.  HAYES.  The  resolution  perhaps,  is  not  precise- 
ly in  the  form  in  which  it  was  intended  by  the  mover  it 
should  be.  It  seems  to  make  it  imperative  on  the  commit- 
tee to  report  such  a  proposition. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me, 
I  will  modify  the  resolution  so  as  to  make  it  simply  one 
of  inquiry,  as  I  designed  it  to  be  in  the  first  instance. 

The  resolution  was  modified  accordingly  so  as  to  read 
as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment, inquire  into  the  expediency  of  so  providing  in 
the  amended  Constitution,  that  the  person  of  a  debtor, 
where  there  is  not  strong  presumption  of  fraud,  shall 
not  be  confined  in  prison  after  delivering  up  all  his  es- 
tate for  the  benefit  of  his  creditors,  in  such  manner  as 
shall  be  provided  by  law. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  placed  by  the 
modification — as  a  matter  of  inquiry — while  I  dissent 
entirely  from  the  proposition  which  it  contains.  I  do 
not  think  this  a  proper  time  to  enter  upon  the  discussion 
of  the  question,  nor  am  I  in  the  slightest  degree  inclined 
to  do  so ;  but,  as  the  gentleman  has  accompanied  his  re- 
solution with  a  very  brief  explanation,  I  avail  myself 
of  the  opportunity  to  explain  my  opinion  and  views  in 
regard  to  the  resolutions  which  I  offered  yesterday,  as 
briefly  as  possible.  My  mind  is  by  no  means  made  up 
on  the  first  branch  of  that  proposition ;  that  is,  in  regard 
to  the  abolition  of  capital  punishment.  I  am  very  much 
inclined  to  the  belief  that  capital  punishment  ought  to 
be  abolished;  but  my  principal  object  in  offering  the  re- 
solution, was  to  have  the  Convention  maturely  consider 
and  discuss  it.  I  would  greatly  prefer,  myself,  that  the 
matter  should  be  left  entirely  to  the  decision  of  the  le- 
gislative department  of  the  government ;  if  I  could  see 
the  slightest  possibility  that  the  Legislature  would  be 
disposed  to  make  an  experiment  on  the  subject ;  so  that, 
if  the  experiment  did  not  answer  a  good  purpose,  they 
might  return  to  capital  punishment  again,  if  necessary. 
I  do  not  believe,  from  any  experience  I  have  had  on  the 
subject,  and  from  the  whole  course  of  my  observation, 
that  any  good  has  yet  resulted  from  capital  punish- 
ment. I  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the  relics  of  a  very  bar- 
barous age,  and  I  have  seen  infinite  mischief  grow  out 
of  it.  Illustrations  of  this  fact  might  be  furnished  no 
doubt,  by  most  gentlemen  here,  from  occurrences  that 
have  taken  place  in  their  own  vicinities,  and  under  their 
own  personal  observation.  Here  are  two  persons  ar- 
raigned before  a  court — one  for  the  commission  of  a 
very  aggravated  offence,  the  punishment  of  which  is 
death  and  nothing  but  death.  There  must  be  a  verdict 
for  hanging  or  a  verdict  for  acquittal.  Now  we  do 
know  that  a  very  large  portion  of  the  people  of  Virginia 
are  entirely  opposed  to  capital  punishment,  and  the  conse- 
quence is  that  these  offenders  against  the  law  in  the  most 
aggravated  form,  are  frequently  acquitted  because  of  the 
rigor  of  the  punishment.  On  the  same  day  perhaps, 
another  jury  is  empannelled  before  the  same  court  for 
the  trial  of  an  offence  much  less  aggravated  in  character, 
and  the  offender  is  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  perhaps 
five  or  ten  years.  It  is  this  unequal  administration  of 
law,  growing  out  of  the  condition  of  the  public  mind, 
which  induced  me  to  bring  the  subject  before  the 
Convention  for  its  mature  consideration  and  deliberation. 
I  take  occasion  to  repeat,  that  if  I  believed  the  legisla- 
tive department  of  the  government  would  be  disposed 
to  ascertain  by  an  experiment  the  true  policy  to  be  es- 


tablished, I  should  prefer  it  to  the  incorporation  of  any 
provision  in  the  Constitution  on  the  subject.  In  regard 
to  the  other  branch  of  the  proposition  I  submitted,  that 
of  imprisonment  for  debt,  I  have  a  very  firm  conviction 
and  I  imagine,  or  at  least  I  trust,  the  gentleman  from 
Essex  (Mr.  M.  Garnett)  will  find  himself  in  a  lean  minor- 
ity upon  this  subject.  I  am  willing  that  the  whole 
subject  shall  go  to  the  committee  for  consideration 
and  when  they  shall  have  reported  upon  it,  it  will  be 
time  enough  to  discuss  it.  When  I  offered  the  propo- 
sition yesterday,  some  gentleman  expressed  to  me  the 
opinion  that  it  was  entirely  unnecessary  to  offer  any 
such  proposition,  because  the  subject  had  been  already 
provided  for  by  law,  and  there  was  no  probability  that 
the  public  sentiment  would  be  so  far  violated  by  the 
Legislature  as  ever  to  restore  imprisonment  for  debt; 
yet  I  was  not  willing  to  trust  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Legislature.  They  have  it  in  their  power,  without  a 
provision  of  this  sort  in  the  Constitution,  whenever 
they  choose  to  exercise  it,  in  their  discretion,  to  restore 
imprisonment  for  debt,  and  for  that  reason  I  desire  to 
guard  against  any  such  exercise  of  power. 

The  resolution  was  then  referred,  under  the  rule, 
to  the  Legislative  Committee. 

WESTERN  LAND  TITLES,  &C. 

Mr.  CAMDEN  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Western 
Land  Titles. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Western  Land  Titles, 
(fee,  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  limiting  for  a  period 
of  twenty  years  action  for  the  recovery  of  land  lying 
west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains  to  five  years  next,  after 
the  time  at  which  the  right  of  action  accrued ;  and  after 
the  expiration  of  twenty  years,  to  make  the  limitation 
of  such  actions  uniform  throughout  the  Commonwealth. 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  also  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  prohibiting  in  future  the  issuing  of  grants, 
for  land,  except  to  actual  settlers  or  bona  fide  occupants. 

FILLING  A  VACANCY  IN  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  resolution  which  was  adopted  for 
the  organization  of  the  Legislative  Committee,  provided 
that  it  should  consist  of  nineteen  members.  Some  days 
since  a  gentleman  who  was  placed  on  that  committee 
from  the  county  of  Hardy,  (Mr.  Seymour,)  was  excused 
from  further  service  on  it,  and  transferred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  the  basis  question.  There  is  therefore  a 
vacancy  now  in  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment, which,  I  understand,  the  President  has  de- 
clined heretofore  to  fill,  in  consequence  of  the  absence 
of  a  member  of  the  Convention  who  is  not  now  included 
on  any  committee.  I  am  informed  that  the  gentleman 
is  now  present,  and  I  will  suggest  to  the  President  the 
propriety  of  now  filling  the  vacancy  to  which  I  have 
referred. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Byrd  is  appointed  to  fill 
the  vacancy  referred  to  by  the  gentleman. 

COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  U.  S.  CENSUS  OFFICE. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  received  a  communication 
addressed  to  me  as  President  of  the  Convention,  which 
I  beg  leave  to  lay  before  the  body. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  communication  as  fol- 
lows : 

Census  Office,  Department  of  Interior,  ) 
Washington,  Jan.  13th,  1851.  J 
Sir — I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  to  you  herewith  a 
statement  of  the  population  of  the  counties  of  Western 
Virginia. 

I  regret  that  circumstances  preclude  the  possibility 
of  my  making  out  for  you  to-day,  a  return  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  remaining  portion  of  the  State;  but  I  am 
sorry  to  have  it  to  say  that  the  returns  from  a  large 
number  of  counties  in  Eastern  Virginia  have  not  yet 
been  forwarded  to  this  office. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  where  the  negligence  exists,  but 
I  am  very  well  satisfied  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior will  not  overlook  the  failure  in  any  instance,  with- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


61 


out  being  perfectly  assured  that  insuperable  difficulties 
have  interposed  to  delay  the  execution  of  the  work  be- 
yond the  time  prescribed  by  the  act  of  Congress. 

The  moment  the  returns  of  the  Eastern  portion  of 
Virginia  are  received,  I  will  forward  you  an  abstract 
thereof. 

I  am  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  ob't  serv't, 

Joseph  C.  G-.  Kennedy. 
Hon.  John  Y.  Mason,  Pres't  State  Convention,  Richmond, 
Virginia. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  deem  it  proper  to  remark  that 
I  have  had  myself,  officially,  no  communication  with  the 
Department,  but  no  doubt  some  call  has  been  made  in 
a  responsible  form  for  this  information,  in  reply  to 
which  this  communication  has  been  sent  to  me  for  the 
use  of  the  Convention.  It  will  receive  such  disposition 
as  the  Convention  may  choose  to  make  of  it. 

Mr.  VAN  WINKLE.  I  would  inquire  whether  this 
is  not  the  same  information  which  the  Auditor  commu- 
nicated to  us  the  other  day  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    The  Chair  is  not  informed. 

Mr.  VAN  WINKLE.  I  move  that  the  communica- 
tion be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Printing. 

The  motion  to  refer  was  agreed  to. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  In  the  absence  of  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  upon  this  vexed  question,  of  reporting 
a  plan  for  printing  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the 
Convention,  I  have  been  requested  to  state  what 
the  committee  has  done.  You  can  very  readily  imagine 
the  perplexity  of  the  committee  when  plunged  into  the 
mysteries  of  the  printing  craft.  In  conformity  with 
the  order  of  the  Convention,  we  proceeded  yesterday 
morning  to  advertise  to  receive  proposals  irom  the 
printers  of  the  city,  for  the  printing  and  distribution  of 
the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  in  octa- 
vo, quarto,  or  some  other  suitable  form  for  preservation 
and  binding.  Yesterday,  between  breakfast  and  noon, 
the  committee  received  various  propositions,  which 
were  in  printer's  lingo,  and  which  the  members  of  the 
committee  did  not  thoroughly  comprehend.  Thereupon, 
I  was  requested  to  go  from  office  to  office  and  ascertain 
what  this  term  meant,  and  what  that  term  meant ; 
and  I  believe  I  may  conscientiously  say,  that  du- 
ring almost  my  entire  spare  time  since  that  session 
of  the  committee,  I  have  been  on  the  look  out  for 
information  in  respect  to  the  elements  of  calcula- 
tion to  report  to  the  Convention.  I  thought  this 
morning  I  had  come  to  a  result  in  my  calculation 
which  was  submitted  to  the  committee,  that  would 
prove  satisfactory.  On  my  way  to  this  hall,  however, 
I  was  intercepted  by  one  of  the  bidders,  who  informed 
me  that  I  had  made  an  egregious  blunder  in  respect 
to  the  calculations  founded  upon  his  bid.  Therefore, 
although  I  intended  to  make  a  report,  I  state  this  as  a 
reason  for  declining  to  make  a  report  upon  the  proposi- 
tions for  printing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  this 
Convention.  But  there  was  another  matter  referred  to 
this  committee  upon  which  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  report. 
It  is  in  relation  to  the  resolution  offered  by  a  gentleman 
over  the  way,  (Mr.  Knots,)  providing  for  the  publishing 
of  certain  public  documents  and  the  proposed  Constitu- 
tion in  the  German  language.  The  committee  having 
had  the  resolution  under  consideration,  report  as  fol- 
lows : 

PRINTING  OF  DOCUMENTS  IN  THE  GERMAN  LANGUAGE. 

(The  Secretary  read  the  report  as  follows  : 
The  committee  appointed  to  report  a  plan  for  print- 
ing the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  have 
according  to  order  had  under  consideration  the  follow- 
ing resolution  :) 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  and  he  is  hereby 
instructed  to  contract  with  Mr.  George  Deitz,  editor  of 
the  "  Virginia  Staates  Zeitung,"  to  print  in  the  German 

language,   copies  of  the  public  documents  as  may  be 

ordered  to  be  so  printed  by  this  Convention,  together 
with  the  new  Ooastitution  when  it  shall  be  completed, 


provided  that  such  contract  can  be  made  at  prices  not 
higher  than  are  now  paid  for  the  public  printing  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  Virginia  ;  and  have  agreed  to  the 
following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  contract  with  Mr. 
Geo.  Deitz,  editor  of  the  Virginia  Staates  Zeitung,  or 
some  other  person,  on  terms  most  favorable  to  the 
Commonwealth,  and  at  rates  not  exceeding  those  paid 
to  the  printer  to  the  General  Assembly,  for  printing  in 
the  German  language  such  public  documents  as  may 
from  time  to  time  be  ordered;  and  also  for  the  printing 
of  the  new  Constitution  when  adopted ;  the  documents 
and  copies  of  the  Constitution  so  printed,  to  be  deli- 
vered by  the  printer  to  the  members  of  the  Convention 
for  distribution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  recommended  by  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  I  desire  to  know  before  we  vote  on 
that  resolution,  if  this  printing  is  to  be  done  in  Wheel- 
ing, how  we  are  to  give  circulation  to  these  documents  ? 
I  suppose  the  gentleman  who  made  this  report  is  pre- 
pared to  inform  us. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  latter  clause  of  that  resolution 
requires  the  printer  to  deliver  the  documents  to  the 
members  of  the  Convention,  for  distribution.  If  they 
have  German  constituents  they  will  take  charge  of  and 
distribute  them.  Those  members  who  have  not,  like  my 
friend  over  the  way,  (Mr.  Deneale,)  need  not  be  troubled 
with  them. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  I  would  ask  how  the  printer  is  to 
deliver  to  this  Convention  the  new  Constitution  proposed 
to  be  distributed  after  the  Convention  has  adjourned. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  They  are  to  be  delivered  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  and  not  to  this  Convention.  I 
suppose  the  members  will  be  living  entities  after  the 
Convention  has  adjourned — at  least  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  Who  is  to  pay  the  postage?— 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  KNOTE.  The  resolution  I  proposed  sometime 
ago  has  been  somewhat  modified  by  the  committee, 
and  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  answer  the  question  of 
the  gentleman,  exactly.  My  own  view  of  the  matter 
was,  that  those  members  of  the  Convention  who  had 
German  constituents,  might  furnish  the  editor  with  the 
names  of  those  constituents.  If  they  should  be  printed 
by  Mr.  Dietz,  of  Wheeling,  he  would  fold  and  direct 
them,  and  put  them  into  the  post-office  there,  and  they 
would  go  as  direct  from  that  point  as  if  they  were  sent 
by  the  members  from  the  city  of  Richmond.  There  is 
certainly  no  difficulty  on  that  score. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  in- 
quiry. Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Augusta 
(Mr.  Sheffey)  as  presenting  this  in  connection  with  the 
subject  of  printing  the  debates  as  embodied  in  the  same 
report,  or  are  there  two  distinct  reports. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a  distinct  report.  The  res- 
olution was  referred  to  the  committee,  and  as  modified 
by  them,  has  been  reported  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  The  object  of  my  inquiry  was  to  ascer- 
tain whether  it  would  be  in  order,  if  the  two  were 
connected,  to  make  a  motion  to  lay  that  report  upon 
the  table.  If  the  two  had  been  connected,  a  motion  to 
lay  one  subject  on  the  table  would  have  carried  the 
other  with  it.  I  have  a  very  large  number  of 
German  constituents  myself,  but  if  these  German 
constituents  do  not  choose  to  become  Americanized  and 
acquire  the  English  language,  it  is  their  own  fault,  and 
they  must  remain  in  ignorance.  They  have  every 
opportunity  offered  them  for  the  purpose.  It  is  the 
true  policy  of  this  State  to  foster  and  encourage  for- 
eigners who  come  among  us  to  Americanize  themselves 
as  soon  as  possible,  and  become  acquainted  with  our 
language  and  institutions,  in  the  form  in  which  they  are 
presented  to  our  own  citizens.  I  therefore  propose 
that  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table. 


62 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Mr.  KEISHSTEY.    Will  the  gentleman  withdraw  his 
motion  for  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.    Certainly  sir. 

Mr.  KEOTEY.  I  think  it  is  desired  by  a  large  por- 
tion, if  not  a  majority,  of  my  constituents,  and  I  believe 
it  applies  to  the  constituency  of  many  other  members 
from  the  Valley,  that  this  Constitution  should  be  print- 
ed in  the  German  language.  During  this  next  summer 
they  will  have  to  pass  judgment  upon  it.  They  have  to 
examine  one  of  the  most  important  questions  that  has 
ever  been  presented  to  them.  They  wish  to  have  it  in 
a  language  in  which  they  can  understand  what  they  are 
about  to  do.  Suppose  a  grand  inquest  was  held,  and  the 
witnesses  spoke  a  foreign  language,  would  not  any  court 
of  justice,  before  whom  they  presented  themselves,  deem 
it  a  duty  to  have  an  interpreter  sworn,  that  they  might 
understand  what  evidence  was  given  in  to  them  \  And 
so  it  would  be  in  reference  to  any  other  proceedings,  or 
any  document  in  a  foreign  language,  on  which  they 
were  required  to  give  an  enlightened  judgment.  The 
fact  is,  that,  in  the  counties  of  Rockingham,  Page  and 
Pendleton,  which  I  in  part  represent,  I  venture  to  say, 
there  are  five  hundred  German  voters,  and  as  worthy  citi- 
zens, I  know  from  my  own  acquaintance  with  them,  as 
any  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  and  even  some 
learned  men,  who  cannot  read  the  English  language.  I 
merely  wish  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  passing  an 
enlightened  verdict  upon  this  subject — a  subject  which 
must  be  submitted  to  them  during  the  coming  summer. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  should  be  very  glad  if  all  the  citizens 
of  Virginia  were  able  to  read  the  English  language.  But 
I  know  well  that  they  are  not — that  there  are  many 
good  citizens  of  this  State  who  cannot  read  the  Constitu- 
tion and  these  documents  in  the  English  language,  under- 
standing^. I  do  think  that,  since  it  can  be  done  at  the 
small  expense  we  propose,  this  information  ought  to  be 
afforded  to  these  men  in  the  language  that  they  do  un- 
derstand. I  know  very  well  that  it  is  the  opinion  of 
many  that  men  ought  to  be  forced  to  learn  the  language 
of  the  country ;  and  I  admit  that,  so  far  as  it  canf  it 
ought  to  be  done.  But  you  cannot,  by  any  system  you 
may  adopt,  force  this  class  of  the  citizens  of  Virginia 
now  to  learn  the  English  language  in  time  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  this  important  document  that  is  to  be 
passed  upon  by  the  voters,  before  many  months.  The 
opinion  I  know  is  entertained  that,  by  printing  these 
documents  in  the  German  language,  we  encourage  these 
Germans  to  put  off  learning  the  English  language ;  but 
I  am  well  satisfied,  from  what  I  have  known  and  do  know 
of  these  i  people,  that  such  will  not  be  the  effect.  You 
give  these  documents  to  these  people  in  a  language  that 
they  do  understand,  and  they  will  become  acquainted 
with  them,  and  in  consequence  they  will  feel  interested 
in  them ;  and  hence,  they  will  deem  it  more  important 
that  they  become  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the 
country  than  they  would  otherwise.  Men  do  not  feel  in- 
terested in  the  institutions  of  a  State  till  they  become 
somewhat  acquainted  with  them ;  and  they  cannot  be- 
come acquainted  with  them  until  they  have  these  things 
in  a  language  which  they  understand.  And  I  will  re- 
peat what  I  have  before  stated,  that  it  is  not  my  object 
or  desire  that  many  documents  should  be  printed.  I 
think  it  would  be  well  to  print  the  census  and  assess- 
ment tables,  and  perhaps  the  tables  of  the  titheables  and 
tax-payers  of  the  State.  There  may  be  one  or  two  oth- 
ers ;  but  that  is  for  the  Convention  in  their  wisdom  to 
decide  whenever  the  question  shall  arise. 

Mr.  DENEALE.  The  resolution,  as  I  understand  it, 
is  certainly  inefficient  for  the  purpose  intended,  and  can- 
not, in  many  instances,  result  in  any  good.  What  does 
it  propose  ?  It  proposes  to  print  a  certain  number  of 
copies  of  the  new  Constitution,  which  we  are  about  to 
frame,  in  the  German  language.  And  after  publishing 
them  they  are  to  be  forwarded,  if  I  understand  the  gen- 
tleman who  made  the  report,  to  each  one  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  say 
that  it  does  not  propose  any  thing  except  this  : — that  the 


Secretary  shall  enter  into  contract  with  somebody  to 
print  in  the  German  language,  under  the  order  of  the 
Convention  hereafter  to  be  made,  such  documents  and 
such  public  matter  as  the  Convention  may  order,  and  in 
the  manner  that  the  Convention  may  order.  And  it  al- 
so refers  to  the  printing  of  the  Constitution  when  adopt- 
ed— declares  that  it  is  expedient  that  it  be  done  ;  but  the 
modus  operandi  is  within  the  discretion  of  the  Convention. 
The  only  object  is,  to  employ  an  officer  to  do  your  work, 
and  the  only  question  which  occurred  to  me,  and  I  beg 
leave  to  say  it  was  suggested  by  the  President,  is, 
whether  the  committee  ought  not  to  have  consulted  Mr. 
Wm.  Culley,  the  printer  to  this  Convention,  to  ascertain 
whether  he  could  not  do  tins  printing  in  the  German  lan- 
guage. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  consulted  with  Mr.  Culley  myself, 
and  he  informed  me  that  he  could  not  do  printing  in  the 
German  language. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  #  Well,  the  only  thing,  getting  rid  of 
our  public  printer,  in  relation  to  this  matter,  is  the  ques- 
tion, will  the  Convention  authorize  the  Secretary  to  em- 
ploy some  person  to  print  in  the  German  language  such 
documents  as  they  may  choose  to  have  printed  %  That 
is  the  whole  proposition  embraced  in  that  resolution.  As 
to  the  mode  in  which  the  Constitution  shall  be  distribu- 
ted, and  as  to  the  printing  of  the  other  documents  and  the 
number  of  them,  the  Convention  will  hereafter  deter- 
mine. 

Mr.  DENE  ALE.  The  other  day,  I  expressed  my  dis- 
approbation of  the  policy  of  this  measure.  And  if  in 
the  publication  of  these  documents,  they  are  to  be  dis- 
tributed about  in  every  portion  of  the  Commonwealth  in 
a  large  majority  of  cases  it  will  be  entirely  useless.  But 
looking  at  the  question  in  a  national  and  enlarged  view, 
I  think  the  policy  is  wrong.  It  should  be  our  policy  to 
render,  as  far  as  possible,  at  least  and  first  of  all,  our 
language  one  and  the  same.  And  as  I  remarked  the  oth- 
er day,  there  are  but  few  instances,  I  believe,  in  Virginia, 
where  much  would  be  lost  by  having  the  publication  of 
these  documents  altogether  in  the  English  language. 
Almost  every  family  has  some  member  in '  it  who  can 
read  the  English  language  well,  that  can  read  at  all. 
But,  it  is  with  the  Convention  to  determine  what  course 
they  will  pursue.  As  far  as  my  own  county  is  concerned, 
there  seems  to  be  a  disposition — for  actions  speak  louder 
than  words — to  conform  to  the  English  language,  there 
not  being  one  single,  solitary  instance  in  the  entire  valley 
of  Virginia,  of  a  German  school  taught  at  this  day. 
There  seems  from  this,  to  be,  among  this  class  of  popu- 
lation, a  desire  to  render  our  language  homogeneous,  as 
far  as  possible. 

Mr.  GALLY.  It  was  not  my  intention  when  my  col- 
league introduced  this  proposition,  to  have  disturbed  the 
Convention  with  any  remarks  on  the  subject,  as  I  then 
supposed  it  would  not  have  excited  debate,  but  would 
have  been  at  once  disposed  of;  but  inasmuch  as  it 
has  not  taken  this  course,  and  as  many  of  my  German 
constituents  are  interested  in  the  question,  I  deem  it  my 
duty  to  add  my  feeble  support  to  the  measure  and  to 
urge  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  not  to  in- 
sist on  laying  this  report  on  the  table  at  this  time.  My 
colleagues,  three  of  them,  I  believe,  have  already  com- 
mented on  the  character  of  this  class  of  population,  and 
that  leaves  me  nothing  to  say  on  that  point  iurther  than 
to  join  in  their  general  commendation.  Yet  I  may  say 
that  if  any  portion  of  our  fellow-citizens  are  entitled  to 
the  favor  of  this  Convention,  for  the  reasons  suggested 
by  the  mover  of  this  resolution  in  the  first  place,  or  on 
account  of  meritorious  elements  of  character,  this  people 
are  so  entitled.  Besides,  many  of  them  are  now  voters, 
and  they  will  shortly  be  called  on  to  unite  with  the  elec- 
tors of  the  State  in  approving  or  disapproving  of  the 
work  of  this  Convention.  They  have  paid  their  just  pro- 
portion of  the  burthens  of  government,  since  they  have 
become  citizens  among  us,  they  have  acquired  their  title 
to  citizenship  under  the  law,  and  it  does  seem  to  me  have 
some  title  to  receive  proper  information,  with  regard  to 
the  proceedings  of  this  body.    No  gentleman  expects  eveD 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


63 


his  American  constituents  to  vote  on  the  work  of  this 
Convention  without  proper  information,  and  with  what 
show  of  reason  then,  can  he  require  it  at  the  hands  of 
his  German  constituents  ?  If  they  are  citizens,  if  they 
have  paid  their  just  proportion  of  the  taxes,  I  can  see  no 
good  reason  why  they  should  be  excluded  from  the  bene- 
fits provided  by  this  general  contribution.  I  cannot  see, 
for  the  life  of  me,  where  the  objection  to  this  resolution, 
in  a  national  point  of  view,  as  urged  by  one  gentleman 
here,  applies.  Will  the  publication  of  the  Constitution 
of  a'free  State  in  another  language,  one  that  is  not  the 
language  generally  used  in  the  country  he  has  chosen  to 
adopt,  weaken  the  attachment  of  the  adopted  citizen  to 
the  country  of  his  adoption  ?  If  I  understand  rightly  the 
history  of  the  emigrating  Germans,  the  motive  which  led 
them  to  settle  among  us,  was  incited  by  the  various  pub- 
lications made  here  in  their  own  language  which  reached 
them  beneath  the  shadows  of  a  throne  and  inspired  a 
love  of  liberty  where  it  was  not  recognized  by  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  country.  I  can  well  imagine  how  the  pub- 
lication of  our  documents  in  the  German  would  have  a 
bearing  on  our  literature,  but  how  it  can  affect  the  per- 
manency of  republican  institutions,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  per- 
ceive. I  favor  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee not  merely  because  it  will  be  a  favor  to  the 
Germans  now  in  the  State,  but  because  it  will  in- 
duce others  to  settle  among  us — a  very  valuable 
class  of  population,  one  pre-eminent  for  their  industry, 
their  mechanics  and  general  thrift  in  every  State 
in  the  Union.  Moreover,  it  will  indicate  a  relaxation  of 
that  rigid  policy  which  has  always  characterized  Virgi- 
nia, folding  herself  in  inglorious  pride,  and  in  ostenta- 
tion, to  the  neglect  of  the  arts,  mechanics  and  industry 
of  her  citizens,  while  permitting  the  stranger  to  pass  by 
and  enrich  other  states.  Look,  if  you  please,  at  the  causes 
Which  have  developed  the  vast  resources  of  Ohio,  Indi- 
ana and  Pennsylvania,  and  almost  every  state  but  Vir- 
ginia, and  tell  me  what  they  are?  Simply  the  en- 
couragement of  emigration,  and  the  increase  of  its  popu- 
lation, the  substance  of  the  national  greatness  of  this 
Union.  Let  us  do  the  same,  and  we  may  transplant,  in 
many  instances,  this  population  from  the  states  to  which 
it  now  goes,  and  as  they  come  into  our  country,  induce 
them  to  come  here  and  expend  their  labor,  toil  and  indus- 
try upon  our  barren  hills  until  our  wilderness  shall  blos- 
som as  the  rose.  There  are  high  political  considerations 
which  ought  to  induce  the  Convention  to  hold  out  an  en- 
couraging hand  to  this  floating  population,  as  it  passes 
through,  to  turn  and  bestow  their  industry  on  our  naked 
and  now  fruitless  mountains.  Let  that  genius  which  has 
yielded  so  much  to  the  manufactures  and  the  arts  of  Eu- 
rope, be  employed  to  develope  the  mineral  wealth  which 
forms  the  substrata  of  our  hills,  and  Virginia  will  expe- 
rience a  regeneration  which  can  flow  from  no  other  influ- 
ence. Then  let  us  invite  this  population,  for  we  want  it 
among  us. 

Again  let  me  recur  to  the  idea  with  which  I  first 
started,  and  that  is,  that  these  people  are  entitled  to 
this  at  the  hands  of  the  Convention.  For  what  do 
they  pay  taxes  if  it  is  not  for  the  privileges  of  citi- 
zens. It  is  not  their  fault  that  they  do  not  speak 
our  language.  If  there  is  fault  anywhere,  it  is  our 
fault.  We  have  denizenized  them  according  to  law, 
and  required  of  them  the  performance  of  all  the  duties 
which  are  required  of  other  citizens,  and  is  it  not  justice 
on  our  part  to  give  them  the  necessary  information  to  en- 
able them  to  perform  those  duties  under  standingly  and 
correctly  ?  To  do  anything  less,  would  better  become  the 
spirit  of  the  age  when  kings  required  their  subjects  to 
make  bricks  without  straw.  I  am  for  this  resolution,  not 
for  <l  bunkum, "  but  because  it  is  an  act  of  justice,  and  be- 
cause of  high  political  considerations  which  ought  to  ad- 
dress themselves  to  every  man.  I  hope,  therefore,  the 
gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  will  relax  his  strict 
American  views,  and  that  the  other  gentleman,  (Mr. 
Deneale,)  with  whose  locality  I  am  not  acquainted,  will 
also  yield  his  national  objections  to  this  policy,  and  give 
us  a  population  out  of  which  to  make  a  nation  by  in- 


ducing them  to  come  here  and  settle  our  barren  and  waste 
places.  Let  us  not  drive  them  off,  as  we  have  heretofore 
done,  by  conforming  our  legislation  to  that  very  picture 
and  image  of  the  "  first  family,  "  in  which  I  do  not  think 
you  can  trace  a  single  lineament  of  the  people. 

Mr.  LIONBERGER.  I  merely  wish  to  remark  that 
there  is  in  the  district  which  I  in  part  represent,  prob- 
ably as  many  Germans  as  in  any  other  district  in  Vir- 
ginia, yet  I  do  not  recollect  of  any  paper  ever  having 
been  published  in  that  language,  in  that  district ;  nor  have 
we  had  the  sale  there  lately  of  any  books  published  in  the 
German  language.  There  have  been,  I  mean,  no  German 
books  bought  or  sold  there,  and  the  only  Dutch  publica- 
tion which  I  know  anything  at  all  about,  coming  into  my 
county  or  the  bordering  counties,  was  during  the  last  Presi- 
dential election.  There  were  then  some  documents  pub- 
lished in  Dutch,  and  they  were  very  filthy.  [Laughter.] 
And  I  wish  to  enter  my  protest,  if  the  resolution  passes, 
against  any  of  these  documents  being  sent  into  the  coun- 
ty of  Page.  There  have  been,  I  repeat,  no  books  of  any 
sort,  not  even  the  common  Almanac,  in  that  language,  re- 
cently sold  in  the  county.  Formerly  there  were  some, 
but  a  very  few  German  publications  sold  there.  Our  peo- 
ple do  not  need  the  publication  of  this  Constitution  and 
these  documents  in  the  German  language.  They  can 
all,  I  guarantee  you,  wTell  understand  every  proposi- 
tion which  will  come  forth  from  this  Convention  in  re- 
gard to  the  Constitution,  and  will  under  si  and  it  thorough- 
ly, though  it  be  not  printed  in  the  German  language. 
They  will  be  perfectly  content  with  it  printed  in  the 
English  language  alone.  And  I  hope  this  Convention 
will  not  incur  the  cost  of  publishing  it  in  the  German 
language,  without  any  necessity  for  it. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  say  only  a  very  few  words.  I 
rather  regret  that  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  came 
from  me,  as  it  in  some  degree  imposes  upon  me  the  ne- 
cessity of  making  a  few  remarks  in  reply  to  what  has 
been  said.  I  desire  to  remind  gentlemen,  not  only  those 
who  are  the  advocates  on  this  floor  for  the  printing  of  the 
Constitution  and  documents  connected  with  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention  in  the  German  language,  but  eve- 
ry other  member  of  the  Convention,  that  the  German 
population  is  not  the  only  foreign  population  that  we 
have  among  us,  and  that  this  is  not  the  only  foreign  lan- 
guage that  is  spoken.  And  I  beg  to  know  why  the  in- 
vidious distinction  is  to  be  made  between  the  German, 
the  French,  the  Italian,  the  Norwegian,  the  Swede,  and  the 
Hebrew.  I  have  perhaps  as  many  Hebrew  as  German 
constituents,  and  I  believe  if  this  Constitution  and  docu- 
ments connected  with  it  should  be  printed  in  the  German 
language,  I  should  be  under  the  necessity  of  insisting  upon 
it  that  they  also  be  printed  in  the  Hebrew  language,  the 
French  language,  the  Italian  language,  and  in  every  other 
language  spoken  among  us,  so  as  to  accommodate  all  my 
constituents.  Why,  if  the  object  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  (Mr.  Gally)  could  be  accomplished  merely  by  pub- 
lishing the  Constitution  in  the  German  language, — if  you 
could  populate  the  hills  in  Ohio  county — if  you  could 
disembowel  its  mountains  of  their  vast  mineral  resources, 
by  the  publication  of  the  Constitution  in  the  German  lan- 
guage,— I  would  be  the  last  man  in  the  world  to  oppose 
it.  [Laughter.]  Has  the  gentleman  a  German  press  in 
his  county  ? 

Mr.  GALLY.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  What  good  has  resulted,  in  disembow- 
eling the  mineral  resources  of  the  mountains  from  his 
German  press  ?  Does  not  that  give  the  German  popu- 
lation, as  they  are  passing  on  to  the  Western  country, 
all  the  opportunity  for  information  they  desire  ?  If  not, 
let  the  gentleman  and  his  constituents,  by  their  individu- 
al enterprise,  establish  another  and  another  and  anoth- 
er press,  until  all  the  information  is  imparted  to  the 
floating  German  population  as  it  passes  through  the 
town  of  Wheeling.  This  is  not  the  first  attempt  to  pub- 
lish the  public  documents  of  the  country  in  the  different 
foreign  languages  that  have  become  common  to  our  peo- 
ple by  the  influx  of  foreign  population.  For  the  last  ten 
or  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  as  my  friend  who  sits  behind 


64 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


me  (Mr.  Wise)  knows,  the  effort  has  been  made  annually  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to  have the  President's 
message  and  the  accompanying  documents  published  in 
the  different  foreign  languages  which  are  spoken  by  those 
who  have  become  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Even 
so  late  as  the  last  session,  if  not  the  present,  I  recollect 
an  animated  debate  in  the  United  States  Senate  upon  a 
proposition  to  print  the  President's  message  and  accom- 
panying documents  in  French,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
State  of  Louisiana;  while  there  was  another  proposition 
to  print  in  German,  for  the  benefit  of  the  German  pop- 
ulation of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania ;  and  another  and 
still  another  to  print  in  some  other  language,  for  the 
benefit  of  some  other  foreigners,  in  some  other  part  of 
the  country.  It  has  been  discountenanced  in  every  in- 
stance, and  I  trust  in  God  it  will  be  discountenanced  in 
every  instance,  wherever  the  proposition  is  made.  If  the 
gentleman  desires  to  afford  encouragement  to  the  Ger- 
mans and  other  foreign  population  to  reside  among  us, 
let  him  offer  them  encouragement  to  become  American 
citizens  in  every  sense  of  the  word — Americans  in  lan- 
guage as  well  as  Americans  by  adoption.  Let  them  be- 
come familiar  with  our  language  and  our  institutions, 
thro  gh  the  medium  of  our  language,  and  that  affords 
them  the  best  encouragement  to  settle  among  us.  Nor 
do  I  believe  their  interests  will  be  promoted  by  th« 
distinctions  that  must  exist  in  every  community  where 
the  different  languages  are  spoken  and  read;  so  long 
as  this  is  the  case,  they  must  remain  a  distinct  and 
an  isolated  class,  cut  off  and  deprived  of  many  of  the 
advantages  of  the  native  citizen.  I  do  not  know  that 
it  is  worth  while  to  carry  this  discussion  any  further. 
My  object  in  moving  to  lay  on  the  table  was  to  prevent 
any  further  discussion  upon  the  subject.  I  take  it 
for  granted  that  every  gentleman  has  made  up  his 
mind  in  regard  to  it,  and  is  prepared  to  vote  either 
for  the  proposition  or  against  it.  And  as  I  regard- 
ed it  an  useless  waste  of  time,  and  supposing  there  would 
be  some  disposition  to  discuss  the  other  question  with  re- 
gard to  printing,  I  moved  to  lay  it  on  the  table.  I  with- 
drew it  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  and  I  now  renew  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table. 

Mr.  KENNEY.    I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  the  question  be- 
ing taken,  there  were  yeas  19,  nays  29,  a9  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Bird, 
Beale,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock,  Botts,  Bowles,  Braxton,  Bur- 
gess, Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Russell,  Carter  of  Lou- 
doun, Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cocke,  Conway,  De- 
neale ,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Flood,  Fultz,  Fuqua,  Garland, 
M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  M.  Garnett,  Goode,  Hall,  Hays,  Hill, 
Hoge,  Hopkins  of  Powhatan,  Hunter,  Janney,  Jones,  Li- 
gon,  Lionberger,  Lucas,  Lynch,  McCamant,  McCandlish, 
Martin  of  Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moore,  Pendleton, 
Petty,  Price,  Purkins,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Rives,  Saunders, 
Shell,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of  Jackson,  South- 
all,  Stewart  of  Morgan,  Summers,  Taylor,  Tredway, 
Trigg,  Tunis,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  Watts  of  Roanoke, 
White,  Willey,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wingfield,  Wise, 
Woolfolk,  Worsham,  Wysor — 19. 

Nays — Messrs.  Mason,  (President,)  Armstrong,  Brown, 
Byrd,  Camden,  Cook,  Davis,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Gaily,  Ja- 
cob, Johnson,  Kenney,  Knote,  Letcher,  McComas,  Martin 
of  Marshall,  Neeson,  Newman,  Scott  of  Richmond  city, 
Seymour,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Snodgrass,  Stan- 
ard,  Stephenson,  Tate,  Turnbull,  Watts  of  Norfolk  coun- 
ty—29. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed  to. 

THE  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  CENSUS  BUREAU. 

Mr.  VAN  WINKLE.  In  consequence  of  a  suggestion 
made  to  me,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  communica- 
tion from  the  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior 
has  taken  the  wrong  direction.  It  is  quite  probable  that  it 
contains  some  information  not  contained  in  the  auditor's 
report.  It  is  probably  a  report  supplying  information  not 
therein  contained.  I  therefore  move  for  a  re-cousideration 
of  the  vote  by  which  that  communication  was  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Printing,  with  the  view  of  having  it  re- 


ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  ;  and  if  there  is  any 
thing  in  it  additional  to  what  has  been  already  printed, 
they  will  request  the  printing  of  it. 

The  resolution  to  re-consider  was  agreed  to ;  and  the 
communication,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Van  Winkle,  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  can  see  no  reason  why  we  should  con- 
tinue in  session  longer  to-day  ;  and  I  therefore  move  that 
the  Convention  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to, 

And  the  Convention  adjourned  until  Monday  at  1 
o'clock  P.  M. 


MONDAY,  January  20,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  J ournal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

PRIVILEGED  SEATS. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Under  the  first  rule,  gentlemen, 
it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the  Convention, 
to  set  apart  seats  in  the  hall  for  the  members  of  the 
General  Assembly,  the  Executive  of  this  State,  the 
Judges  of  this  State,  and  of  the  United  States,  and  such 
other  persons  as  he  may  think  proper  to  invite  within 
the  hall.  The  privileged  seats  will  be  construed  as  open 
to  occupation  by  officers  of  the  Federal  and  State  Go- 
vernments, whether  they  belong  to  the  Executive,  Le- 
gislative, or  J udicial  Departments  of  the  Government. 
There  is  a  disposition,  I  am  certain,  on  the  part  of  the 
members  of  this  body,  to  afford  every  possible  facility  to 
their  fellow-citizens  to  witness  their  proceedings,  and*' 
hear  their  debates.  In  common  with  them,  I  entertain 
the  strongest  desire  to  gratify  the  wish  of  every  indivi- 
dual who  may  be  desirous  of  witnessing  our  proceedings, 
but  there  must  be  some  arrangement  for  the  purpose  of 
accomplishing  this  object,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  pro- 
tecting the  deliberations  of  this  body  from  the  distur- 
bance that  must  ensue,  if  there  be  no  exclusive  seats  for 
the  members  of  the  Convention.  I  shall  therefore  direct 
that  one  tier  of  seats  on  the  inside  of  the  bar,  and  other 
seats  in  the  Hall,  shall  be  opened  to  privileged  persons — 
I  mean  those  persons  who  have  been  designated — the 
members  of  the  Legislature,  of  Congress,  and  the  Judi- 
cial and  Executive  Departments  of  the  Government.  I 
shall  instruct  the  officers  of  the  Convention  to  preserve 
the  other  seats  in  the  body  of  the  hall,  for  the  use  of 
the  members  of  the  Convention.  I  make  this  announce- 
ment, in  order  that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
themselves,  may  understand  what  the  order  is,  and  that 
they  may  not,  in  the  spirit  of  courtesy,  which  I  know  ac- 
tuates every  member  of  this  Convention,  interfere  with 
the  rules  by  which  Ave  are  to  be  governed,  by  inviting 
their  friends  and  constituents  within  the  body  of  the 
hall,  which  will  inevitably,  with  the  limited  accommo- 
dations we  have,  interfere  with  the  comfort  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  and  produce  disturbance  in  our 
proceedings. 

COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  CENSUS  OFFICE. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  received  from  Mr.  Kennedy, 
who  signs  himself  Superintendent  of  the  Census  Office 
for  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  a  communication 
stating  that,  in  the  table  which  he  sent  me  a  few  days 
ago,  and  which  I  laid  before  the  Convention  yesterday, 
there  are  some  mistakes  which  he  desires  to  correct. 
MANY  MEMBERS.  Yes,  plenty  of  them.  [A  laugh.] 
The  communication  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows : 

Census  Office,  Dep't  of  the  Interior,  ) 
January  18,  1851.  ) 

Hon.  John  Y.  Mason, 

Sir — I  have  the  honor  to  send  you  herewith,  a  state- 
ment of  the  population  of  the  several  counties  of  West- 
ern Virginia. 

It  is  believed  that  the  statement  is  nearly  correct  in 
every  essential  particular,  as  it  is  made  out  with  much 
care,  and  from  the  returns  themselves.  The  other  state- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


65 


meat,  sent  some  days  since,  was  made  out  in  part  from 
the  certificates  of  the  Marshal,  which  in  a  few  instances, 
were  found  inaccurate. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Sir, 

Very  respectfully,  your  obd't  serv't, 

Jos.  C.  (x.  Kennedy, 
Sup't  of  Census. 

Hon.  John  Y.  Mason, 

President  of  the  Virginia  Convention. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  communication  from  that  gen- 
tleman, which  was  laid  before  the  Convention  on  Satur- 
day, and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis,  was 
found  to  be  grossly  inaccurate  in  very  many  respects. 
The  population  of  some  of  the  counties  was  given  at 
less  than  one  half  the  population,  as  shown  by  the  re- 
turns of  the  Auditor.  There  is  a  table  purporting  to  be 
a  return  of  the  population  of  the  Western  district  of 
Virginia ;  and  among  the  counties  was  found  the  county 
of  Middlesex,  which  belongs  to  the  tide-water  portion  of 
the  State.  The  document  now  presented,  may  correct 
these  errors.  I  move,  therefore,  that  it  be  referred  to 
the  Basis  Committee — that  it  take  the  same  direction  as 
the  communication  received  on  Saturday. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  presume  that  some  communica- 
tion has  been  made  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
asking  for  this  information.  I  have  made  none ;  and  I 
know  nothing  of  Mr.  Kennedy,  except  as  he  describes 
himself  there,  as  an  officer  of  that  department.  I  have, 
however,  felt  it  my  duty  to  lay  it  before  the  Convention. 
The  motion  is  made  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  refer  was 
agreed  to. 


plement,  the  cost  of  the  supplement  will  be  as  fol- 
lows : — 

Composition  at  62^  cts.  per  1000  ems,  $155.99 
Press  work  at  62£  cts.  per  token,  155.00 
Paper  for  31,000  copies  a  week,  at  $4.60  a  ream,  296.10 


Cost  of  31,000  copies  of  supplement  a  week,  $607.69 
Or  for  15  weeks,  $9,115.35 
2.  Nye  &  Elliott  propose  to  print  the  matter  in  octa- 
vo form,  on  paper  to  cost  $3  a  ream,  and  on  each  sheet 
of  which  paper  would  be  eight  pages,  containing  3,300 
ems  a  page,  at  45  cts.  per  1000  ems,  and  45  cents  per 
token  for  press-work.  The  cost  under  this  proposal  of 
printing  and  distributing  weekly,  as  much  matter  as 
would  be  contained,  according  to  the  foregoing  estimate 
in  the  supplement,  would  be  as  follows  : 
Composition  at  45  cts.  per  1000  ems,  ,  $112.32 

Press-work  at  45  cts  per  token,  for  matter  equal 
to  what  31,000  copies  of  supplement  would 
contain,  say  70,000  sheets  a  week,  or  560  to- 
kens, 252.00 
Paper  70,000  sheets  a  week,  at  $3  a  ream,  437.50 


VACANCY  IN  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WESTERN  LAND  TITLES. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  Committee  on  Western  Land  Titles, 
is  not  full.  Mr.  Samuels,  late  a  member  of  this  body, 
has  resigned  his  seat,  and  has  thus  created  a  vacancy  in 
that  committee.  I  move  that  the  vacancy  be  filled  by 
the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  taken  to  be  the  sense 
of  the  Convention,  unless  objection  is  made.  The  Chair 
appoints  Mr.  Camden,  of  Harrison,  in  place  of  Mr.  Samu- 
els, on  the  Committee  upon  Western  Land  Titles. 


Cost  per  week,  $801.82 
Or  for  15  weeks  $12,027.30 
To  which  must  be  added,  $70  a  week  for  folding,  if  the 
sheets  are  required  to  be  folded,  and  one  dollar  a  thou- 
sand for  directing  and  mailing  such  copies  as  are  re- 
quired to  be  mailed.  The  additional  charge  for  postage 
on  these  pamphlet  sheets,  over  the  supplement  sheets, 
would  be  $320  a  week. 

3.  Colin,  Baptist  &  Nolan  propose  to  print  the  de- 
J  bates  and  proceedings  in  octavo  form,  on  super  royal  pa- 
per, each  sheet  to  contain  16  pages  of  matter  of  3,900 
ems  each,  at  50  cents  per  thousand  ems,  and  55  cents  per 
token  ;  the  paper  to  cost  $6  a  ream.  According  to  this 
proposal,  a  token  is  250  copies  of  16  pages :  if,  however, 
the  matter  required  to  be  printed,  should,  at  any  time 
of  publication,  be  only  eight  pages,  the  charge  for  press 
work  will  be  the  same  as  for  16  pages.  The  cost  of  this 
proposition  is  as  follows  : 

Composition  at  50  cts.  per  1000  ems,  $124.80 
Press-work  at  55  cts.  per  token,  136.40 
Paper  at  $6  ream,  387.33£ 
Cutting  at  2  cts.  per  100  copies,  12.40 


PRINTING  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    I  am  instructed  by  the 


committee, 

m  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  Convention,  to  make  a 
report  with  reference  to  the  proposals  or  bids  for  the 
printing  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Conven- 
tion. The  resolution  adopted  by  the  Convention  in- 
structed the  committee  simply  to  receive  proposals  or 
bids  for  the  work,  and  the  committee,  according  to  that 
order,  advertised  for  bids,  and  have  instructed  me  to 
make  the  following  report : 

The  report  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows : 
The  Committee  on  Printing  and  Publishing  the  De- 
bates of  the  Convention,  have,  in  conformity  with  the 
resolutions  of  instructions  adopted  by  the  Convention, 
received  certain  proposals  for  printing  said  debates  and 
proceedings,  which  they  herewith  submit  for  the  consi 
deration  of  the  Convention,  accompanied  by  estimates  of 
cost,  founded  on  the  respective  bids. 

The  committee  report  the  following  facts,  to  enable 
the  Convention  to  make  its  own  calculation  of  cost.  In 
one  column  of  the  supplement  there  are  5200  ems — in 
24  columns  of  the  supplement  there  are  124,800  ems. 
A  ream  of  paper  contains  480  sheets.  A  token  of  press 
work  is  250  copies:  the  press  work  of  250  sheets  makes 
500  copies,  or  two  tokens. 

Suppose  then,  the  matter  reported,  equals  eight  co- 
lumns of  the  supplement  a  day,  the  committee  will 
now  state  the  cost  of  the  various  plans  as  proposed  by 
the  bidders. 

1.  It  being  understood  that  the  proprietors  of  the  city 
papers  will  not  charge  for  the  distribution  of  the  sup- 


Cost  per  week,  $660.93£ 
Or  for  15  weeks,  $9,914.00 

If  the  quarto  form  were  adopted,  the  press-work 
would  be  50  cts.  a  token.  To  the  above  charges  must  be 
added  1^  cents  per  copy,  for  directing  and  mailing  extra 
copies  for  members ;  and  also,  $320  a  week,  additional 
postage,  to  be  paid  by  the  Convention  or  the  people. 

4.  Robert  H.  Gallaher  proposes  to  print  the  debates 
and  proceedings  in  octavo  form,  on  super  royal  paper 
each  sheet  to  contain  16  pages  of  matter,  of  3,900  ems 
each,  at  62^  cents  per  1000  ems,  and  62^- cents  per  token 
for  press-work  ;  the  paper  to  cost  $6  a  ream. — According 
to  this  proposal,  a  token  is  250  copies  of  sixteen  pages  ; 
if,  however,  the  matter  required  to  be  printed,  should, 
at  any  time  of  publication,  be  only  eight  pages,  the  charge 
for  press-work  will  be  the  same  as  for  sixteen  pages. 

The  cost  of  this  proposition  is  as  follows : 
Composition  62£  cts.  per  1000  ems,  $156.00 
Press- work,  at  62-1  cents  per  token,  155.00 
Paper  at  $6  a  ream,  387.33£ 


Cost  per  week,  $698.33£ 
Or  for  15  weeks,  $10,475.00 

To  this  must  be  added  an  extra  charge  for  mailing  and 
directing,  say  50  cents  a  hundred  copies. 

The  charge  for  postage  on  this  matter,  over  that  on 
the  supplements,  will  be  $320  a  week. 

5.  Mr.  William  Culley  proposes  to  print  25,000  copies 
in  octavo  form,  twice  a  week,  during  a  session  of  fifteen 
weeks,  for  $10,000,  provided  the  matter  does  not  exceed, 
weekly,  eighteen  close  columns  of  the  National  Intelli- 


65 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


gencer.  The  foregoing  calculate  ns  are  based  upon  the 
supposition,  that  15,5u0  copies  in  octavo  form,  twice  a 
week,  during  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks,  for  $10,000, pro- 
vided, the  matter  does  not  exceed,  weekly,  eighteen  close 
columns  of  the  National  Intelligencer. 

The  foregoing  calculations  are  based  upon  the  suppo- 
sition, that  15,5UU  copies  would  be  issued  twice  a  week; 
in  proportion  to  his  written  offer,  it  is  presumed  Mr.  Cul- 
ley  would  furnish  15,500  copies  a  week,  for  $413.33^, 
each  week  :  the  matter  to  equal  eightee  columns  of  the 
Intelligencer.  But  in  the  present  ca.Culations,  it  is  sup- 
posed the  matter  will  equal  forty-eight  columns  of  the  In- 
telligencer. A  rateable  increase  of  charge  for  the  addition- 
al matter,  would  make  Mr.  Culley's  bid  amount  to  about 
$1000  a  week,  or  §15,000  for  a  session  of  fifteen  weeks. 
It  is  proper  for  your  committee  to  add,  that  Mr.  Cul.ey 
iusists  that  under  his  contract  with  the  Convention,  he 
has  a  right  to  print  the  debates  and  proceedings,  as  well 
as  the  ordinary  printing  of  the  Convention. 

All  of  winch  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  1  move  that  the  report  be  laid  on 
the  table. 

MANY  MEMBERS.  Oh  no.  Oh  no.  Let  us  act  upon 
it  now. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  desire  to  follow  up  the  motion 
with  some  resolutions,  if  the  Convention  de  ire  that  the 
report  should  be  printed  before  action  s'hall  be  taken  on 
these  resolutions,  1  have  no  objection.  I  ask  simply  that, 
for  the  present,  it  may  be  laid  on  the  table,  in  order  that 
I  may  submit  certain  resolutions. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    I  offer  the  following  resolutions  : 

1.  Resolved,  That  Robert  H.  Gallaher  be  and  he  is  here- 
by appointed  publisher  of  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  *he  Con  veil.  ion. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  publish,  or 
cause  to  be  published  semi-weekly,  in  the  Richmonu 
Whig.  Enquirer,  Examiner,  Times,  Republican  Advo- 
cate, and  Republican,  or  m  a  supplement  to  those  pa- 
pers, the  debates  and  proceedings  ol  the  Convention,  so 
that  the  readers  of  said  papers,  whether  they  be  subscri- 
bers to  the  daily,  semi  weekly,  or  weekly  issues,  shall 
have  distributed  to  them  each  week,  the  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings of  each  week. 

3'.  Resolved,  That  the  compensation  to  the  publisher, 
shall  be  as  follows :  &3.2S  for  composition  of  matter, 
equal  to  a  coluihu  of  the  supplement  heretofore  issued, 
$4.60  cents  a  ream  for  paper  of  the  size  of  the  Rich- 
mond W  hig,  or  &4.20  (a  ream)  for  paper  of  the  size  ol 
the  supplement — only  so  much  paper  to  be  paid  for  as 
is  actually  used  in  printing  ;  and  62-J  cents  a  token  Im- 
press-work:  the  amounts  to  be  settled  and  allowed  by 
the  Secretary  weekly,  and  to  be  verified  by  the  affidavit 
of  the  foreman  or  clerk  of  the  publisher. 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  also  furnish, 
twice  each  week,  twenty  copies  of  the  debates  and  pro 
ceedings  to  each  member,  and  shall  wrap,  mail  and  di- 
rect the  same,  according  to  the  instructions  of  members, 
at  a  charge  not  exceeding  two  cents  a  copy. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  also  furnish 
six  hundred  copies  of  "  the  Register  of  Debates"  in  oc- 
tavo form,  at  a  price  hereafter  to  be  fixed  by  the  Con- 
vention, for  press-work  and  paper — no  additional  charge 
to  be  made  for  composition,  except  for  correctiuii — 
said  Register  to  be  published  at  sufficient  intervals,  after 
the  publication  of  the  same  matter  in  the  newspapers, 
or  the  supplements  as  aforesaid,  to  afford  an  opportunity 
for  th«  correction  of  errors  therein ;  one  copy  of  said 
Register  to  be  delivered,  as  published,  to  each  member 
and  officer  of  the  Convention ;  one  bound  copy  to  be  fur- 
nished to  eacli  member  and  officer  at  the  close  of  the 
session;  and  the  residue  of  the  six  hundred  copies  to  be 
bound  and  delivered  to  the  Governor  of  the  Common- 
wealth, subject  to  the  order  of  the  General  Assembly. 
The  cost  of  binding  shall  not  exceed  sixty  cents  a  vo- 
lume. 

_  6.  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  take  bond  with  suffi- 
cient security,  from  said  Robert  H.  Gallaher,  for  the 


faithful  performance  of  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  fore- 
going resolutions,  and  that  he  procure  the-  agreement  in 
writing,  of  the  proprietors  of  the  papers  hereinbefore 
named,  to  distribute  the  debates  and  proceedings  hi  the 
manner  set  forth  in  the  second  resolution. 

I  ask  that  the  question  may  be  taken  separately  on 
the  resolutions,  so  that  gentlemen  may  agree  to  such 
portions  of  them,  as,  in  their  opinion,  may  be  proper.  I 
will  state  that  I  still  adhere  to  the  opinion  that  the  sup- 
plemental form  will  be  the  best  form  for  the  publication 
of  these  debates  and  proceedings,  and,  as  the  report 
shows,  the  cheapest  form.  It  will  also  be  seen,  that  the 
provision  for  an  additional  number  of  twenty  copies  for 
each  member,  is  the  subject  of  a  separate  resolu.ion.  Some 
objection  having  been  made  the  other  day  to  that  part  of 
the  proposition,  lhave  thrown  it  into  the  shape  of  a  sepa- 
rate resolution,  so  that,  if  the  majority  are  opposed  to  the 
distribution  of  twenty  copies  to  each  member,  they  can 
vote  that  resolution  down.  But  1  consider  the  fifth  re- 
solution as  extremely  important,  because  it  provides  that 
the  publisher,  at  no  additional  charge  to  the  Common- 
wealth for  the  composition  of  this  matter,  but  merely  on 
being  paid  for  the  additional  press-work  and  paper,  shall 
furnish  to  the  Convention  six  hundred  copies  of  the 
"  Register  of  Debates, '  to  be  published  at  such  intervals 
alter  the  first  publication  in  the  supplemental  sheet,  as 
may  enable  members  to  correct  any  errors  that  may  be 
made  in  reporting  our  debates,  however  accurate  our  re- 
porter may  be  in  the  report  of  our  remarks.  This  will 
be  a  permanent  record  of  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  this  Convention.  I  submit,  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention,  these  resolutions,  and  ask  that  the  ques- 
tion be  taken  on  them  separately. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gemleman  from  Augusta 
asks  that  the  question  be  taken  on  the  resolutions  sepa- 
rately.   The  Clerk  will  read  the  first  resolution. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  do  not  wish  to  delay  the  proceedings 
of  this  body,  but  the  printer  to  this  Convention  has 
placed  in  my  hands  a  communication,  with  the  request 
that  I  should  submit  it.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  its 
details,  but  suppose  it  is  a  proper  time  to  present  it  to 
the  Convention  now,  before  any  vote  is  taken  upon  the 
resolution. 

Mr.  WISE.  Is  it  exactly  in  order,  while  the  Convention 
is  dividing  on  a  proposition,  to  read  another  proposition  ? 
The  FRESlDh-NT.  The  Convention  was  not  dividing. 
Mr.  WTSE.    The  Chan-  was  in  the  very  act  of  putting 
the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  had  not  been  put.  I 
understand  that  the  paper  which  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  offers,  has  a  bearing,  either  as  a  matter  of  argu- 
ment, or  explanation,  upon  the  question  before  the  Con- 
vention, upon  which  we  are  now  about  to  take  a  vote, 
and  it  will  be  too  late  to  consider  it  after  the  vote  is  ta- 
ken. 

Mr.  JACOB.  That  was  my  understanding.  I  do  not 
know  that  it  bears  upon  it,  but  I  suppose  so,  from  what 
the  gentleman  told  me,  who  put  it  into  my  hands. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  following  communication 
from  Mr.  Wrm.  Culley  : 

PETITION 

To  the  Hon.  the  President  and  Members  of  the  Virginia 
Constitutional  Convention. 

The  undersigned  would  respectfully  represent :  That  on 
the  16th  of  October  last,  the  Convention  passed  a  reso 
iution  to  appoint  a  committee  to  receive  proposals  for 
the  execution  of  "  all"  the  printing  of  the  Convention, 
and  that  all  such  printing  should  be  let  to  the  "  lowest 
bidder ;" 

1  hat  under  this  resolution,  the  undersigned  became 
the  contractor  for  "  alb'  the  work  in  this  line,  which 
may  be  Grdered  by  the  Convention  ; 

that  at  the  time  of  his  entering  upon  his  duties,  a  ' 
large  portion  of  the  work  had  accumulated  in  the  hands 
of  the  Secretary,  including  all  the  Journal  up  to  the  25th 
of  October,  and  fourteen  tabular  reports  of  clerks  of 
[  courts,  rule  and  figure  work  of  a  difficult  and  tedious 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


67 


nature,  which  had  to  be  set  up  from  the  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  for  the  last  thirteen  years,  and  that 
in  respect  to  most  of  these  reports,  oniy  a  single  copy 
of  a  bound  book  could  be  obtained  at  a  time,  so  that 
only  one  compositor  could  work  on  one  report  at  a  time ; 

That  notwithstanding  this  difficulty,  the  undersigned 
has  printed  all  this  accumulated  and  tedious  matter,  to- 
gether with  all  the  reports  from  the  several  depart- 
ments, except  two,  which  are  now  m  hand,  and  will  be 
struck  off  in  a  few  days  ; 

That  the  reports  of  the  several  departments  of  the 
State  government,  are  all  rule  and  figu:-i9  work,  and  like 
the  reports  of  the  clerks  of  courts,  of  difficult  con- 
struction ; 

That  the  undersigned  has  observed  that  a  committee 
of  the  Convention  has  advertised  for  proposals  for  the 
execution  of  a  portion  of  the  plain  printing  of  the  Con- 
vention, of  easy  composition,  and  the  most  profitable 
part  of  the  work,  to  wit — the  debates  ; 

That  the  undersigned  conceives  that  it  would  be  a  vi- 
olation of  his  contract  to  give  this  part  of  the  work  to 
another  person  or  firm  ; 

That  he  has  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Messrs. 
Elliott  cfc  Nye,  for  the  use  of  their  power  press  and  hand 
presses,  together  with  their  compositors,  to  aid  him  in 
the  printing  of  the  debates,  and  ail  other  work  of  the 
Convention  which  may  be  ordered; 

That  the  undersigned  submits  it  to  the  fairness  and 
justice  of  the  Convention,  whether  it  would  be  right  to 
take  away  from  him  the  most  profitable  part  of  the 
printing,  since  he  has  executed  the  most  difficult  and 
most  unprofitable  portion  of  the  work,  and  has  made  a 
considerable  expenditure  for  materials,  which  will  be  of 
no  use  to  him  for  any  work  but  that  of  the  Convention  ; 

That  the  undersigned  has  submitted  to  the  commit- 
tee on  reporting  and  printing,  a  proposition  to  print  the 
debates  in  an  octavo  form,  (which  plan  was  first  propos- 
ed by  him,)  and  to  strike  off  a  semi-weekly  edition  of 
twenty-five  thousand  copies,  embracing  as  much  matter 
weekly  as  is  contained  in  eighteen  solid  columns  of  the 
Union  or  National  Intelligencer,  for  a  session  of  fifteen 
weeks,  for  the  sum  of  ten  thousand  dollars  ;  and  to  strike 
off  a  greater  quantity  of  matter,  and  a  greater  number 
of  copies  in  the  same  proportion  ; 

To  this  sum  is  based  upon  his  contract  prices  (thirty- 
five  cents  per  thousand  ems,  thirty-five  cents  per  token, 
and  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  ream,  for  paper  of 
medium  size,)  together  with  a  moderate  and  reasonable 
sum  fur  folding,  stitching  and  mailing  the  same  to  every 
county  in  the  State,  and  for  envelop  paper  and  twine  ; 

And  the  undersigned  therefore  appeals  to  the  Conven- 
tion to  give  him  the  debates  to  print,  and  in  duty  bound, 
he  will  ever  pray,  etc.  William  Culley, 

Printer  to  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  on  the  adop- 
tion of  the  first  resolution. 

MANY  MEMBERS.  "  Question  ■"  "  question  ;"  "ques- 
tion." 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  should  like  to  know  of  the 
gentleman  who  has  submitted  this  report,  whether  he 
has  considered  this  question  in  relation  to  the  contract 
with  the  printer  to  the  Convention  I 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  do  not  think  that  the  contract  for 
printing  would  cover  this  question  at  all.  The  propo- 
sition now  before  this  Convention  is,  for  the  publication, 
in  the  newspapers  of  this  city,  in  order  to  afford  infor- 
mation to  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia, 
of  the  proceedings  and  debates  held  on  this  floor.  Now, 
neither  in  contemplation  of  law,  nor  in  fact,  was  the 
performance  of  such  work,  or  such  duties  ever  designed 
to  be  devolved  upon  the  printer  to  this  Convention — 
your  ministerial  officer.  His  duty  is  to  furnish  you  with 
copies  of  public  documents.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any 
thing  in  the  question  of  law  to  affect  this  question  at 
aft 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  hope  that  this  Convention 
will  not  take  this  question  now.    I  feel  as  anxious  as 


jany  body  to  expedite  this  business,  but  we  have  sub- 
mitted this  matter  to  a  committee  of  this  body,  and  they 
[have  called  upon  various  printers  in  this  city  to  furnish 
proposals  for  printing  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Convention.  And  now,  alter  these  proposals  are 
offered,  we  treat  them  with  so  little  consideration,  that 
we  proceed  to  vote  in  a  manner  which  virtually  rejects 
all  proposals,  without  giving  ourselves  time  to  examine 
the  report  of  the  committee.  Again,  if  the  first  resolu- 
tion be  adopted,  it  affirms  a  principle  which  was  reject- 
ed by  the  Convention  three  days  ago,  on  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Chesterfield  (Mr.  Cox.)  Again,  a 
i  legal  question  has  been  submitted  here.  Is  the  delay  of 
one  day,  when  we  are  waiting  for  the  reports  of  our  va- 
rious committees,  when,  in  fact,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
in  this  body,  of  so  much  importance  to  this  Common- 
wealth, that  we  should  hurry  over  this  question,  which, 
with  all  due  deference  to  my  friend  from  Augusta,  (Mr. 
Sheffey,)  does  not  seem  to  be  one  entirely  free  from 
difficulty.  We  have  appointed  an  individual  printer 
to  this  body,  and  taken  from  him  bond  and  security 
to  do  the  work.  What  work  ?  The  work  ordered  by 
the  Convention,  to  be  paid  for  by  this  Convention. 
What  is  the  work  which  we  mean  to  entrust  to  Mr  Gal 
iaher  \  Is  it  not  the  property  of  this  Convention  ?  Is 
it  not  the  debates  for  which  we  pay  a  gentleman  two 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  week  to  report  ?  Is  not  this 
work  the  property  of  the  Convention,  to  be  delivered  by 
the  Secretary  to  somebody  to  print  ?  Is  not  the  Con- 
vention to  pay  for  this  printing  \  I-do  not  say  that  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta  is  wrong,  but  I  say  that  there 
is  sufficient  in  this  question  at  least,  to  justify  us  in  giv- 
ing it  one  day's  deliberation ;  and  not,  by  hasty  action, 
involve  ourselves  in  a  dilemma,  by  doing  injustice  to  any 
individual,  however  humble  he  may  be,  and  perhaps 
causing  an  application  to  the  Commonwealth  for  damages 
which  he  has  sustained.  I  hope  it  may  be  the  pleasure 
of  the  Convention  to  let  the  report  of  the  committee, 
and  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta — I 
do  not  know  whether  they  are  the  authorized  resolutions 
of  the  committee,  or  his  own  re  solutions — lie  on  the  table 
and  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  members ;  and  when 
sufficient  time  has  been  allowed  to  consider  all  the  pro- 
posals, and  the  legal  question  raised,  then  we  may  be 
better  prepared  to  vote  on  them.  I  therefore  move  that 
the  report  of  the  committee,  and  the  resolutions  of  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  be  laid  on  the  table  and  print- 
ed for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  report  of  the  committee  has 
already  been  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  will  then  move  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tions on  the  table,  and  to  print  them  both. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  ta- 
ble, was  decided  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  afraid  of  another  long  debate  about 
printing.    1  move  the  previous  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  previous  question  is  moved. 
Does  the  gentleman  desire  that  it  shall  apply  to  the 
whole  of  the  resolutions  ? 

Mr.  WISE.    To  all  of  them. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  There  is  but  one  before  the  Con- 
vention, and  that  is  the  first. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  hope  that  we  will  take  the  question 
upon  all  the  resolutions  without  further  debate.  I  am 
tired  to  death  with  debate  upon  this  very  small  question. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  A  division  of  the  question  has 
been  demanded — can  the  previous  question  be  ordered 
upon  the  whole  of  the  resolutions  at  once  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  competent  for  the  member 
from  Accomac  to  demand  the  previous  question  upon 
the  whole  of  them. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  Do  I  understand  the  Chair,  that 
it  is  competent  for  the  member  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise) 
to  demand  the  previous  question  on  the  whole  of  the  re- 
solutions ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.    There  is  but  one  question  before 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  Convention,  a  division  having  been  called,  and  the  first 
resolution  being  alone  before  the  Convention,  the  previous 
question  I  believe,  can  only  apply  to  it. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  afraid  of  a  debate  on  that,  and  I  ask 
the  previous  question  on  the  first  resolution. 

The  call  for  the  previous  question  was  seconded,  and 
the  main  question  ordered. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the 
first  resolution. 

The  first  resolution  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

1.  Resolved,  That  Robert  H.  Gallaher  be  and  he  is 
hereby  appointed  publisher  of  the  debates  and  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convendon. 

The  question  being  then  taken  on  the  above  resolution, 
there  were — yeas  65,  nays  45,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Blue,  Brown, 
Burges,  Camden,  Capertou,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Russel, 
Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chambliss,  Chapman,  Cook,  Deneale, 
Flood,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  Hays,  Hoge,  Hunter,  Hop- 
kins, Jacob,  Janney,  Johnson,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote, 
Letcher,  Lionberger,  Lucas,  McCamant,  McComas,  Mar- 
tin of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry,  Meredith,  Moncure, 
Moore,  Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Newman,  Pendleton, 
Petty,  Price,  Ridley,  Scott  of  Richmond,  Seymour,  Shell, 
Sheffey,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of 
Greenbrier,  Snodgrass,  Stevenson,  Summers,  Tate,  Trigg, 
Van  Winkle,  Watts  of  Norfolk,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  Wil- 
ley,  Williams  of  Shenandoah,  Wise,  Wysor — 85. 

Nays — Messrs.  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Beale,  Bird, 
Bland,  Bocock,  Botts,  Bowden,  Claiborne,  Cocke,  Conway, 
Davis,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Floyd,  Fuqua,  Garland,  M.  R,  H. 
Garnet,  Goode,  Hall,  Hill,  Jones,  Lig'on,  "Lynch,  Ran- 
dolph, Saunders,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fau- 
quier, Sloan,  Southall,  Stanard,  Stewart  of  Morgan, 
Strother,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Turnbull, 
Wallace,  Whittle,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Wingfield,  Wor- 
sliam — 45. 

So  the  first  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

The  second  resolution  was  read  as  follows  : 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  publish,  or 
cause  to  be  published,  semi-weekly,  in  the  Richmond 
Whig,  Enquirer,  Examiner,  Times,  Republican  Advocate, 
and  Republican,  or  in  a  supplement  to  those  papers,  the 
debates  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  so  that  the 
readers  of  said  papers,  whether  they  be  subscribers  to 
the  daily,  semi-weekly,  or  weekly  issues,  shall  have  dis 
tributedto  them  each  week,  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  each  week. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  On  the  adoption  of  that  resolution 
I  ask  for  the  ayes  and  noes. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken,  there  were  yeas  68,  nays  3*7, 
as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Bland,  Blue, 
Brown,  Burges,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of 
Russel,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chambliss,  Chapman,  Cook, 
Deneale,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  Hays,  Hoge, 
Hopkins  of  Powhatan,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Janney,  Johnson, 
Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher,  Lionberger,  Lucas, 
McCamant,  McComas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Hen- 
ry, Meredith,  Moncure,  Moore,  Murphy,  Neeson,  New- 
man, Pendleton,  Price,  Ridley,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott 
of  Richmond,  Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Kana- 
wha, Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Snodgrass, 
Southall,  Stephenson,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate, 
Trigg,  Tunis,  Yan  Winkle,  Watts  of  Norfolk,  Watts  of 
Roanoke,  Willey,  Williams  of  Shenandoah,  Wise,  Wy- 
sor—68. 

Nays.— Messrs.  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Beale,  Bo- 
cock, Bowles,  Claiborne,  Conway,  Davis,  Douglas,  Ed- 
munds, Flood,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Muscoe  R.  H.  Garnett, 
Goode,  Hall,  Hill,  Jones,  Ligon,  Lynch,  Petty,  Randolph, 
Saunders,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Sloan,  Stanard, 
Stewart  of  Morgan,  Strother,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Turnbull, 
Wallace,  Whittle,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Worsham — 37. 

So  the  second  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

The  third  resolution  was  then  read,  as  follows : 

3-  Resolved,  That  the  compensation  to  the  publisher 


shall  be  as  follows:  $3.25  for  composition  of  matter, 
equal  to  a  column  of  the  supplement  heretofore  issued  , 
$4.60  cents  a  ream  for  paper  of  the-  size  of  the  Richmond 
Whig,  or  $4.20  (a  ream)  for  paper  of  the  size  of  the  sup- 
plement— only  so  much  paper  to  be  paid  for  as  is  actu- 
ally used  in  printing  ;  and  624  cents  a  token  for  press 
work :  the  amounts  to  be  settled  and  allowed  by  the 
Secretary  weekly,  and  to  be  verified  by  the  affidavit  of 
the  foreman  or  clerk  of  the  publisher. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  contract 
with  Mr.  Culley.  The  first  resolution,  as  I  understand  it, 
appoints  Mr.  Gallaher  as  the  publisher  of  the  debates 
of  the  Convention.  The  resolution  we  are  now  about  to 
act  upon,  provides  for  printing,  as  I  understand  it.  And 
before  we  vote  upon  that  question,  I  wish  to  know 
whether  wre  are  not  already  under  obligation  to  give  the 
printing  of  these  proceedings  to  Mr.  Culley  ? 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  third  resolution  provides  for  the 
payment  for  the  performance  of  the  duties  required  by 
the  first  and  second  resolutions.  The  gentleman  should 
have  raised  hi>  question  on  the  second  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  contract  is  in  the  possession 
of  the  Secretary,  but  as  he  has  no  place  in  the  hall  to 
keep  his  papers,  it  is  at  his  lodgings.  It  will  be  sent  for 
if  it  is  desired.  Does  the  gentleman  desire  that  the 
contract  shall  be  sent  for? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.    No  sir. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  third  resolution,  it  was 
agreed  to  without  a  division. 

The  fourth  resolution  was  then  read  as  fellows : 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  also  furnish 
twice  each  week,  twenty  copies  of  the  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings to  each  member,  and  shall  wrap,  mail  and  di- 
rect the  same  according  to  the  instructions  of  members, 
at  a  charge  not  exceeding  two  cents  a  copy. 

Mr.  CARLILE.    I  move  to  pass  by  that  resolution. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.  "No,  no,  let  us  dispose  of 
it  at  once." 

Mr.  CARLILE.  Would  a  motion  for  indefinite  post- 
ponement be  confined  to  that  resolution  alcne  ? 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    Oh  let  us  take  the  question. 

Mr.  CARLILE.    Well,  I  will  make  no  motion. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  I  wish  to  make  an  inquiry  before  the 
question  is  taken  on  this  resolution.  Vv7e  have  provided 
for  the  publication  of  our  debates  in  the  papers  of  this 
city,  and  now  we  are  about  providing  that  each  member 
shall  have  20  copies  per  week.  I  should  like  to  know 
before  we  decide  this  matter,  at  what  price  Mr.  Gallaher 
will  furnish  these  debates  to  those  who  wish  to  subscribe 
for  them,  and  thus  receive  the  entire  proceedings  ? 
There  are  very  many  men  who  do  not  take  the  Richmond 
papers,  but  who  would  yet  be  very  anxious  to  have  the 
debates,  and  will  therefore  wish  to  subscribe  for  them 
alone,  if  they  can  get  them  at  a  cheap  rate. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  gentleman  will  see  in  the  prece- 
ding report,  that  Mr.  Gallaher  proposes  to  furnish  the 
subscribers  the  supplemental  sheet  at  two  cents  a  copy, 
on  the  same  terms  indicated  in  that  resolution.  Any 
menber  may  furnish  a  list  of  names  to  the  publisher  and 
he  will  have  them  wrapped  and  directed  and  mailed  at 
two  cents  a  copy. 

Mr.  KNOTK  I  am  aware  that  that  was  the  proposi- 
tion in  a  previous  report,  but  that  is  not  before  the  Con- 
vention, having  been  passed  by.  I  do  not  kiow,  but  pos- 
sibly Mr.  Gallaher,  having  the  contract  for  this  work, 
and  alone  having  it  in  type,  and  the  other  papers  having 
nothing  of  the  kind,  would  have  a  monopoly  of  this  pub- 
lication, and  might  ask  so  high  a  price  for  his  paper  as  to 
render  it  a  costly  matter  to  'his  subscribers.  I  desire  to 
understand  this  thing,  and  as  we  are  to  pay  for  setting 
the  types,  <fec,  to  guard,  if  possible,  against  such  occur- 
rence. 

Mr,  TREDV/ AY.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  cn  the 
fourth  resolution. 

Mr.  KNOTE.  Will  it  be  in  order  to  move  an  amend- 
ment to  this  resolution  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    Yea  sir. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


69 


Mr.  KNOTE.  I  desire  to  have  it  so  amended  that  Mr. 
GaKaher  shall  be  required  to  famish  these  supplements 
to  subscribers  at  two  cents  per  copy. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  If  the  Secretary  will  add  at  the  end 
of  the  resolution  the  words,  "  and  at  no  higher  price  than 
two  cents  per  copy  to  others,"  it  will  accomplish  the  gen- 
tleman's object. 

Mr.  KNOTE.    I  will  accept  of  that  modification. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  will  be  modified 
as  indicated  by  the  mover,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  if  there  be  no 
objection. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH.  This  resolution  requires  Mr.  Gal- 
laher  to  furnish  each  member  that  desires  it,  twenty  copies 
of  the  supplement.  For  my  part  I  do  not  desire  them, 
and  I  would  pay  him  something  not  to  send  them. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  be  much  obliged  to  the  gentleman 
if  he  will  send  them  to  me. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  moving 
the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  resolution.  I  desire, 
if  I  am  incorrect  in  my  understanding  of  the  resolution 
just  adopted  by  the  Convention,  to  be  corrected.  I  under- 
stand, and  that  is  my  reason  for  moving  the  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  resolution  under  consideration,  that 
by  the  first  resolution  Mr.  Gallaher  is  appointed  publish- 
er for  the  Convention.  I  understand  by  the  second  reso- 
lution, that  we  are  to  pay  the  terms  stated  in  the  third 
resolution  to  the  city  papers  for  publishing  and  furnishing 
to  subscribers  in  supplemental  form  the  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Convention.  Now,  if  I  am  correct  in 
that,  we  have  offered  a  bribe  to  the  people  of  this  Com- 
monwealth to  subscribe  to  the  city  papers,  and  if  their 
subscription  is,  in  the  next  ten  days,  brought  up  to  five 
hundred  thousand,  you  will  have  to  pay  out  of  the  treas- 
ury for  publishing  these  reports  of  the  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings in  these  additional  papers,  and  every  man  who 
subscribes  for  them  will  not  only  get  the  city  papers  and 
all  the  news  at  the  ordinary  price,  but  even  this  supple- 
mental sheet  as  a  bribe  for  subscribing  to  them.  If  I  am 
correct,  I  trust  the  Convention  will  stop  before  it 
goes  further  with  this  expenditure,  and  that  we  will  be 
satisfied  with  furnishing  to  the  subscribers  of  the  city  pa- 
pers at  the  public  expense,  the  debates  and  proceedings 
of  this  Convention,  and  that  we  will  not  be  compelled 
further  to  violate  our  feelings  by  taking  twenty  copies 
and  discriminating  among  our  constituents.  Am  I  to 
send  to  one  of  my  constituents  a  supplement  containing 
the  whole  speech  of  one  gentleman  and  half  a  speech  of 
another,  and  to  another  constituent  a  part  of  the  speech 
of  my  friend  from  Accomac  and  a  part  of  the  speech  of 
my  friend  from  Fauquier,  or  some  other  gentleman.  If  I 
am  to  do  this,  the  whole  plan  is  a  humbug,  and  no  good 
whatever  is  to  result  from  it  to  the  readers  in  my  dis- 
trict. But,  if,  on  the  contrary,  I  am  to  send  a  complete 
set  of  these  papers  to  one  person,  or  if  I  am  to  save  these 
twenty  papers  for  as  many  different  persons,  then  I  give 
the  whole  information  to  these  twenty  persons  alone,  and 
I  am  thus  forced  by  the  action  of  this  Convention  to  dis- 
criminate against  twenty -nine  hundred  and  eighty  voters. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  do  it.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
people  will  sustain  and  carry  me  out  in  doing  it,  and  I 
hope  the  Convention  will  be  satisfied  with  the  money  al- 
ready indirectly  appropriated  by  that  third  resolution, 
and  vote  down  this  proposition  to  force  us  to  discrimi- 
nate among  those  who  sent  us  here  and  whom  we  repre- 
sent here. 

The  PRESIDENT.    Does  the  gentleman  submit  the 
motion  for  indefinite  postponement. 
Mr.  CLAIBORNE.    I  do,  sir. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  Here 
is  a  series  of  resolutions,  all  relating  to  the  subject  of 
printing,  and  part  of  them  have  been  adopted.  It  would 
not  be  competent  therefore,  I  suppose,  for  a  single  mem- 
ber, at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  to  move  a  division 
of  the  question,  and  the  Convention  alone  can  call  for  it. 
And  much  less  would  it  be  competent  to  move  the  inde- 
finite postponement  of  one  of  the  resolutions  at  this  time. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  am  willing  to  withdraw  the 
motion  for  indefinite  postponement,  and  that  the  ques- 


tion shall  be  taken  upon  the  resolution,  but  I  am  bound  to 
think  that  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan  (Mr.  Hopkins) 
is  wrong  in  his  question  of  order.  This  question  is  the 
only  one  before  the  Convention,  and  I  do  not  understand 
that  there  is  any  question  that  can  come  before  the  Con- 
vention to  which  a  motion  for  indefinite  postponement 
will  not  apply. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  fourth  resolution, 
and  there  were  yeas  56,  nays  52,  as  follows; 

Yeas — Messrs.  Armstrong,  Bird,  Bland,  Blue,  Brown, 
Burgess,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carter  of  Russel,  Chapman, 
Cook,  Davis,  Deneale,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily, 
Garland,  Hays,  Hoge,  Hopkins  of  Powhatan,  Hunter,  Ja- 
cob, Johnson,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher,  Lionberger,  Lucas, 
Lynch,  McCamant,  McComas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Mere- 
dith, Moore,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton,  Petty,  Price, 
Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of  Richmond,  Seymour,  Sheffey, 
Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Green- 
brier, Snodgrass,  Stephenson,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Sum- 
mers, Tate,  Trigg,  Van  Winkle,  Watts  of  Norfolk,  Wil- 
ley,  Williams  of  Shenandoah,  Wise,  Wysor — 56. 

Nays — Messrs.  Anderson,  Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Beale, 
Bocock,  Botts,  Bowles,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chambliss,  Clai- 
borne, Cocke,  Conway,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Flood,  Fuqua, 
Garland,  Garnett  of  Essex,  Goode,  Hall,  Hill,  Janney, 
Jones,  Kenney,  Ligon,  Lynch,  Martin  of  Henry,  Mason, 
Moncure,  Newman,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Saunders,  Scog- 
gin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Shell,  Sloan,  Southall,  Stanard, 
Stewart  of  Morgan,  Strother,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Tunis, 
Turnbull,  Wallace,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  Whittle,  Williams 
of  Fairfax,  Wingfield,  Worsham — 52. 
So  the  fourth  resolution  was  agreed  to. 
The  fifth  resolution  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  said  publisher  shall  also  furnish 
six  hundred  copies  of  "  the  Register  of  Debates"  in  oc- 
tavo form,  at  a  price  hereafter  to  be  fixed  by  the  Con- 
vention for  press-work  and  paper — no  additional  charge 
to  be  made  for  composition,  except  for  corrections — said 
Register  to  be  published  at  sufficient  intervals,  after  the 
publication  of  the  same  matter  in  the  newspapers  or  the 
supplements  as  aforesaid,  to  afford  an  opportunity  for 
the  correction  of  errors  therein ;  one  copy  of  said  Re- 
gister to  be  delivered,  as  published,  to  each  member 
and  officer  of  the  Convention  ;  one  bound  copy  to  be  fur- 
nished to  each  member  and  officer  at  the  close  of  the  ses- 
sion ;  and  the  residue  of  the  six  hundred  copies  to  be 
bound  and  delivered  to  the  Governor  of  the  Common- 
wealth subject  to  the  order  of  the  General  Assembly. 
The  cost  of  binding  shall  not  exceed  sixty  cents  a  vol- 
ume. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  would  suggest  that  the 
direction  be  to  deliver  the  six  hundred  copies  to  the  Li- 
brarian of  the  Commonwealth,  and  not  the  Governor. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  accept  the  modification  to  strike 
out  the  word  "Governor,"  and  insert  the  word  "Sec- 
retary." 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  will  be  consid- 
ered as  so  modified,  unless  objection  is  made. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution  as  mod- 
ified, and  it  was  agreed  to. 

The  sixth  resolution  was  then  read,  as  follows: 

6.  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  take  bond  with  suffi- 
cient security  from  said  Robert  H.  Gallaher,  for  the 
faithful  performance  of  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  fore- 
going resolutions,  and  that  he  procure  the  agreement  in 
writing  of  the  proprietors  of  the  papers  hereinbefore 
named,  to  distribute  the  debates  and  proceedings  in  the 
manner  set  forth  in  the  second  resolution. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  inquire  of  the  mover  what 
would  be  deemed  sufficient  security  ?  Is  the  Convention 
to  determine,  or  is  it  to  be  left  to  the  Secretary  ?  Would 
it  not  be  better  for  us  at  once  to  decide  it,  rather  than  to 
leave  it  to  the  Secretary,  whom  it  might  involve  in  diffi- 
culties ?    Is  it  to  be  left  to  the  Secretary's  discretion  ? 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  gentleman  can  name  any  amount 
he  desires. 


70 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  no  motion  to  make,  for  I  am 
no  judge  of  such  matters. 

The  sixth  resolution  Avas  then  agreed  to. 

THE  PUBLIC  EXPENDITURES  CORRECTION   OF  A  STATEMENT. 

Mr.  CHAMBLISS.  A  resolution  was  passed  on  the 
17th  of  October,  requesting  the  Auditor  of  Public  Ac- 
counts to  send  to  this  Convention  the  expenditures  of  the 
Commonwealth  for  the  year  ending  the  12th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1850.  This  statement  has  been  printed,  but  it  does 
not  give  the  aggregate  in  each  county.  The  Auditor  has 
given  the  aggregate  in  each  district,  but  does  not  give  the 
aggregate  for  each  county.  He  gives  the  separate  items 
of  expenditure  in  the  counties,  but  not  the  aggregate 
amount.  There  is  no  means  of  testing  the  accura- 
cy of  this  calculation  without  making  an  addition  ol 
these  tables.  I  therefore  move  that  this  resolution  be 
sent  back  to  the  Auditor  with  in:  tructions  to  furnish  a 
detailed,  statement  of  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  in 
the  Commonwealth — showing  the  aggregated  expendi- 
tures in  each. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

THE  COMMUNICATION  FROM  MR.  WM.  CULLEY. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  am  requested  by  the  printer  to  the 
Convention,  to  move  to  lay  on  the  table  his  communica- 
tion, presented  a  short  time  since  by  me. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

COMPENSATION  AND  EXTRA  ALLOWANCES  TO  PUBLIC  OFFICERS. 

Mr.  CARTER,  of  Scott,  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion, and  it  was  referred  to  the  Legislative  Committee: 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  inquire  into 
the  expediency  and  propriety  of  giving  the  Legislature 
the  power  to  provide  by  law  for  the  compensation  of  all 
officers,  servants,  agents,  and  public  contractors,  not  pro- 
vided for  by  the  Constitution,  and  of  expressly  with- 
holding from  the  Legislature  the  power  to  grant  extra 
compensation  to  any  officer,  servant,  agent,  or  public 
contractor,  after  such  public  service  shall  have  been  per- 
formed, or  such  public  contract  entered  into  for  the  per- 
formance of  the  same.  And  also  of  withholding  from  the 
Legislature  the  power  to  grant  by  appropriation  or  other- 
wise any  amount  of  money  out  of  the  treasury  of  the 
State  on  any  claim  real  or  pretended,  when  the  same 
shall  not  have  been  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law. 
And  also  of  withholding  from  the  Legislature  the  power 
to  increase  or  diminish  the  salaries  or  fees  of  any  officer, 
employment,  agency  or  trust  during  the  existing  term  of 
the  same. 

THE  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  CENSUS  OFFICE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  is  a  communication  from  one  of 
the  departments  at  Washington  which  I  believe  was  laid 
on  the  table  this  morning,  which  should  be  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  communication  has  been  dis- 
posed of  in  the  same  manner  as  was  the  first  communi- 
cation from  the  same  source — referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Basis — to  examine  whether  the  same  information 
has  not  already  been  communicated  to  the  Convention  by 
the  Auditor,  and  printed. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  hope  the  committee  will  see  the  ne- 
cessity for  the  printing. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  COCKE.  I  rise  to  move,  that  when  this  Conven- 
tion adjourn  to-day.  it  adjourn  to  meet  again  on  Saturday 
next.  We  have  disposed  now  of  the  printing  matter,  and 
as  it  is  known  that  all  the  committees  of  the  Convention 
are  now  busily  engaged  all  the  time  that  they  can  be,  in 
the  consideration  of  questions  of  importance  referred  to 
•them,  I  believe,  to  meet  here  day  after  day  till  these  com- 
mittees are  ready  to  report,  will  be  a  useless  consumption 
of  our  time,  and  will  materially  delay  the  real  business  of 
the  body.^  We  meet  here  at  1  o'clock,  the  time  fixed  for 
the  meeting  of  the  committees  is  10  o'clock,  and  very 
many  members  do  not  enter  the  committee  rooms  till 
near  11  or  after,  that,  and  by  the  time  we  are  ready 
to  take  any  action,  we  have  to  come  down  here.  There 
fore  I  trust  that  the  sober  judgement  of  the  house  will 


see  the  propriety  of  the  motion  which  I  now  submit.  I 
am  not  particular  about  Saturday,  but  I  moved  that  day 
because  I  thought  some  of  the  committees  might  be  able 
to  report  by  that  time.  I  hope  some  of  our  committees, 
at  least  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  possibly  two  or 
three  others,  will  be  ready  to  report  by  that  time,  and 
we  may  then  go  on  uninterruptedly  in  the  discharge  of 
our  duties. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  I  hope  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Convention  to  agree  to  the  motion  submitted  by  my 
friend  from  Fluvanna,  (Mr.  Cocke.)  I  think  it  will  very 
much  facilitate  the  action  of  the  committees — the  most 
important  action  the  Convention  can  now  have.  Until 
we  can  hear  from  one  of  these  committees,  there  will  be 
nothing  before  the  Convention,  and  we  can  make  no  ef- 
fectual progress.  I  do  not  see  the  object  of  meeting  here 
from  time  to  time  when  there  is  no  call  for  it.  If  any 
more  resolutions  are  to  be  offered,  they  can  as  well  be 
offered  on  a  future  occasion  as  now.  The  committees 
have  ample  work  before  them,  and  it  is  for  the  interest 
of  all  that  they  be  as  little  interrupted  as  possible.  To 
meet  here  at  1  o'clock  every  day  is  a  very  serious  in- 
terruption to  the  committees.  It  breaks  in  upon  the  day, 
and  they  can  do  nothing  effectually  afterwards — 10 
o'clock  is  the  hour  for  the  meeting  of  the  committees,  but 
they  do  not  get  organized  before  II,  and  then  by  half 
after  12  or  1,  they  have  to  come  down  here.  And 
if  we  adjourn,  we  lose  an  hour  and  a  half  or  two  hours 
here,  and  the  day  is  completely  broken  up.  I  trust  it  will 
be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  agree  to  vote  for 
the  motion  of  my  friend  to  adjourn  till  Saturday.  Any 
adjournment  over  would  be  better  than  meeting  here 
from  day  to  day.  I  am  very  well  satisfied  with  Satur- 
day. Monday  has  been  suggested,  but  I  am  not  anxious 
to  change  the  dav  specified  in  the  motion. 

Mr.SHEFFEY.  I  do  not  think  there  would  he  much 
harm  in  our  coming  here  on  Thursday.  There  might  be 
some  suggestions  thrown  into  the  shape  of  resolutions 
and  referred  to  the  committees  between  this  time  and 
Monday  next.  It  will  not  be  very  troublesome  for  the 
Convention  to  meet  here  an  hour  a  day,  and  if  any  reso- 
lutions should  be  offered,  refer  them  to  the  cemmittees 
before  they  make  out  their  final  reports.  We  could 
meet  here  on  Thursday  at  2  o'clock,  and  receive  any 
resolutions  that  any  gentleman  may  wish  to  have  referred 
to  the  committees.  I  move  to  substitute  Thursday  for 
Saturday. 

Mr.  MOtfCURE.  Will  Friday  suit  you?  This  will 
give  the  committees  three  days.  A  committee  may  be 
ready  to  report  on  Friday. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Well,  if  the  gentleman  thinks  they 
will  be  ready  to  report  on  Friday,  it  will  be  better  to 
meet  on  Thursday;  a  new  idea  might  then  be  furnished 
the  committee. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  Well,  if  you  prefer  Thursday,  I  have 
no  objection. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  motion  to  strike  out 
Saturday  and  insert  Thursday,  and  decided  in  the  nega- 
tive— a  count  being  had — ayes  36,  nays  47. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Cocke, 
it  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — ayes  54,  noes  29. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  CARTER,  of  Loudoun,  the  Conven- 
tion adjourned  until  Saturday,  at  1  o'clock. 

SA'I  UKJJA  y,  January  2bth,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

ASSESSED  AVERAGE  VALUE  OF  LAND  PER  ACRE. 

The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention  the  fol- 
lowing communication  from  the  Auditor's  Office  : 

Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Richmond,  January  25,  1851.  \ 
Sir — I  have  the  honor  of  furnishing  you  herewith, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


71 


for  the  use  of  the  Convention,  "a  statement  showing  the 
assessed  average  value  of  lands  per  acre  for  the  years 
1800,  1820,  1840  and  1850;  the  value  of  buildings  on 
other  than  town  lots,  added  to  the  value  of  lands  in 
1820,  1840  and  1850,  in  ascertaining  the  average  value 
thereof,  and  also  the  value  of  buildings  or  town  lots  in 
1820, 1840  and  1850."  I  have  also  enclosed  to  you  here- 
with "a  table  showing  the  aggregate  amounts  expend- 
ed, by  the  Commonwealth,  through  this  office,  in  each 
county,  city  and  town  thereof,  during  the  fiscal  year  end- 
ing on  the  30th  September,  1850." 

I  am  with  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
Ro.  Johnston,  First  Auditor. 

Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason,  President  of  the  Va.  Convention. 

The  communication  and  accompanying  documents 
were,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BirRD,  laid  on  the  table  and  or- 
dered to  be  printed. 

EXPENSES  OF  FITTING  UP  THE  CHURCH. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  bill  for  the  car- 
penter's Avork  done  in  preparing  this  church  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  the  Convention.  It  was  done  under  the 
direction  of  Mr.  Bosher,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  the  part  of  the  city  council,  and  that  gentleman  cer- 
tifies that  the  prices  charged  are  in  accordance  with  the 
agreement  made  by  him  with  the  carpenters.  Most  of 
the  charge  is  to  reimburse  the  actual  outlay  of  money  on 
their  part  in  the  purchase  of  materials,  which  money 
they  are  anxious  to  receive.  The  whole  amount  of  their 
bill  is  $159.78.  This  charge  does  not  include  the  cost 
of  the  carpet  and  other  fixtures  for  our  accommodation 
here,  which  were  furnished  by  other  persons.  As  this 
Convention  has  no  power  to  make  appropriations  of  the 
public  money,  I  offer  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislature  be  requested  to  make 
an  appropriation  to  pay  to  Poindexter  &  Kerr,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  nine  dollars  and  seventy-eight  cents,  the 
amount  of  their  carpenter's  work,  done  for  the  accom- 
odation of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  There  have  been  other 
expenses  incurred  in  the  work  of  re-fitting  this  church, 
besides  that  proposed  to  be  provided  for  here,  and  I 
would  suggest  whether  it  is  not  better  to  embrace  them 
all  in  this  resolution,  so  that  it  may  cover  all  the  expense. 
<fec,  that  has  been  incurred.  It  strikes  me  it  would  be 
better  than  to  have  each  item  the  subject  of  a  separate 
resolution  here  and  of  a  separate  bill  before  the  Legis- 
lature, and  I  would  suggest  to  the  mover  of  this  resolu- 
tion that  he  modify  it  as  I  have  indicated. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  gentleman's  suggestion  might  be 
adopted  if  we  knew  the  exact  amount  of  expense.  In 
the  absence  of  such  information,  I  think  the  Conven- 
tion ought  not  to  pass  upon  any  resolution  of  that  kind. 
Any  amount  which  the  Legislature  may  be  called  upon 
to  appropriate,  ought  to  have  the  express  sanction  of 
the  Convention.  The  persons  who  performed  this  car- 
penter's work  were  subjected  to  an  outlay  of  some  $90 
or  $100  of  money  out  of  their  own  pockets,  in  the  pro- 
curing of  materials,  and  this  amount  they  are  anxious 
to  have  refunded  to  them  as  speedily  as  possible. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Marshall.  I  will  move  that  the 
resolution  be  laid  on  the  table.  In  all  probability  by 
Monday  we  shall  know  the  exact  amount  of  expense  in- 
curred in  fitting  up  this  church,  and  then  we  may  have 
the  whole  subject  disposed  of  by  the  Legislature  in  a 
single  bill. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  deem  it  proper  to  state  to  the 
Convention,  that  I  have  had  a  conversation  with  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  finance,  I  think  it  is  called, 
of  the  House  of  Delegates,  who  informed  me  that  his 
committee  had  determined  to  report,  and  he  had  no 
doubt  the  General  Assembly  would  pass,  an  act  appro- 
priating a  sum  of  money  to  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Convention  to  defray  its  expenses.  In  view  of  this 
and  the  fact  that  it  is  proper  for  the  Convention  to  retain 
the  vouchers  of  these  amounts  on  its  records,  the  pay- 
ments being  made  by  its  own  officers,  it  is  worthy  of  in- 


quiry whether  it  is  not  better  to  wait  the  action  of  the 
Legislature  before  adopting  this  resolution.  I  have 
made  this  statement  so  that  members  might  act  under- 
standing^ in  the  premises. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I,  of  course,  knew  nothing  of  the  ar- 
rangement to  which  the  President  has  referred,  or  I 
should  not  have  offered  this  resolution.  I  acquiesce  ful- 
ly in  the  motion  to  lay  it  on  the  table. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed  to. 

REMOVAL  OF  FREE  NEGROES. 

Mr.  LUCAS.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  petition  from  a  re- 
spectable portion  of  my  constituents,  citizens  of  the  coun- 
ty of  Jefferson,  praying  for  the  removal  of  free  people  of 
color  from  beyond  the  borders  of  the  Commonwealth.  I 
ask  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legisla- 
tive Department. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  petition  referred 
accordingly. 

REPORT  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  wish  to  present  a  report  from  the 
Committee  on  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Govern- 
ment. In  presenting  it,  I  am  requested  by  some  of  the 
members  of  the  committee  to  state  that  they  do  not  con- 
cur in  all  the  propositions  reported.  It  was  not,  I  sup- 
pose, expected  by  the  Convention,  that  there  would 
be  a  unanimous  concurrence  in  sentiment  by  the  com 
mittee. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as  fol- 
lows : 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Article  1. — Governor. 
Sec.  1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Common- 
wealth shall  be  vested  iu  a  Governor.    He  shall  hold  his 
office  for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  day 
of  next  preceding  his  election,  and  he  shall  be  in- 

eligible to  that  office  after  his  second  term  shall  have  ex- 
pired, an  I  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  service. 

2.  The  Governor  shall  be  chosen  by  the  electors  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly,  at  the  times  and  places 
when  they  respectively  vote  for  members  thereof.  The 
returns  of  every  election  shall  be  sealed  and  transmitted 
by  the  proper  returning  officer  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
who  shall  deliver  them  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates,  on  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Assembly,  then  next  to  be  holden.  The  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  shall  open  and  publish  the  within 
one  week  thereafter,  in  the  presence  of  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Delegates.  The  person  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes  shall  be  Governor  ;  but  if  two 
or  more  shall  be  equal  and  highest  in  votes,  one  of  them 
shall  be  chosen  Governor,  by  joint  vote  of  both  Houses  of 
the  General  Assembly.  Contested  elections  shall  be  de- 
cided by  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  in  such  manner  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

3.  No  person  shall  be  elegib1  e  to  the  office  of  Governor 
unless  he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years,  shall 
be  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  shall  have 
been  a  citizen  of  Virginia  for  five  years  next  preceding 
his  election. 

4.  The  Governor  shall  reside  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment, and  shall  receive  for  his  services  the  sum  of  five 
thousand  dollars  for  each  year  of  his  term,  and  shall  not 
receive  within  that  period  any  other  emolument  from 
this  or  any  other  State  or  government. 

5.  He  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted ;  shall,  from  time  to  time,  communicate  to  the  Leg- 
islature the  condition  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  recom- 
mend to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  may 
deem  expedient;  he  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the 
land  and  naval  forces  of  the  State ;  shall  convene  the 
Legislature  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  both  houses  of  .  the  General  Assembly,  or  when,  in 
his  opinion,  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  re- 
quire it.  He  shall  have  power  to  embody  the  militia, 
when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it ; 
to  remit  fines  and  penalties,  under  such  rules  and  regu- 


72 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


lations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law ;  to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons,  or  commute  the  punishment,  except 
when  the  prosecution  shall  have  been  carried  on 
by  the  House  of  Delegates,  or  the  law  shall  other- 
wise particularly  direct ;  to  conduct,  either  in  per- 
son or  in  such  other  manner  as  shall  be  prescribed  by 
law,  all  intercourse  with  other  and  foreign  states  ;  and, 
during  the  recess  of  the  Legislature,  to  fill,  pro  tempore, 
all  vacancies  in  those  offices  for  which  the  Constitution, 
and  Laws  make  no  provision :  Provided,  That  his  ap- 
pointments to  such  vacancies  shall  be  by  commission  to 
expire  at  the  end  of  thirty  days  after  the  commencement 
of  the  session  of  the  Legislature  next  preceding  the  date 
of  such  commission. 

6.  Commissions  and  grants  shall  run  in  the  name  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  and  bear  teste  by  the  Gover- 
nor, with  the  seal  of  the  Commonwealth  annexed. 
Article  2 — Lieutenant  Governor. 

1.  A  Lieutenant  Governor  shall  be  chosen  at  every 
election  for  a  Governor,  in  the  same  manner,  continue  in 
office  for  the  same  time,  and  possess  the  same  qualifica- 
tions. 

2.  In  case  of  the  impeachment  of  the  Governor,  his  re- 
moval from  office,  death,  refusal,  or  inability  to  qualify, 
resignation,  or  absence  from  the  State,  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  office  shall  devolve  upon  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  and  the  Legislature  may  by  law  provide  for 
the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability  of 
both  the  Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor,  declaring 
what  officer  shall  then  act  as  Governor ;  and  such  officer 
shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability  be  removed,  or  a 
Governor  shall  be  elected. 

3.  The  Lieutenant  Governor,  or  other  officer  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Governor,  shall,  during  his  administra- 
tion, receive  the  same  compensation  to  which  the  Govern- 
or would  have  been  entitled,  had  he  continued  in  office. 

4.  The  Lieutenant  Governor  shall,  by  virtue  of  his 
office,  be  President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  only  have  a 
casting  vote  therein  ;  whenever  he  shall  administer  the 
Government  or  shall  be  unable  to  attend  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  the  Senators  shall  elect  one  of  their 
own  members  as  President  of  the  Senate  for  the  time 
being. 

5.  While  he  acts  as  President  of  the  Senate,  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  shall  receive  for  his  services  the 
compensation  allowed  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates. 

Article  3 — Secretary  of  State,  Treasureer,  and  Auditor. 

1.  A  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  be  chosen 
at  every  election  for  a  Governor,  in  the  same  manner, 
and  continue  in  office  for  the  same  time  as  the  Governor. 
He  shall  keep  a  fair  record  of  the  official  acts  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, which  shall  be  attested  by  the  Governor  and  by 
the  Secretary.  He  shall,  when  required,  lay  the  said  re- 
cord, and  all  papers,  minutes,  and  vouchers  relative  to 
his  office,  before  either  house  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  shall  perform  such  other  duties  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law. 

2  A  Treasurer  and  an  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts 
shall  be  elected  by  joint  vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the 
Legislature,  who  shall  hold  the  offices  two  years,  unless 
sooner  removed.  The  powers  and  duties  of  said  officers 
shall  be  such  as  now  are,  or  may  be  hereafter,  prescribed 
by  law. 

Article  4 — Board  of  Public  Works. 
The  Legislature  shall,  at  its  first  session  after  the  adop- 
tion of  this  Constitution,  organize  a  Board  of  Public 
Works,  to  be  composed  of  three  commissioners,  prescribe 
their  duties  and  fix  their  compensation.  The  said  com- 
missioners shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
State,  one  of  whom  shall  hold  his  office  for  two  years,  one 
for  four  years,  and  one  for  six  years.    They  shall  meet 

at  the  capitol  on  the   day  of   next  after  the 

election,  and  shall  decide  by  lot  which  shall  hold  his  of- 
fice for  two  years,  which  for  four  years,  and  which  for 
six  years;  and  there  shall  be  elected  biennially  thereaf- 
ter, one  commissioner  who  shall  hold  his  office  for  six 


years.  All  officers  acting  in  behalf  of  the  interests  of 
the  State  in  the  various  public  improvements,  shall  be 
appointed  by  said  Board. 

Article  5 — Militia. 
All  company,  battalion  and  regimental  officers  shall 
be  elected  by  those  persons  who  are  subject  to  military 
duty,  within  their  respective  companies,  battalions  and 
regiments,  and  all  other  militia  officers  in  such  manner 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

PAYMENT  OF  A  PRINTING  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  desire  to  offer  a  resolution  of  a  bu- 
siness character,  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  certify  to  the  First  Au 
ditor  for  payment  of  the  account  of  Robert  H.  Gallaher, 
publisher,  for  work  executed  up  to  this  day. 

The  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  RETURNS  OF  POPULATION. 

Mr.  BYRD  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it  was 
adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  the  First  Auditor  be,  and  he  is  hereby 
requested,  to  furnish  for  the  use  of  the  Convention  a  ta- 
ble, showing  in  separate  columns  the  free  white,  free  CO' 
lored  and  slave  population  of  each  of  the  counties,  cities 
and  towns  in  the  four  great  districts  of  the  State,  in  the 
years  1830,  1840,  and  1850,  and  the  amount  and  per 
centage  of  increase,  or  decrease  in  each,  between  those 
periods  respectively ;  and  also  showing  the  aggregate 
amount  of  taxes  payable  in  each  county  in  the  year  1840, 
and  what  would  have  been  payable  in  the  year  1850,  at 
the  same  rate  of  taxation,  taxing  land  according  to  the 
value,  ascertained  by  the  recent  assessment,  together  with 
the  amount  and  per  centage  of  increase  or  decrease  in 
the  taxes,  so  ascertained,  at  the  two  periods  aforesaid. 

DISQUALIFICATION    OF    COUNTY    COMMONWEALTH  ATTORNEYS 
FROM  SERVICE  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

Mr.  FULKERSON".  I  wish  to  offer  a  resolution,  and 
I  will  remark,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  whom  it  shall  be  referred,  to  the  sub- 
ject, that  it  relates  to  prohibiting  Commonwealth  attor- 
neys in  county  courts'  from  serving  in  either  house  of 
the  General  Assembly.  The  construction  placed  upon 
our  present  Constitution  makes  a  distinction  between 
Commonwealth  attorneys  in  circuit  courts,  and  in  coun- 
ty courts ;  prohibiting  those  of  circuit  courts  from  serving 
in  the  Legislature,  but  allowing  those  of  county  courts 
to  do  so.  This  distinction,  I  understand,  to  be  based  on 
the  idea  that  as  the  attorney  in  the  circuit  court  receives 
his  ex  officio  compensation  from  the  State  treasury, 
while  those  in  the  county  courts  receive  theirs  by  coun- 
ty levy,  the  office  of  the  latter  is  therefore  not  one  un- 
der the  State,  and  thus,  under  the  Constitution,  the  in- 
cumbent has  the  right  of  being  returned  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. I  think  there  is  as  much  reason  to  exclude  from 
this  privilege  the  attorneys  of  the  Commonwealth  in  the 
county  courts  as  those  in  the  circuit  courts  ;  and,  for  the 
purpose  of  having  the  subject  considered,  I  offer  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Right  of  Suf- 
frage inquire  into  and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  pro- 
hibiting Commonwealth  attorneys  in  the  county  courts 
from  serving  as  members  in  either  House  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

Mr.  LETCHER.  I  suggest  to  the  gentlemen  from 
Scott,  (Mr.  Fulkerson,)  whether  the  resolution  ought  not 
to  go  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department.  I 
cannot  perceive  that  the  Committee  on  the  Right  of  Suf- 
frage can  have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  subject. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  I  have  no  choice  as  to  the  com- 
mittee to  whom  it  shall  be  referred,  and  will  adopt  the 
suggestion  of  my  friend  with  pleasure. 

The  resolution  was  then  modified  accoidingly  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 

SEPARATE  DAY  FOR  JUDICIAL  ELECTIONS. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  J udiciary. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


73 


Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  providing,  that  no  other  election 
shall  be  held  on  the  day  appointed  for  the  election  of 
judicial  officers. 

REMODELING   OF  THE    COUNTIES  REGISTRATION    OF  BIRTHS, 

DEATHS  AND  MARRIAGES. 

Mr.  SUMMERS  offered  the  following  resolutions,  and 
they  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  County  Courts 
and  County  Organization : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  County  Organi- 
zation, (fee,  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  practica- 
bility and  expediency  of  re-constructing  the  several 
counties  of  the  Commonwealth,  so  as  to  make  them  as 
nearly  uniform  in  territorial  extent  as  may  be,  having 
regard  to  natural  boundaries. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  County  Organization, 
<fcc,  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  inserting  a  clause  in 
the  Constitution,  requiring  provision  to  be  made  by  law 
for  the  registration  of  births,  marriages  and  deaths  in  the 
several  counties,  cities  and  towns  within  the  Common- 
wealth. 

THE  VETO  POWER. 

Mr.  WISE  offered  the  following  resolution,  and  it  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment : 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislative  Committee  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  inserting  the  following  provision  in 
the  Constitution : 

Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  General  As- 
sembly, shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law,  be  presented  to 
the  Governor  ;  if  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if  not 
he  shall,  within  clays,  return  it  with  his  objections 
to  that  house  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  who 
shall  enter  the  objections  at  large  on  their  journal,  and 
proceed  to  re-consider  it.  If  after  such  re  consideration  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  of  members  of  that  house 
shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with 
the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall  like- 
wise be  re-considered,  and  if  approved  by  a  majority  of 
that  house,  it  shall  become  a  law.  But  if  any  bill  shall 
not  be  returned  by  the  Governor  within  days  (Sun- 
days excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him, 
or  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  adjourned  for 
days  before  he  returns  his  objections,  the  same  shall  be 
a  law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it. 

MODE  OF  LEVYING  TAXATION. 

Mr.  NEESON.  Al  an  early  day  of  the  session  of  the 
Convention  in  October,  I  took  occasion  to  submit  some 
resolutions  in  relation  to  the  principle  or  mode  of  taxa- 
tion. The  resolutions  were  not  in  the  form  of  sugges- 
tions, but  of  affirmative  propositions,  and  I  believe,  under 
the  construction  of  the  resolution  passed  heretofore,  none 
but  resolutions  of  inquiry  are  referred  as  a  matter  of 
course,  to  the  appropriate  committees.  I  therefore  move 
that  the  resolutions  introduced  by  me,  to  which  I  have 
alluded,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  upon  the  Legisla- 
tive Department,  with  instructions  to  inquire  into  the 
propriety  of  adopting  and  reporting  them  as  provisions 
of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  can  inform  the  gentleman  from  Mar- 
ion, (Mr.  Neeson,)  that  the  Legislative  Committee  now 
have  this  subject  under  consideration.  It  has  been  re- 
lerred  to  them  by  three  or  four  resolutions.  I  was  not 
aware  that  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  was  manda- 
tory in  it"  terms,  nor  have  the  committee  acted  under 
the  impression  that  they  were  required  by  any  resolu- 
tion of  the  Convention  to  report  the  principle  of  taxation 
proposed  by  his  resolution.  I  do  not  suppose  it  is  ne- 
cessary for  the  resolution  to  undergo  any  modification  ; 
the  committee  will  act  upon  it  and  report  such  result  as 
in  their  best  judgment  they  think  calculated  to  pro- 
mote the  public  good. 

Mr.  NEESON.  The  resolutions  to  which  I  have  referr- 
ed were  laid  on  the  table  at  my  request ;  they  were  affirm- 
ative resolutions,  and  not  merely  suggestive  of  an  inqui- 


ry, and  therefore  were  not  referred  to  the  appropriate 
committee.  Thei-e  are  some  distinguishing  characteristics 
belonging  to  those  resolutions  that  I  do  not  perceive  con- 
nected with  any  other  on  the  same  subject.  The  proper 
motion,  I  suppose,  is  to  take  up  the  resolutions  and  refer 
them  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 

The  motion  to  take  up  the  resolutions  was  agreed  to. 
They  are  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  no  capitated  tax  should  be  imposed  on 
the  free  white  citizens  of  the  State,  unless  authorized  by 
a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  most  popular  branch  of  the 
Legislature. 

Resolved,  That  the  taxes  for  the  ordinary  support  of 
the  government  should  be  levied  exclusively  upon  pro- 
Derty. 

Resolved,  That  the  taxes  imposed  by  the  Legislature 
should  be  uniform  throughout  the  State,  so  that  all  pro- 
perty subject  to  taxation  should  be  liable  therefor,  accord- 
ing to  one  uniform  rate  on  its  actual  valuation. 

The  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Legislative  Department. 

And  then  on  motion  of  Mr.  NEESON,  the  Convention 
adjourned  until  Monday  at  1  o'clock. 


MONDAY,  January  27,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

EXPENDITURES  FOR  FITTING  UP  THE  CHURCH. 

Mr.  HAYS.  I  have  been  requested  to  offer  a  resolu- 
tion for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention.  It  is  to 
authorize  the  Secretary  to  audit  an  account  for  coal,  and 
other  articles  of  fuel,  and  glasses,  pitchers,  &c,  which,  I 
am  told  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  have  been  furnished 
for  the  use  of  the  Convention.  The  resolution  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  be 
authorized  to  certify  for  payment  the  within  account  in 
favor  of  A.  H.  Thornton,  being  for  articles  furnished  for 
the  use  of  the  Convention,  amounting  to  $49.84." 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  However  correct  the  account  may 
be,  it  should  be  examined  by  some  committee  of  the 
Convention,  and  I  hope  the  resolution  will  be  referred  to 
the  committee  of  which  Mr.  M.  Garnett  is  chairman, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  superintend  the  refitting  of  this 
building.  I  think  that  all  of  our  accounts,  whatever 
they  may  be,  should  be  examined  by  some  committee 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  even  then,  I  doubt  much, 
if,  without  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Auditor 
will  pay  these  accounts. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
select  committee  of  which  Mr.  M.  Garnett  was  chair- 
man, is  not  functus  officio.  I  would  suggest  the  proprie- 
ty of  the  raising  of  a  Committee  on  Accounts,  to  consist 
of  three  members. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  suppose  the  select  committee  is 
functus  officio,  and  I  will  therefore  move  to  lay  the  reso- 
lution on  the  table,  with  a  view  to  cariy  out  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  President. 

Mr.  HAYS.  I  have  ko  objection  to  that  disposition 
of  it. 

The  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

APPOINTMENT  OF  A  COMMITTEE  ON  ACCOUNTS. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  now  move  that  a  committee  of 
three  members  be  appointed  to  examine  and  report  upon 
all  accounts  for  the  incidental  expenses  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and— =- 

The  PRESIDENT  appointed  the  committee  to  consist 
of  the  following  named  gentlemen*  Messrs.  M.  Garnett, 
Snowden  and  Meredith  : 

UNIFORM  SYSTEM  OF  TAXATION. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    It  will  be  recollected  by  the  Convention, 


74 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


that  when  it  was  in  session  in  the  month  of  October  last 
I  submitted  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  which  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department,  upon 
the  subject  of  a  uniform  system  of  taxation.  It  was 
my  purpose  at  the  time,  to  have  followed  up  that  resolu- 
tion with  some  other  resolutions  connected  with*the  sub- 
ject, but  the  Convention  however  adjourned,  before  I 
had  matured  in  my  own  mind,  the  form  in  which  those 
resolutions  ought  to  be  presented.  The  Legislative 
Committee  I  learn,  have  the  subject  now  under  conside- 
ration, and  I  beg  leave  to  offer  the  accompanying  resolu- 
tion, which  is  a  modification,  in  some  particulars,  of  the 
resolution  which  I  first  submitted. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment of  the  Government,  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  incorporating  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  following  provision : 

There  shall  be  a  uniform  system  of  ad  valorem  taxa- 
tion on  every  description  of  property,  real,  personal  and 
mixed,  except  such  as  may  be  specially  exempted,  by  a 
vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  elected  of  each 
branch  of  the  Legislature;  provided  that  every  white 
male  adult  shall  be  liable  to  a  tax,  in  a  sum  not  less 
than  cents. 

I  will  simply  state,  in  explanation  •  of  the  exemption 
which  this  resolution  proposes  to  make,  that  it  has  oc- 
curred to  me,  that  there  might  be  some  articles  which 
it  would  be  verv  proper  to  exempt  from  taxation,  and 
which  without  the  exemption  proposed  here,  this  provi- 
sion would  impose  upon  the  Legislature  the  necessity  of 
taxing.  For  example,  such  articles  as  wearing  apparel, 
family  provisions,  mechanics'  tools,  libraries,  and  some 
of  the  descriptions  of  public  property,  might  very  pro- 
perly be  exempted,  and  I  therefore  desire  to  put  it  in 
the  power  of  the  Legislature,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
both  branches,  to  make  that  exemption.  The  accompa- 
nying resolution  is  as  follows : 

"It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Legislature  to  create 
a  public  debt,  without,  at  the  same  time,  making  such 
an  increase  in  the  per  centage  of  taxation,  as  will  be 
sufficient  to  meet  the  payment  of  the  same,  when  it  be- 
comes due." 

The  object  of  this,  is  to  make  those  persons  responsi- 
ble for  the  debt  who  create  it.  I  think  it  will  perhaps 
have  the  effect  of  preventing  extravagant  and  injudi- 
cious outlays  of  public  money,  and  at  the  same  time, 
strengthen  public  confidence  in  the  credit  and  stocks  of 
the  State.    The  other  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

"  No  bill  making  an  appropriation,  or  creating  a  pub- 
lic debt,  for  a  sum  exceeding  dollars,  shall  be- 
come a  law.  without  the  sanction  of  a  majority  of  the 
whole  number  elected,  of  each  branch  of  the  Legisla- 
ture." 

I  offer  these  resolutions,  and  ask  their  reference  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 

The  resolutions  were  so  referred  under  the  rule. 

PRINTING  THE  TABLES  OF  POPULATION  RETURNS. 

Mr.  "WATTS,  of  Roanoke,  offered  a  resolution  provi- 
ding for  the  printing  of  1500  extra  copies  of  the  tabu- 
lar statements  of  population,  but  subsequently  withdrew 
it,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  informed  that  the  state- 
ment referred  to  was  inaccurate,  and  needed  correction. 

REGULATIONS  OF  EXPENDITURES  BY  COUNTY  AUTHORITIES. 

Mr.  CARTER,  of  Russel,  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion, and  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  County 
Courts : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  County  Courts  in- 
quire into  the  propriety  of  withholding  from  the  county 
courts,  overseers  of  the  poor,  and  all  other  county  tribu- 
nals, the  power  to  grant  extra  compensation  in  any  case 
after  any  public  service  has  been  performed,  or  after  any 
contract  entered  into  for  the  performance  of  the  same. 
And  also,  of  withholding  from  them  the  power  to  grant, 
by  appropriation  or  otherwise,  any  amount  of  money,  on 
any  claim,  real  or  pretended,  where  the  same  shall  not 
have  been  provided  for  by  pre-esisting  order.  And  also, 


of  withholding  from  them  the  power  to  increase  or  di- 
minish the  compensation,  fees,  or  other  allowance,  of 
any  office  or  employment  during  the  then  existing  term 
of  the  same. 

Mr.  JOHNSON".  If  there  is  nothing  before  the  Con- 
vention, I  move  that  it  now  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Convention  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow  at  1  o'clock. 


TUESDAY,  January  28,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  LETCHER.  When  the  gentleman  from  Halifax, 
(Mr.  Edmunds,)  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Executive  Department  of  the  Government,  presented 
his  report  on  Saturday,  he  accompanied  it  with  the  re- 
mark, that  the  report  was  dissented  from  by  several 
members  of  the  minority  of  the  Convention.  Since  that 
time,  I,  as  one  of  the  dissenters,  together  with  the  gen- 
tlemen fi  'om  "Washington,  (Mr.  Trigg,)  Taylor,  (Mr.  Arm- 
strong,) Rockingham,  (Mr.  Kenney,)  and  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  have  had  a  conference,  and  we  have  agreed  to 
present  a  substitute  for  certain  portions  of  that  report, 
embodying  our  views  on  the  subject,  It  embodies  the 
views  of  all  of  us,  except  as  to  the  third  section,  from 
which  the  gentlemen  from  Rockingham  and  Accomac  dis- 
sent. I  ask  that  the  substitute  may  be  read,  laid  on  the 
table  and  printed: 

The  amendment  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary. 

Amendment  intended  to  be  offered  by  Mr.  Letcher,  to  the 
report  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

Strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
report  of  the  Executive  Committee,  as  follows  : 

"1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor.  He  shall  hold  his  office 
for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  day 
of  next  preceding  his  election,  and  he  shall  be  in- 

eligible to  that  office,  after  his  second  term  shall  have 
expired,  and  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  ser- 
vice." 

And  insert  the  following  in  lieu  thereof,  viz : 
Sec.  1st.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Common- 
wealth shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor,  to  be  elected  by 
the  qualified  voters.    He  shall  hold  his  office  for  two 
years,  to  commence  on  the        day  of  next  suc- 

ceeding his  election.  He  shall  be  re-eligible  for  a  second 
term,  and  ineligible  to  any  other  office  during  his  term 
(»f  service. 

Strike  out  the  3rd  section  of  article  1st,  as  follows : 

"  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Governor, 
unless  he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years, 
shall  be  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  shall 
have  been  a  citizen  of  Virginia  for  five  years  next  pre- 
ceding his  election." 

And  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following,  viz  : 

Sec.  3rd.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of 
Governor,  unless  he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty 
years,  shall  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  shall 
have  been  a  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth  for  ten  years 
next  preceding  his  election. 

Strike  out  the  whole  of  the  3rd  article,  as  follows : 
Article  3 — Secretary  of  State,  Treasurer  and  Auditor. 

"  1.  A  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  be  cho- 
sen at  every  election  for  a  Governor,  in  the  same  man- 
ner, and  continue  in  office  for  the  same  time  as  the  Go- 
vernor. He  shall  keep  a  fair  record  of  the  official  acts 
of  the  Governor,  which  shall  be  attested  by  the  Gover- 
nor and  by  the  Secretary.  He  shall,  when  required,  lay 
the  said  record,  and  all  papers,  minutes  and  vouchers, 
relative  to  his  office,  before  either  house  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  shall  perform  such  other  duties  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

"  2.  A  Treasurer  and  an  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts, 
shall  be  elected  by  joint  vote  of  the  two  he-uses  of  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


75 


Legislature,  who  shall  hold  the  offices  two  years,  unless 
sooner  removed.  The  powers  and  duties  of  said  officers 
shall  be  such  as  now  are,  or  may.  be  hereafter  prescribed 
by  law." 

And  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following,  viz : 

Sec.  1st.  A  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth,  Treasu- 
rer, and  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts,  shall  be  chosen  at 
every  election  for  a  Governor,  in  the  same  manner,  and 
continue  in  office  for  the  same  time. 

Sec.  2nd.  The  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  shall 
keep  a  fair  record  of  the  official  acts  of  the  Governor, 
which  shall  be  attested  by  himself  and  the  Governor. 
He  shall,  when  required,  lay  the  said  record,  and  all  pa- 
pers, minutes  and  vouchers,  relative  to  his  office,  before 
either  house  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  shall  perform 
such  other  duties,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  3rd.  The  powers  and  duties  of  the  Treasurer  and 
Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  respectively,  shall  be  such 
as  now  are,  or  may  hereafter  be  pi-escribed  by  law. 

Sec.  4th.  The  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth,  Trea- 
surer and  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts,  may  be  removed 
by  a  concurrent  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

Strike  out  article  5th,  as  follows  : 

"  Article  5— Militia. 

"  All  company,  battalion  and  regimental  officers  shall 
be  elected  by  those  persons  who  are  subject  to  military 
duty,  within  their  respective  companies,  battalions  and 
regiments,  and  all  other  militia  officers  in  such  manner 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law." 

And  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following,  viz  : 

All  militia  officers  shall  be  elected  by  those  persons 
subject  to  military  duty,  within  their  respective  compa- 
nies, battalions,  regiments,  brigades  and  divisions,  in  such 
mode  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  WISE,  i  should  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Rockbridg3,  (Mr.  Letcher,)  whether  these  proposi- 
tions are  offe  ed  as  amendments  now,  or  as  propositions 
which  will  be  hereafter  offered  as  amendments,  when  the 
report  of  the  committee  shall  be  considered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Rockbridge, 
in  behalf  of  himself  and  other  members  of  the  minori- 
ty of  the  committee,  asks  to  lay  these  amendments  on 
the  table,  and  that  they  may  be  printed,  with  a  view 
to  their  being  offered  when  the  report  of  the  committee 
shall  come  up  for  consideration. 

The  amendments  were  ordered  to  be  laid  on  the  table 
and  printed. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  Dissenting  in  some  particulars  from 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment, as  well  as  from  the  amendments  submitted  by 
the  gentleman  from  Rockbridge,  (Mr.  Letcher,)  I  have 
drawn  up  the  following  amendments,  which  I  design  to 
offer  at  a  proper  time,  and  which  I  ask  now  may  be  laid 
on  the  table  and  printed.  The  first  section  of  article  1, 
as  reported  by  the  committee,  is  as  follows: 

"  Article  1. — Governor. 

"  1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor.  He  shall  hold  his  office 
for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  day 
of  next  preceding  Ms  election,  and  he  shall  be 

ineligible  to  that  office,  after  his  second  term  shall  have 
expired,  and  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  ser- 
vice." 

My  amendment  is  to  strike  out,  after  the  word  "  inel- 
igible," the  words  "  to  that  office  after  his  second  term 
shall  have  expired,  and:"  This  will  leave  the  question  of 
the  eligibility  of  the  Governor,  to  the  decision  of  the 
people,  where  I  think  it  properly  belongs.  By  the  re- 
port, he  is  eligible  for  a  second  term,  but  no  longer,  and 
I  believe  a  similar  provision  is  contained  in  the  substi- 
tute proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Rockbridge,  (Mr. 
Letcher,)  I  believe  the  wider  the  field  tor  selection,  the 
better,  and  I  think  in  practice,  it  would  be  very  seldom 
found  that  any  gentleman  would  be  fleeted  to  the  office 
more  than  twice,  and  if  be  was,  the  result  would  show 


that  he  ought  to  be.  The  4th  section  of  the  1st  article 
of  the  committee,  is  as  follows: 

"  4.  The  Governor  shall  reside  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment, and  shall  receive  for  his  services,  the  sum  of  five 
thousand  dollars  for  each  year  of  his  term,  and  shall  not 
receive  within  that  period,  any  other  emolument  from 
this  or  any  other  State  or  government." 

My  amendment  is  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word  "  ser- 
vices," and  insert  in  lieu  thereof,  the  words  "  a  compen- 
sation to  be  fixed  by  law,  which  shall  neither  be  increased 
nor  diminished  during  his  continuance  in  office."  By  the 
report  of  the  committee,  the  compensation  allowed  to  the 
Governor  is  $5,000  per  annum.  Wow  I  do  not  think  the 
people  of  this  Commonwealth  should  be  put  to  the  neces- 
sity of  calling  another  Convention  for  the  purp  ise,  if  they 
should  desire  it,  of  either  increasing  or  diminishing  the 
salary  of  the  Governor.  -$5,000  to-day  may  be  as  much 
as  110,000  a  few  years  hence,  or  it  may  be  a  great  deal 
less ;  and  I  think  it  is  better  in  this  respect,  to  follow 
the  present  Constitution,  and  leave  the  Governor's  sala- 
ry to  be  fixed  by  law.  I  move  to  strike  out  ,!"he  2nd  sec- 
tion of  the  3rd  article  as  reported  by  the  committee,  as 
follows  : 

"  2.  A  Treasurer  and  an  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts 
shall  be  elected  by  joint  vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the 
Legislature,  who  shall  hold  the  offices  two  years,  unless 
sooner  removed.  The  powers  and  duties  of  said  officers 
shall  be  such  as  now  are,  or  may  be  hereafter  prescribed 
by  law." 

And  in  lieu  thereof,  I  would  insert  a  section  authorizing 
the  people  of  the  Commonwealth  to  select  their  Treasurer 
and  Auditor,  as  well  as  their  Governor  and  Secretary,  as 
I  believe  them  just  as  capable  of  performing  that  duty 
as  the  Legislature.  The  section  I  propose,  is  as  follows  : 

A  Treasurer  and  an  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  shall 
be  chosen  by  the  electors  qualified  to  vote  for  members 
of  the  General  Assembly,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the 
same  manner,  and  hold  their  offices  for  the  same  term,  as 
the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth.  Their  duties  shall 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

The  amendments  were  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered 
to  be  printed. 

PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  PRINTER. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  understand  that  no  order  has  been 
entered  by  the  Convention,  directing  the  Secretary  to 
settle  and  certify  to  the  accounts  of  the  public  printer. 
It  is  necessary  that  such  authority  should  be  granted, 
before  the  Secretary  can  is=ue  his  certificate,  and  for 
that  purpose,  I  offer  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  settle  and  certify  to  the 
auditor  for  payment,  the  accounts  of  the  public  printer, 
ind  that  hereafter  he  settle  and  certify  said  accounts 
from  time  to  time,  without  further  order. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

EXPENSES  OF  FITTING  UP  THE  CHURCH. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  There  is  a  resolution  in  relation  to 
some  accounts  of  expenses  incurred  in  fitting  up  this 
church,  offered  yesterday,  by  the  gentieman  from  Gil- 
mer, (Mr.  Hays.)  now  laying  on  the  table,  which  I  move 
to  take  from  thence,  and  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Ac- 
counts. 

The  resolution  was  so  referred,  after  being  read,  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  be 
authorized  to  certify  for  payment  the  within  account  in 
favor  of  A.  H.  Thornton,  being  for  articles  furnished  for 
the  use  of  the  Convention,  amounting  to  $49.84." 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  was  a  similar  account  pre- 
sented by  the  gentleman  from  Goochland,  (Mr.  Leake.) 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  presume  the  order  just  taken  will 
include  both. 

The  PRESIDENT.    Very  well. 

PAYMENT  OF  AN  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  BRAXTON.  At  the  time  the  Committee  on 
Compensation  made  their  report,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
session,  it  was  not  known  that  an  individual  was  em- 


76 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ployed  in  attending  to  the  fires  in  the  capitol  for  the 
Convention.  The  committee  were  first  apprised  of  it 
this  morning,  and  they  have  instructed  me  to  submit  the 
following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  following  account  be  certified  by 
the  Secretary  to  the  Auditor,  for  payment. 
Virginia  State  Convention, 

To  Richard  Matthews,  Dr. 

For  attending  hot  air  furnace  to  heat  the  hall  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,  during  the  sitting  of  Convention  28 
days,  at  $1— $28. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

EXTENSION  OF  THE  POWERS   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   OX  COUNTY 
COURTS,  &LC. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  Under  the  resolution  by 
which  a  Committee  of  Thirteen,  on  County  Courts  and 
County  Taxation,  &c,  was  created,  a  difficulty  has  arisen 
in  the  committee,  in  reference  to  the  extent  of  their  pow- 
ers in  acting  upon  the  subject  of  corpora  ion  courts,  and 
cities  and  towns  incorporated  without  a  corporation  court. 
For  the  purpose  of  removing  that  difficulty,  I  have 
been  instructed,  on  the  part  of  the  committee,  to  ask 
that  its  powers  may  be  enlarged,  and  to  that  end,  that 
the  Convention  will  adopt  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved.  That  the  Committee  on  County  Courts,  Coun- 
ty Organization,  and  County  Taxation,  inquire  whether 
any,  and  if  any,  what  provisions  should  be  inserted  in  the 
Constitution,  in  reference  to  corporation  courts,  corpora- 
tion organization  and  police  of  towns  and  cities,  with 
or  without  a  corporation  court. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  TRIGG.  As  I  have  been  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  amendments  offered  this  morning,  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Rockbridge,  (Mr.  Letcher,)  in  which  I  am 
free  to  say,  I  fully  concur,  in  order  to  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  those  amendments  embrace  all  my  objections 
to  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment, I  think  it  proper  to  state,  that  there  are  other 
provisions  in  that  report  in  which  I  do  not  concur,  and 
to  which  I  propose,  at  the  proper  time,  to  offer  amend- 
ments. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  do  not  know  that  any  disposition 
has  been  made  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Executive  Department.  Is  it  the  understanding  that  it 
is  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  under  the 
rules  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  report  has  been  laid  on  the 
table  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  For  the  purpose  of  re- 
ferring it  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  a  special  or- 
der of  the  Convention  to  that  effect  will  be  necessary. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  believe  that  one  of  the  resolutions 
under  which  these  committees  were  appointed,  provided 
that  all  reports  made  by  them,  should  be  referred  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole,  without  debate.  Am  I  right  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  None  of  the  rules  which  have 
been  adopted,  provide  for  a  committee  of  the  whole, 
unless  it  be  the  rule  which  declares  that  Jefferson's  man- 
ual shall  be  the  rules  of  order  except  where  it  is  other- 
wise provided.  1  am  not  prepared  to  say  whether  the 
resolutions  of  the  committee  of  thirteen  contain  the  pro- 
vision to  which  the  gentleman  refers,  or  not. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  rule  on 
the  subject,  among  the  permanent  rules  of  the  Conven- 
tion, or  in  the  resolutions  referred  to  by  the  gentleman 
from  Appoma  tox,  (Mr.  Bocock.)  The  uniform  practice 
elsewhere  is,  to  move  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
at  any  given  time  :  or  to  move  to  refer  the  subject  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  subject  must  first  be  taken 
up  and  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  and  then 
the  Convention  can  resolve  itself  into  committee  for  its 
consideration,  at  any  time  it  thinks  proper. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  would  ask  the  Secretary  to  read,  for 
the  information  of  the  Convention,  the  last  resolution 


reported  by  the  committee  of  thirteen,  and  adopted  by 
the  Convention,  for  the  regulation  of  this  matter. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as  follows : 

"  9.  That  the  reports  of  the  foregoing  committees, 
when  made,  shall  be  referred,  without  debate,  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  Convention." 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  should  suppose  under  that  resolu- 
tion, the  report  of  the  committee  stands  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  that  any  motion  for  the  pur- 
pose is  unnecessary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  9th  resolution  reported  by 
the  committee  of  thirteen,  provides  that  the  reports  of 
the  committees,  of  which  the  Committee  on  the  Executive 
Department  is  one,  ■shall  be  referred,  without  debate,  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole  Convention.  By  reference 
to  the  journal,  it  will  be  found  that,  when  that  report 
was  made,  it  was,  on  motion,  laid  on  the  table ;  and  on 
page  58,  it  is  stated, 

"  On  motion  of  Mr.  Byrd,  the  Convention  agreed  to 
consider  together,  the  remaining  eight  resolutions  con- 
tained in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  thirteen,  and  the 
question  being  upon  the  adoption  of  the  said  resolutions, 
it  was  determined  in  the  affirmative." 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  De- 
partment, has  been  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be 
printed,  and  I  suppose  it  is  necessary  that  an  order 
should  be  made  referring  it  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole — the  journal  ought  to  show  that  fact. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  desire  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax,  (Mr.  Edmunds,)  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee, whether  it  is  his  purpose  to  make  the  motion  to  go 
into  committee,  or  what  are  his  views  in  reference  to  the 
report,  in  order  that  the  Convention  may  understand 
whether  it  is  soon  to  be  taken  up  ? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  had  thought  it  would  be  but  a  decent 
respect  due  to  those  members  of  the  minority  of  the 
committee  who  have  signified  their  intention  to  bring  in 
amendments  to  the  report,  to  give  them  time  to  bring 
them  in  and  let  them  be  printed  and  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  Convention  before  the  report  was  acted  upon.  Two  of 
those  gentlemen  have  to-day  signified  the  amendments 
which  they  propose  to  offer,  and  I  will  assure  my  friend 
that  as  soon  as  they  are  printed,  if  no  other  gentleman 
shall  make  the  motion,  I  shall  move  that  the  Convention 
go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  report. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.    Verv  well. 

The  PRESIDENT.  "The  Chair  will  state  the  construc- 
tion which  it  has  given  to  the  rules  on  this  subject,  in 
order  that  the  journal  may  conform  on  its  face  to  the 
facts  as  they  exist.  It  is  not  considered  that  under  the 
9th  resolution  which  has  been  referred  to,  as  reported  and 
adopted,  the  report  of  one  of  the  standing  committees  is 
referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  as  a  matter  of 
course.  Its  effect  is  only  to  prevent  debate  on  such  a 
motion  of  reference  when  made.  In  every  legislative 
body  a  document  can  be  ordered  and  printed  only  when 
it  is  in  possession  of  the  House,  and  not  after  it  has  been 
referred  to  a  committee  ;  and  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Executive  Depaitment  therefore  now  occu- 
pies a  position  to  admit  of  a  motion  of  reference  under 
the  ninth  resolution,  either  now  or  hereafter,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Halifax  (Mr.  Edmunds)  has  indicated.  When 
a  committee  reports,  and  it  is  desirable  to  have  the  report 
printed,  it  is  necessary  to  have  that  order  made  and  ex- 
ecuted while  the  paper  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  before  it  is  referred  to  any  committee; 
when  that  has  been  done,  it  is  competent  for  any  gen- 
tleman, at  any  time,  to  move  to  refer  the  report  to  the 
committee  of  "the  whole,  and  that  motion  under  the  9th 
resolution,  is  not  debateable. 

PROPOSITION  TO  CHANGE  THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting 
whether  we  shall  not  gain  time  by  changing  the  hour  of 
meeting  until  we  shall  have  received  reports  from  more 
of  the  committees.  It  is  apparent  from  what  has  just 
passed,  that  there  will  be  nothing  for  us  to  do  unless  it  is 
to  receive  resolutions  for  the  next  two  days.    If  we 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


77 


change  the  hour  of  meeting  to  2  o'clock,  this  will  give  i 
the  committees  full  time  for  their  labors,  and  thus,  as  it 
Beems  to  me,  we  shall  gain  time  on  the  whole. 
SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    We  dine  at  2  o'clock 
Mr.  JACOB.    Gentlemen  say  they  dine  at  2  o'clock. 
I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  various  hours  at  which 
the  gentlemen  dine,  nor  do  I  know  what  influence  the  j 
time  at  which  we  meet  will  have  upon  that  question,  or 
the  time  at  which  they  dine  will  have  upon  the  question 
as  to  what  hour  we  ought  to  meet.  I  have  merely  made  ( 
this  suggestion  with  a  view,  if  possible,  of  promoting 
the  business  of  the  Convention,  for  it  is  a  matter  to  which, 
personally,  I  am  perfectly  indifferent. 

A  MEMBER.  I  would  suggest  that  we  meet  at  10 
o'clock. 

Mr.  JACOB.  What  !  this  Convention  meet  at  10 
o'clock  ?    When  will  the  committees  meet  ? 

A  MEMBER.    After  the  adjournment. 

Mr.  JACOB.    It  is  suggested  that  the  committees  can  j 
meet  after  our  adjournment.    Well,  I  have  no  objection  \ 
to  meeting  at  10  o'clock,  and  I  will  modify  my  motion 
accordingly.    My  only  desire  is  to  economize  the  time  of  j 
the  Convention. 

A  MEMBER.    Say  half  past  1  o'clock. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  will  accept  that  modification  in  pre- 
ference to  the  other.  I  move  then  that  when  this  Con- 
vention adjourn,  it  be  to  meet  to  morrow  and  every  day 
thereafter  at  half  past  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  motion  was  rejected. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  LETCHER,  the  Convention  then 
adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  29. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist  church. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

PERMISSION  TO  THE  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE  TO  MEET  DURING 
TEE  SESSION. 

Mr.  MOXCURE.  I  am  instructed  by  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  to  ask  permission  for  that  committee 
to  sit  during  the  sessions  of  the  Convention.  It  is  de- 
sired by  the  committee  to  make  a  report  to  the  Conven- 
tion as  soon  as  possible,  and  it  is  hoped  that  during  this 
or  the  early  part  of  next  week,  that  object  may  be  at- 
tained, if  the  committee  have  leave  to  sit  during  the 
sessions  of  the  Convention.  Of  course  they  will  not  sit 
if  anything  requir  s  their  attendance  here.  I  move  that 
leave  be  granted  that  committee  to  sit  during  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Convention. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  leave  granted  accor- 
dingly. 

PAYMENT  OF  AN  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  The  Committee  on  Accounts  find 
it  necessary  to  provide  for  the  adjustment  of  the  claim 
and  amount  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  from  Messrs.  Point- 
dexter  &  Kerr,  for  carpenter  work  and  materials  for 
fitting  up  this  hall.  There  are  reasons  why  it  should  be 
acted  upon  at  once.  I  dislike  to  trouble  this  body  by 
stating  them,  but  I  can  assure  the  Convention  that  there 
are  reasons  why  that  should  be  settled  without  delay. 
I  offer  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  be  di- 
rected to  certify  for  payment  the  account  of  Poiudexter 
&  Kerr,  amounting  to  the  sum  of  8159.78,  for  carpenters' 
work  done  and  materials  furnished  by  them  in  fitting  up 
the  Lniversalist  church,  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  There  seems  to  be  no  business  for  the 
action  of  the  Convention,  and  unless  some  gentleman  has 
a  proposition  to  offer,  I  move  that  the  Convention  ad- 
journ. 

Mr.  M.  G ARXETT.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  with 
draw  that  motion. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    Certainlv  sir. 


Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  I  ask  it  merely  for  this  reason : 
I  am,  for  one,  very  desirous  to  know  when  we  are  to  go 
to  work.  I  see  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Executive  Department  in  his  place,  and  I  would  like  to 
know  if  there  is  any  good  reason  why  we  may  not  take 
up  the  report  of  that  committee  and  begin  to  work. 
Why,  we  meet  here  every  morning  and  spend  fifteen 
minutes  or  half  an  hour,  and  I  do  not  see  why  we  cannot 
spend  two  or  three  hours  in  the  discussion  which  will 
necessarily  come  up  upon  the  action  of  that  committee. 
I  would  be  very  glad  if  he  would  move  to  take  up  that 
report  and  let  us  go  to  work.  Why  not  ?  I  see  no  rea- 
son in  the  world. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  report  is  in  possession  of  the 
Convention.  Any  gentleman  can  move  to  refer  it  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole  Convention,  whenever  bethinks 
proper.  There  is  a  rule,  I  believe,  under  which  the  re- 
port is  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  House,  as 
a  matter  of  course;  but  if  any  member  desires  to  take 
it  up  now,  he  can  make  a  motion  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  Well,  to  test  the  sense  of  the 
Convention,  I  move  that  we  now  take  up  the  report  of 
the  executive  committee,  for  the  purpose  of  referring  it 
to  a  committee  of  the  whole. 

The  motion  to  take  up  the  report  was  agreed  to — a 
count  beiug  had — ayes  59,  noes  88. 

Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  I  now  move  that  the  report  be 
referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole. 

The  PRESIDEXT.  For  what  time  does  the  gentle- 
man propose  to  make  its  consideration  in  committee  of 
the  whole  the  order  of  the  day  ? 

Mr.  M.  GARXETT.  To-morrow.  I  move  to  refer 
the  report  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  and  to  make  it 
the  special  order  for  to  morrow. 

Mr.  WATTS,  of  Xorfolk.  The  report  cannot  be  refer- 
red to  the  committee  of  the  whole  and  there  be  made  a 
special  order.  The  Convention  alone  can  make  a  special 
order.  Probably  the  better  course  for  the  gentleman  to 
have  pursued,  would  have  been  to  have  given  notice  that 
on  to-morrow  he  would  move  to  take  up  the  report,  and 
then  to  have  moved  to  make  a  special  order. 

The  PRESIDEXT.  The  gentleman  has  a  right  now 
to  move  to  refer  the  report  to  a  committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  PRICE.  If  the  motion  to  refer  the  report  to  a 
committee  of  the  whole  prevails,  I  suppose  the  House 
goes  at  once  into  committee  of  the  whole  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDEXT.    Xo  sir — it  requires  a  motion. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  was  going  to  remark  that  amendments 
were  proposed  yesterday  by  the  minority  of  the  commit- 
tee, and  another  gentleman,  also  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee, proposed  amendments;  and  these  amendments 
were  laid  upon  the  table  in  order  to  be  printed.  I  ask 
whether  it  is  contemplated  by  the  motion  that  action  is 
to  take  place  immediately  on  the  report  or  not  ? 

The  PRESIDEXT.  It  cannot  be  done  without  an  or- 
der of  the  Convention.  It  requires  a  motion  to  go  into 
a  committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  WATTS.  For  the  purpose  of  removing  this  dif- 
ficulty, I  again  suggest  that  the  gentleman  from  Essex 
(Mr.  M.  Garxett)  modify  his  motion,  so  as  to  allow  the 
report  to  lie  on  the  table,  and  then  give  notice  of  his  in- 
tention to-morrow  to  move  its  reference  to  the  commit- 
tee of  the  whole. 

The  PRESIDEXT.  The  ninth  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee of  thirteen  is  as  follows : 

"  9.  That  the  reports  of  the  foregoing  committees, 
when  made,  shall  be  referred,  without  debate,  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  Convention." 

The  motion  now  is,  to  refer  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole,  a  report  made  bv  one  of  these  committees. 

Mr  WATTS,  of  Xorfolk.  The  Convention  does  not 
immediately  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course  ? 

The  PRESIDEXT.  Xot  without  an  order  frcm  the 
Convention  to  that  effect.  In  that  respect  our  rules  are 
different  from  those  of  any  other  parliamentary  body 
with  which  I  am  acquainted.  There  is  a  standing  rule 
of  the  House  of  Delegates  and  of  the  House  of  Repre- 


78  VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


sentatives,  I  think,  that  on  a  certain  day  the  house  go 
into  committee  of  ihe  whole.  But  under  our  rules,  a 
motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  is  necessary. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  understand  that  the  gentleman  mere- 
ly proposes  to  refer  the  report  to  a  committee  of  the 
whole,  and  to-morrow,  or  any  subsequent  day,  the  Con- 
vents >n  can  go  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
from  Essex  to  wait  until  to  morrow,  and  then  make  his 
motion.  If  the  propositions  that  were  ordered  to  be 
printed  shall  come  in,  then  the  whole  subject  can  be  re- 
ferred to  a  committee  of  the  whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendments  that  were  laid 
upon  the  table  and  ordered  to  be  printed  yesterday, 
were  amendments  intended  to  be  offered,  and  which  can 
be  offered  in  committee  of  the  whole.  I  did  not  consi- 
der that  they  were  ottered  as  amendments  to  the  report 
at  that  time,  but  that  the  purpose  was  merely  to  give 
notice  to  the  Convention  that  they  would  be  proposed  as 
amendments  at  the  proper  time.  The  report  was  on  the 
table,  and  not  before  the  Convention,  and  of  course 
amendments  to  it  could  not  be  offered. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  The  object,  I  imagine — certainly  my 
object  was — that  the  amendment  winch  I  intended  to 
offer,  and  the  amendment  proposed  to  be  offered  by  the 
minority  of  the  committee,  should  be  printed  and  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the  Convention,  so  that 
they  might  be  informed  as  to  the  effect  of  these  amend- 
ments if  adopted.  Now  the  whole  object  of  printing 
these  amendments  would  be  defeated  if  we  take  up  the 
report  of  the  committee  and  act  upon  it,  before  the 
amendments  are  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of 
the  Convention.  I  can  see  no  advantage  that  can  be 
gained  by  submitting  the  motion  to-day.  It  is  not  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  Garnett) 
himself,  that  we  shall  go  into  committee  to-day. 

The  PRESIDENT,  'this  is  not  a  debateable  question. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  Well  then,  I  move  that  the  Conven- 
tion adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Before  this  motion  is  put,  the 
Chair  begs  leave  to  state  that  on  the  reception  of  this  re- 
port, it  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  when  therefore  the 
gentlemen  from  Rockbridge  (Mr.  Letcher)  and  from 
Barbour  (Mr.  Carlile)  introduced  the  amendments,  they 
did  not  apply  to  the  report,  and  were  received  merely 
as  indications  of  the  purpose  of  those  gentlemen  to  of- 
fer them  at  a  proper  time,  and  were  ordered  to  be  print- 
ed for  the  information  of  the  Convention.  Those  amend- 
ments it  will  be  perfectly  competent  for  those  gentle- 
men to  offer  at  any  time  when  the  report  is  under  con- 
sideration hereafter,  but  until  then,  the  report  being  on 
the  table,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  pending  amend- 
ments. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  then  agreed  to — a  count 
being  had — ayes  48,  noes  46. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  1  o'clock, 
P.  M.,  to-morrow. 


THURSDAY,  January  30,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

report  of  the  committee  on  the  executive  department. 

The  PRESIDENT.  When  the  Convention  adjourned 
yesterday,  the  unfinished  business  was  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  Garnett.)  to  refer  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole  Convention  ;  and  under  a 
rule  of  the  Convention,  that  motion  is  not  debateable. 
The  question  will  be  on  the  motion  to  refer  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  The  Chair  will  take  occasion  to  state, 
as  it  is  the  first  occasion  that  has  occurred  under  the  rules 
that  have  been  adopted,  that,  according  to  its  interpreta- 
tion of  those  rules,  the  9th  rule  reported  by  the  commit- 


tee of  thirteen,  does  not  have  the  effect  necessarily ,  to  refer 
the  reports  of  the  standing  committees  to  the  committee 
of  the  whole.  It  will  be  found  at  page  36.  The  rule  is, 
that  the  reports  from  the  foregoing  committees,  (of 
which  the  Executive  Committee  is  one,)  shall  be  refer- 
red, without  debate,  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  Con- 
vention." If  the  words  "without  debate,"  had  not  been 
introduced,  the  Chair  would  have  regarded  it  as  a  stand- 
ing, permanent  order  of  reference  to  the  committee  of 
the  whole,  of  each  report  as  it  came  from  the  commit- 
tee ;  but  these  terms  being  employed,  to  give  effect  to 
them,  the  conclusion  necessarily  arises,  that  when  a  re- 
port is  made  by  one  of  the  committees,  the  Convention 
may  either  re-commit  it  to  the  committee  that  brought 
it  in,  or  lay  it  on  the  table,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  it,  at 
its  pleasure,  and  that  a  motion  to  commit,  which  motion 
is  not  debateable,  becomes  necessary.  When  referred  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole  Convention,  it  is  necessary 
that  there  shall  be  a  motion  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole,  before  it  can 
become  the  subject  of  debate.  And  when  the  Convention 
shall  determine  on  a  motion  to  resolve  itself  into  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  Convention,  it  is  necessary  that  a 
motion  be  made  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to  take  up 
any  particular  subject. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT,  I  understand  that  if  the  Conven- 
tion shall  agree  to  refer  this  report,  then  another  mo- 
tion will  be  necessary  to  enable  the  Convention  to  go 
into  committee  of  the  whole,  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
up  and  considering  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  will  not  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  without  a  motion  and  decision 
by  a  majority  vote,  to  do  so. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to  refer 
the  report  of  the  Executive  Committee,  to  the  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  and  decided  in  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  At  the  instance  of  gentlemen 
around  me,  I  follow  up  the  motion  which  has  just  been 
adopted,  and  move  that  we  now  go  into  committee  of 
the  whole,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  this  report.  We 
are  here,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  world  before  us, 
unless  it  be  that  report,  which  we  have  now  got  in  a  sit- 
uation to  take  up.  I  can  see  no  reason  in  the  world,  why 
we  should  assemble  herefrom  day  to  day,  without  attempt- 
ing at  least,  to  do  something.  There  are  certainly  two  or 
three  hours  a  day  that  we  might  devote  to  the  conside- 
ration of  something ;  and  as  we  have  the  report  of  the 
Executive  Committee  before  us,  I  see  no  reason  why  we 
may  not  take  some  steps  in  coming  to  a  conclusion  in  re- 
gard to  it.  I  trust,  therefore,  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Convention  to  resolve  itself  into  a  committee  of  the 
whole,  and  take  up  that  report. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  happened  to  be  behind  the  gentleman 
from  Essex,  (Mr.  Garnett,)  but  I  did  not  request  him  to 
make  that  motion  for  me.  Before  I  vote  with  the  gen- 
tleman, I  must,  inquire  whether  there  is  a  prospect,  in 
any  reasonable  time,  of  reports  from  some  other  commit- 
tees. If  it  is  not  out  of  order  to  do  so,  I -most  respect- 
fully inquire  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis  of  Representation,  when  it  is  expected  that  we 
may  see  that  long-looked  for  report  \ 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  desire  to  say,  that  whilst  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  sits  by  my  side,  there  are  other 
gentlemen  who  sit  just  behind  me.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  inquire  of  any  of  the  members  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Basis  cf  Representation,  if  the 
chairman  is  not  present,  when  we  may  expect  a  report  ? 

Mr.  MILLER.  I  would  suggest  that,  as  the  Judicia- 
ry Committee,  a  large  and  highly  respectable  committee, 
is,  by  leave  of  this  Convention,  in  session,  the  members 
of  which  no  doubt  would  desire  to  participate  in  all  the 
deliberations  of  this  body,  whether  it  wouid  be  proper  to 
act  upon  any  subject  in  their  absence  ? 

Mr.  STROTHER.  In  my  opinion,  a  wise  economy  of 
time  and  labor  would  induce  the  Convention  to  post- 
pone the  consideration  of  these  reports  until  a  larger 
number,  if  not  all  of  them,  are  before  the  body.  The 
gentleman  from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  Garnett)  suggests  that 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


79 


there  are  two  or  thrqe  hours  of  labor  lost  a  day  by  not 
acting  on  his  motion.  That  time  can  be  saved  to  tbe 
Convention,  and  Certainly  can  be  most  efficiently  occu- 
pied by  permitting  the  committees  of  which  this  body 
is  composed,  to  continue  their  sessions  during  the  period 
which  would  otherwise,  under  his  motion,  be  taken  up 
m  the  consideration  or  discussion  of  one  proposition. 
My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  better  course  for  the  Con- 
vention to  pursue  is,  not  to  have  a  daily  session,  but  to 
act  upon  the  precedent  heretofore  established  by  this 
body,  of  adjourning  over  to  some  future  day,  so  that  the 
committees  can  have  the  whole  time  to  devote  to  the 
consideration  of  propositions  before  them.  Undoubted- 
ly it  is  better  for  the  facilitation  of  business,  that  the 
members  of  die  various  committees  should  not  have 
their  consideration  of  propositions  before  them  disturb- 
ed, by  the  necessity  of  going,  almost  simultaneously, 
into  the  consideration  of  the  reports  of  other  commit- 
tees, which  are  under  discussion  here.  I  will  submit,  if  the 
Convention  do  not  agree  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  Garnett,)  the  proposition  suggested 
by  me,  that  the  Convention  so  act  as  to  allow  the  com- 
mittees all  the  time  for  the  conclusion  of  their  business. 
A  gentleman  near  me  remarked,  that  one  very  important 
committee  has  obtained  leave  of  this  body  to  sit  during 
its  session,  and  1  understand  further,  that  the  commit- 
tees generally  are  hastening  rapidly  to  the  conclusion  of 
their  labors,  and  that  it  is  probable  not  many  days  will 
pass  before  a  portion,  if  not  all  of  the  committees,  will  be 
at  the  end  of  their  labors.  Certainly  time  wdl  be  saved 
by  allowing  the  committees  time  to  consider  and  prepare 
their  repons. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  In  order  to  stop  this  matter,  if  there 
is  nothing  more  before  the  Convention,  I  move  that  we 
now  adjourn. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  ask  for  the  ayes  and  noes  on  that 
motion,  and  hope  that  the  call  will  be  seconded,  so  that 
the  people  may  see  who  it  is  that  desires  these  frequent 
adjournments. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis  of  Representation  is  here  now,  and  I  ask  the  gen- 
tleman to  withdraw  his  motion. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  withdraw  the  motion  if  there  is 
any  thing  else  to  be  done  by  the  Convention.  My  object 
was.  to  get  rid  of  going  into  committee  of  the  whole,  and 
I  have  no  desire  to  adjourn,  if  there  is  any  thing  else 
for  the  consideration  oi  the  Convention.  I  think  we  shall 
make  no  progress  by  going  into  committee  of  the  whole 
this  morning.    I  will  withdraw  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  If  there  is  any  thing  more  im- 
portant to  be  done,  I  will  withdraw  my  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  but  I  was  under  the  impression 
that  there  was  not,  when  i  made  it,  and  I  am  under  the 
same  impression  still.  1  am  opposed  to  our  adjourning 
here,  when  we  ought  to  be  at  wTork. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  understand  that  an  inquiry  has  been 
submitted,  as  to  the  time  when  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis  of  Representation  will  be  ready  to  report?  In  re- 
sponse to  that  inquiry,  I  would  state  to  the  Convention, 
that  he  sub-committees,  appointed  to  work  out  the  de- 
tails, have  nearly  completed  their  labors  ;  and  we  have 
strong  hopes  that  the  committee  wrill  be  able  to  report 
to  the  Convention  on  Saturday,  or  at  the  furthest,  on 
Monday.  I  think,  however,  with  the  present  informa- 
tion that  I  have,  that  wre  shall  probably  be  able  to  sub- 
mit the  report  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  As  these  inquiries  are  made,  and  as 
all  feel  some  solicitude  about  these  reports,  I  would  in- 
quire of  the  chairman  of  the  Legislative  Committee, 
wdien  that  committee  will  be  able  to  make  a  report  ? 
Many  important  subjects  have  been  referred  to  them,  and 
so  far,  there  has  been  no  response  to  any  of  them.  If  the 
chairman  of  that  committee  is  present,  i  trust  he  will 
favor  the  Convention  with  some  explanation  as  to  when 
it  is  probable  we  can  hear  from  them  ? 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  am  sorry  to  have  to  announce  to  the 
Convention,  that  I  am  utterly  unable  to  venture  even  a 
conjecture  as  to  the  time  when  the  Legislative  Commit- 


tee will  be  ab  e  to  make  a  report.  It  has  been  stated  by 
the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  (Mr.  Bocock,)  that  a 
very  large  share  of  the  business  of  the  Convention  has 
been  referred  to  that  committee,  and  it  is  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  members  of  the  body,  that  among  the 
subjects  thus  referred  for  the  consideration  and  exami- 
nation of  the  committee,  are  many  most  important  ones. 
I  presume  that  the  time  of  making  the  report  will  be 
determined,  in  a  great  degree,  by  the  rules  of  proceed- 
ing which  the  committee  may  prescribe  to  itself.  If  the 
committee  shall  determine  to  report  to  the  Convention 
on  the  organization  of  the  Legislative  Department  of 
Government,  as  soon  as  it  shall  have  concluded  its 
labors  upon  that  subject,  it  is  probable  that  it  will 
be  prepared  to  make  such  a  report,  at  any  time 
when  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  di- 
rect. If,  however,  it  shail  be  the  pleasure  of  the  com- 
mittee to  adopt,  as  a  rule  of  proceeding,  the  disposition 
of  the  various,  multifarious  and  heterogeneous  proposi- 
tions which  have  been  submitted  to  this  Convention  and 
referred  to  that  committee,  the  whole  to  be  embodied  in 
one  report,  the  day  when  that  report  shall  be  made,  may 
be  indefinitely  postponed.  In  my  opinion,  there  is  no- 
thing to  prevent  a  report  from  that  committee  at  any 
moment,  but  unfortunately,  the  opinion  of  the  chairman 
is  not  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  and  for  aught  that  I 
know,  the  report  may  be  deferred  for  a  fortnight,  and 
perhaps  will  be.  From  any  reasonable  calcmation  that 
l  have  been  able  to  make,  I  think  it  probab.e  that  at 
least  two  weeks  will  transpire  before  the  Legislative 
Committee  will  unite  in  making  any  report  to  this  Con- 
vention, unless,  indeed,  the  Convention  should  instruct 
them  to  make  a  report  upon  the  subjects  which  it  has  al- 
ready disposed  of. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  As  it  seems  fashionable  to  call  on 
the  chaiimen  jf  committees  to  make  confessions  to  the 
Convention,  I  should  like  to  know  from  the  chairman  of 
the  Commit' ee  on  the  Right  of  Suffrage,  when  he  ex- 
pects that  his  committee  will  be  ready  to  report  ?  Upon 
ihe  subject  which  is  referred  to  its  consideration  rests,  I 
believe,  the  whole  fabric  of  the  government,  and  I  should 
like  to  hear  from  that  committee.  If  it  is  not  amiss,  I 
would  like  to  have  the  chairman  of  the  Commku.e  on 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  give  us  his  experience.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  can  only  say,  in  answer  to  the  gentle- 
man, that  the  committee  have  been  laboriously  engaged 
every  day  during  the  week,  with  the  excep'ion  ot  one. 
They  have  the  general  rights  of  the  rest  of  mankind  ful- 
ly under  consideration,  and  will  soon  be  prepared  to  re- 
port. [Laughter.] 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  be  able  to 
inform  the  Convention,  that  the  Committee  on  Suffrage 
put  a  period  to  a  discussion  which  has  been  somewhat 
protracted,  at  1  o'clock  this  day,  and  that  to-morrow 
morning,  at  half  past  9  o'clock,  they  wiil  be  prepared 
to  vote  upon  the  questions  before  them.  [Laughter.]  I 
think  I  can  say,  therefore,  that  in  the  course  of  two  or 
three  days  that  committee  will  be  prepared  to  sub- 
mit a  report  to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Understanding  that  there  is  some 
question  of  a  business  character  to  come  before  the  Con- 
vention, I  wiil  withdraw  my  motion  to  go  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole. 

Mr.  STROTHER  The  motion  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  Garnett)  being  withdrawn  by 
him,  I  move  that  when  the  Convention  adjourn  to-day, 
it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  next. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    Sav  Saturday. 

Mr.  STROTHER.  I  will  move  Monday,  and  gentle- 
men who  desire  Saturday,  can  move  to  amend  the  mo- 
tion. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  wish  to  make  an  inquiry  before  this 
motion  is  submitted  to  the  Convention.  Is  it  competent 
for  the  gentleman  from  Essex  now  to  withdraw  his  mo- 
tion to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Convention? 

,    Mr.  M.  GARNETT.    If  there  is  any  difficulty  about  it, 


80 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


I  will  insist  on  my  motion.  My  mind  inclines  that  way, 
and  I  only  offered  to  withdraw  it  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  gentlemen. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  There  is  a  question  cf  difficulty  with 
me  in  relation  to  this  matter  as  it  now  stands  before  the 
Convention,  and  that  is,  whether  we  are  not  already 
resolved  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  The  question 
which  I  desire  to  submit  to  the  Chair  is  this  :  By  the  reso- 
lution creating  these  committees,  this  Convention  has 
already  declared  that  their  reports  shall  be  referred  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole.  I  admit  that  the  time 
when  the  Convention  will  go  into  committee  of  the 
whole  must  be  determined  by  a  vote  upon  a  motion  to 
that  effect,  but  the  question  of  reference,  if  I  understand 
the  resolution  to  which  I  have  referred,  has  already 
been  decided  by  the  Convention,  in  adopting  that  resolu- 
tion. It  is  a  well  known  parliamentary  rule,  and  one  of 
the  written  rules  of  this  body,  that  what  the  Conven- 
tion has  determined  upon,  remains  as  the  judgment  of 
the  Convention,  unless  such  determination  shall  be  su- 
perceded by  the  after  action  of  the  body ;  and  there- 
fore it  seems  to  me  then,  that  the  Convention,  having  in 
the  beginning,  adopted  a  fixed  rule  that  when  reports 
from  these  committees  were  made  they  should  be  refer- 
red to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  that  the  report  of 
the  Executive  Committee  is  now  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  under  that  rule.  In  order  to  get  at 
its  consideration  there,  the  only  remaining  thing  is  for 
any  member  to  move  that  the  Convention  now  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  the  Convention  can  t-'  en 
determine  for  itself,  whether  it  will  or  will  not  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole  at  this  time.  I  have  looked  at 
the  entry  made  on  the  journal,  of  the  motion  made  a  few 
moments  ago,  and  it  is,  that  the  report  of  the  Executive 
Committee  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole. 
Now,  I  take  it,  that  the  question  of  reference  has  already 
been  disposed  of,  under  the  resolution  to  which  I  refer- 
red, and  the  substance  of  that  statement  on  the  journal, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  is,  that  the  Convention  resolved  itself 
into  committee  of  the  whole  at  once.  If  this  is  not  so, 
then  the  journal  will  show  on  its  face,  that  the  Conven- 
tion, after  once  deciding,  by  the  adoption  of  the  resolu- 
tion, that  all  these  reports  should  be  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  has  again  gravely  proceeded  to  de- 
cide the  same  question  in  the  same  way,  with  the  pre- 
vious order  remaining  unaltered  and  in  full  force. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  before  announced 
that  its  interpretation  of  the  effect  of  the  9th  resolu- 
tion referred  to,  was  different  from  what  would  have 
been  the  case  if  it  had  not  been  worded  as  it  is.  The 
9th  resolution  reads : 

"  9.  That  the  reports  of  the  foregoing  committees, 
when  made,  shall  be  referred,  without  debate,  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  Convention.'' 

Now  if  this  resolution  be  intended  to  do  more  than 
to  prescribe  that  before  the  Convention  shall  act  finally 
upon  a  report  it  shall  pass  through  a  committee  of  the 
whole,  it  would  be  a  general  order  for  its  commitment 
to  a  committee  of  the  whole  as  a  matter  of  course,  at 
once,  when  the  report  was  made.  But  the  interpreta- 
tion the  Chair  has  given  to  the  rule  from  the  use  in  it 
of  the  words  "  without  debate"  is  that  when  the  report 
is  made,  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  dispose 
of  it  otherwise  than  by  sending  it  at  once  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  For  example,  when  the  Executive 
committee  made  its  report  its  chairman  announced  that 
a  minority  of  its  members  did  not  concur  in  the  senti- 
ments expressed  in  the  report,  and  therefore  moved  to 
lay  it  on  the  table.  If  this  9th resolution  was  intended 
to  operate  rigidly  as  a  general  rule  regulating  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Convention,  then  that  motion  would  not 
have  been  in  order,  because  by  the  operation  of  such  a 
rule,  the  report  upon  its  reception  would  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  of  the  whole  forthwith.  The 
interpretation  given  by  the  Chair  to  the  resolution  and 
upon  which  it  acted,  was  that  it  contemplated  a  dis- 
tinct motion  to  refer,  and  that  motion  was  not  to  be 


a  debateable  one.  When  therefore  a  committee  shall 
make  a  report  it  is  competent  to  move  to  lay  it  on  the 
table,  to  re-commit  it  to  the  committee  that  brought  it 
in,  or  to  refer  it  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  but  it 
does  not  go  there  without  a  motion,  and  that  motion  is 
to  be  voted  on  without  debate.  This  is  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  rule  which  gives  the  Convention  the  control 
)f  the  subject.  It  might  happen  as  it  did  in  this  case, 
that  it  would  be  desirable  not  at  once  to  refer  a  report 
to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  or  it  might  happen  that 
it  would  be  desirable  to  send  it  back  to  the  committee 
with  instructions,  or  at  their  own  request — and  commit- 
tees have  the  right  to  re-consider  votes  which  they  have 
taken — and  the  construction  of  the  resolution  by  the 
Chair  is  the  only  one  which  would  admit  of  this  being 
done.  This  construction  is  that  the  Convention  may 
dispose  of  a  report  as  they  please,  except  to  adopt  it  or 
reject  it  without  its  first  being  referred  to  a  committee 
of  the  whole,  and  to  refer  it  there,  a  specific  motion  is 
first  necessary.  The  Convention  has  now  decided  that 
■diis  report  shall  be  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole  under  the  motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Essex,  (Mr.  M.  Gaunett,)  and  it  is  still  for  the  Conven- 
tion to  determine  at  what  time  they  will  go  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  The  Chair  has  considered  this  sub- 
ject very  carefully — and  perhaps  has  assigned  the  rea- 
sons for  its  decision  rather  too  much  in  detail — and  its 
opinion  is,  that  to  give  effect  to  the  resolution,  this  inter- 
pretation is  necessary.  The  effect  is  to  give  the  Conven- 
tion a  more  effectual  control  over  its  own  business,  and 
therefore  when  a  report  is  referred  to  the  committee  of 
the  whole,  it  stands  exactly  in  the  same  position  it  would 
if  the  resolution  referred  to  had  not  been  adopted.  It  is 
business  before  the  committee  of  the  whole,  and  it  is  for 
the  Convention  in  committee  to  determine  when  it  shall  be 
taken  up.  There  would  be  no  meaning  to  be  attached  to 
the  words  "without  debate,"  if  the  construction  of  the 
resolution  should  be  that  when  a  report  is  made  it  shall 
be  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  -whole  at  once.  No 
motion  would  be  necessary  and  therefore  there  would 
be  nothing  to  debate.  The  construction  of  the  rule 
therefore  as  given  by  the  Chair,  to  repeat  it,  is  that  when 
a  report  is  received  from  a  committee,  the  Convention 
cannot  adopt  or  reject  it  until  it  shall  have  passed  through 
the  ordeal  of  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  that  a  mo- 
tion to  refer  it  to  that  committee  is  necessary,  because 
the  resolution  does  not  operate  to  carry  it  there  without 
a  special  order  of  the  Convention,  and  that  order  is  to 
be  made  without  debate. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  do  not  think  I  was  exactly  com- 
prehended by  the  Chair.  Now  I  think  the  Chair  is  right 
in  deciding  that  the  Convention  must  determine  as  to 
the  time  when  a  report  shall  be  considered  in  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  but  the  question  as  here  taken 
was  whether  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole  at  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  sir,  the  question  taken  was, 
shall  it  be  referred  now  or  not  ?  It  must  be  referred 
some  time  or  other,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  must 
be  referred  immediately,  as  a  matter  of  course.  If  a 
construction  was  given  to  the  resolution,  which  would 
make  it  a  general  order  for  the  reference  of  all  reports 
at  once  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  then  of  course  this 
one  would  go  there  without  a  motion,  but  for  the  reasons 
before  stated,  the  Chair  has  not  given  it  that  construction. 
There  are  several  motions  which  in  its  opinion  may  be 
made  and  acted  upon  by  the  Convention  when  the  report 
is  made  and  while  it  is  still  in  possession  cf  the  Conven- 
tion. If  a  literal  construction  is  given  to  this  resolution 
the  effect  is  that  when  a  report  is  made  to  the  Conven- 
tion by  one  of  its  standing  committees,  that  report  eo 
htstanti,  by  virtue  of  a  general  standing  order,  passes  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole,  but  such  is  not  the  construc- 
tion which  the  Chair  has  given  it.  A  motion  is  necessa- 
ry to  refer  the  report  and  when  adopted  it  stands  on 
*;*scisely  the  same  footing  as  any  other  matter  referred 
,o  the  committee  of  the  whole  ;  and  which  the  Conven- 
tion may  there  consider  when  it  pleases.    This  report 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


81 


the  Convention  has  just  ordered  to  be  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  aud  therefore  a  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole  is  necessary. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  was  induced  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Chair  to  this  matter  from  having  seen  the  entry 
on  the  journal.  It  appears  from  that  entry  that  a  mo- 
tion was  made  to  refer  this  report  to  a  committee  of  the 
whole.  That  I  imagine  is  wholly  unnecessary,  because 
oy  the  very  terms  of  the  resolution  creating  the  com- 
mittee, the  Convention  in  adopting  it  has  decided  to  re- 
fer these  reports  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  when 
they  are  received,  and  the  only  remaining  thing  is  for  the 
Convention  to  say  when  it  would  go  into  committee  of 
the  whole.  However,  I  desire  not  to  throw  any  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  the  Convention  or  of  the  Chair,  and 
I  have  merely  made  this  inquiry  to  ascertain  how  the 
matter  stands. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  attended  as  well  as  I  could  to  the  ex- 
planation given  by  the  Chair  of  the  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Convention,  and  I  desire  to  say  that  I  concur  en- 
tirely with  that  exposition.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
Chair  has  given  a  correct  interpretation  to  the  resolu- 
tion, and  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  fact  that  it  re- 
quires a  motion  to  resolve  the  Convention  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  under  any  circumstances.  Tnere  is  no- 
thing existing  in  parliamentary  law  to  resolve  the  Con- 
vention into  committee  of  the  whole  except  the  adoption 
of  a  motion  to  that  effect.  My  object  in  rising  now  is  to 
inquire  whether  a  motion  is  now  pending  before  the  Con 
vention  to  resolve  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole. 
If  there  be,  1  should  des:re  the  question  to  be  taken  on 
it ;  if  there  be  not,  I  desire  to  submit  such  a  motion  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understood  the  gentle- 
man from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  Garnett)  to  have  intimated  a 
disposition  to  withdraw  his  motion  to  that  effect,  but 
finding  it  objected  to,  he  has  again  insisted  upon  it. 

Mr.  GOODE.  If  there  be  such  a  motion  now  pending. 
I  hope  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention  at  once 
to  resolve  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole.  If  there 
be  no  such  motion  pending,  I  will  submit  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  such  a  motion  pending 
now. 

Mr.  GOODE.  It  appears  to  me  eminently  proper  that 
the  Convention  should  resolve  itself  into  committee  of 
fhe  whole,  rather  than  continue  from  day  to  day  to  ex- 
hibit to  our  constituency  the  spectacle  that  we  have  ex- 
hibited for  several  days  past.  Why  should  we  not  go 
into  committee  of  the  whole  ?  "We  have  a  report  from 
one  of  the  committees  upon  an  important  branch  of  the 
government,  the  Executive  department,  and  that  report 
is  susceptible  of  being  considered  in  committee  of  the 
whole  without  having  any  necessary  connection  with  any 
other  department  of  the  Government.  We  have  then 
business  before  us  on  which  we  can  act,  and  on  which  it 
is  eminently  proper  that  we  should  act,  because  time 
enough  has  passed  without  action  on  the  part  of  the  Con- 
vention. I  hope  therefore  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
Convention  to  resolve  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  take  up  for  consideration  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  Executive  department.  I  heartily  wish  that 
reports  from  other  committees  could  be  received  and  con- 
sidered by  this  committee  of  the  whole,  and  I  should  be 
willing  if  it  were  possible,  to  have  a  peremptory  manda 
mus  served  on  each  of  the  committees  requiring  them 
to  make  their  reports,  that  the  Convention  should  make 
such  an  order. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  Before  I  vote  on  this  question  I 
should  like  to  know  from  my  very  worthy  friend  from 
Mecklenburg  (Mr.  Goode)  what  effect  it  would  have  on 
the  report  from  his  committee,  if  the  Convention  should 
go  into  committee  of  the  whole  and  sit  from  day  to  day 
in  the  discussion  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
Executive  department  ?  What  effect  does  he  think  it 
would  have  ?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  did  not  understand  my  worthy  friend 
from  Botetourt,  and  I  should  be  happy  to  have  him  re- 
peat his  interrogatory. 

Mr,  ANDERSON.    I  regret  that  my  worthy  friend 
6 


did  not  hear  me.  I  understand  that  he  is  anxious  that 
the  Convention  should  go  at  once  into  committee  of  the 
whole  on  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Executive 
department,  and  before  voting  on  that  question,  I  should 
like  to  know  from  him,  what  effect  the  adoption  of  such 
a  course  will  have  upon  the  action  of  his  committee  ?  I 
desire  to  know,  if  we  continue  in  session  from  day  to  day 
here  in  the  discussion  of  that  report,  whether  we  may 
expect  a  report  from  his  committee  at  all,  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  Convention  ?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GOODE.  Really,  I  have  not  the  sagacity  to  per- 
ceive that  the  fact  of  the  Convention's  resolving  itself 
into  committee  of  the  whole  would  exert  any  particu- 
lar influence  over  the  deliberations  of  the  committee  of 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  chairman.  I  presume  that 
when  the  Convention  has  resolved  itself  into  committee 
of  the  whole  and  has  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
Executive  Department  under  consideration,  it  will  be 
able  to  act  on  each  and  every  paragraph  of  it  seriatim, 
and  I  know  of  no  necessary  connection  between  the  re- 
port of  that  committee  and  any  thing  which  is  depend- 
ing before  the  committee  on  the  Legislative  department. 
It  may  ba,  however,  that  some  gentlemen  have  the  sagac- 
ity to  perceive  a  connection  which  does  not  present  itself 
to  my  mind. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  The  gentleman,  I  think,  did  not 
see  the  force  of  my  interrogatory.  [Laugh'  er.]  I  sup- 
pose that  if  we  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  the 
members  of  the  legislative  committee  would  wish  to  par- 
ticipate in  our  deliberations,  aud  I  desire  to  know  what 
effect  that  might  have  upon  the  deliberations  of  the  com- 
mittee on  the  subjects  which  have  been  referred  to  them  ; 
whether  if  their  attention  was  withdrawn  from  those  sub- 
jects to  the  executive  department,  it  might  not  result  in 
a  still  further  delay  in  their  reporting.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  understand,  then,  that  the  object  of 
my  friend  is  to  delay  the  action  of  the  Convention  until 
every  committee  has  reported,  lest,  peradventure,  their 
minds  should  become  so  filled  with  and  disturbed  by  the 
consideration  of  some  other  subject  as  to  interfere  with 
or  prevent  their  discharging  the  duties  which  have  been 
referred  to  them.  There  is  then  this  difference  between 
the  gentleman  from  Botetourt  and  myself:  I  am  anxious 
to  take  up  the  business  of  the  Convention  and  go  for- 
ward with  it  now,  and  act  on  such  subjects  as  are  pre- 
pared for  our  consideration,  while  I  think  it  is  the  object 
of  the  gentleman  from  Botetourt,  if  I  am  authorized  to 
arrive  at  any  conclusion  from  what  has  passed,  to  pre- 
vent any  action  of  the  Convention  until  all  the  commit- 
tees shall  have  reported,  for  fear  the  members  of  them 
may  have  their  minds  disturbed  and  diverted  from  the 
consideration  of  the  grave  subjects  which  to  them  have 
been  referred. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  must  be  allowed  to  say  that  I 
think  my  friend  from  Mecklenburg  still  misunderstands 
me,^[laughter,]  and  the  conclusion  to  which  his  mind  has 
been  brought  is  certain  evidence  of  the  fact.  I  am  a 
member  of  the  Executivecommittee,  which  reported  last 
Saturday  and  is  the  only  committee  which  has  reported, 
and  the  gentleman  informs  us  that  he  doubts  whether 
the  committee  of  which  he  is  chairman  will  be  ready  to 
report  this  session.  Now  I  should  like  to  know  which 
gentleman  has  evinced,  by  his  acts,  the  strongest  desire 
to  progress  with  our  business  here — the  humble  member 
of  a  committee  which  reported  a  week  ago,  or  the  chair- 
man of  a  committee  who  doubts  whether  he  will  be  able 
to  make  a  report  during  the  session  ?  [Laughter.]  My 
object  was  to  give  that  committee  full  time  to  make 
their  report,  for  I  believe  that  we  cannot  dispose  of  the 
important  business  for  which  the  Convention  was  con- 
vened, until  we  have  a  report  from  the  Legislative  com- 
mittee, and  are  able  to  act  upon  that  very  important 
branch  of  the  government,  the  legislative  department. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  GOODE.  Allow  me  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Botetourt,  if  he  expects  to  advance  the  business  of 
the  Convention  by  withholding  the  action  of  this  body 


82 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


entirely,  until  the  report  of  a  committee  shall  be  received, 
which,  according  to  his  own  declaration,  is  never  to  re- 
port at  all  ? 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  That  is  your  declaration.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  GOODE.  No  sir ;  you  have  assumed  as  the  basis 
of  your  argument  that  one  committee  is  likely  never  to 
report,  and,  by  way  of  enabling  the  committee  of  the 
whole  to  advance  with  its  business,  desire  that  its  action 
shall  be  deferred  until  a  report  is  received  which  is  never 
to  be  forthcoming  !  [Laughter.]  In  respect  to  another 
question,  I  am  sorry  to  inform  the  gentleman  that  if 
there  be  no  report  from  the  Legislative  Committee  at 
this  moment,  it  is  not  because  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee is  not  in  a  state  of  readiness  to  make  a  report  at 
any  time  at  which  the  Convention  may  desire. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    Order ! 
Mr.  GOODE.    In  what  am  I  out  of  order,  sir 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  question  of  order  I  raise  is  this : 
It  is  not  in  order  for  the  chairman  of  a  committee  to 
make  remarks  in  respect  to  the  proceedings  of  that  com- 
mittee, and  the  conclusion  to  which  the  gentleman  was 
coming  indicated  that  he  was  rpeaking  in  regard  to  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  preparation  of  a  re- 
port in  his  committee.  It  is  a  question  of  order  well 
sustained  that  neither  the  chairman  nor  any  member  of 
a  committee  have  a  right  to  cast  reflections  on  any  mem- 
ber of  such  committee  in  any  way  for  his  action  there. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  not  so  understood 
the  gentleman  from  Mecklenburg. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr. 
Sheffey,)  I  think  has  causelessly  interfered  on  the  pre- 
sent occasion,  and  his  statement  of  the  point  of  order  it  ap- 
pears to  me  has  not  been  very  perspicuous,  for  really  I 
am  not  conscious  of  having  passed  any  censure  upon  any 
single  member  of  this  body  or  of  any  of  its  committees. 
I  have  said  that  if  the  Legislative  committee  was  not 
prepared  to  report,  it  is  not  because  its  chairman  was 
not  ready.  Does  that  imply  a  censure  upon  the  mem- 
bers of  that  committee  ?  I  should  be  sorry  if  it  did,  and 
I  presume  the  members  of  that  committee  would  be 
equally  sorry  that  such  a  state  of  facts  would  justify  a 
censure  upon  them. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  very  sorry  that  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta  interposed  between  these  two  other  gentle- 
men, the  one  on  the  right  hand  and  the  other  on  the  left. 
There  is  a  serious  misunderstanding  between  them, 
[laughter]  which  I  had  hoped  might  be  reconciled.  The 
point  of  order,  it  seems,  has  settled  it.  [Laughter.]  I 
will  assure  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  that  whenever  he  will  call  upon  me, 
as  a  member  of  this  Convention,  to  make  his  committee 
doits  duty,  and  to  issue  that  writ  of  mandamus,  that  I 
will  issue  it  instauter,  as  far  as  my  vote  will  aid  in  giv- 
ing any  such  summary  process  to  compel  a  report  of  the 
committee.  I  made  the  inquiry  which  I  did  of  the  com- 
mittee on  the  basis  of  representation,  because  I  can  very 
well  believe  that  the  public  mind  is  casting  serious  re- 
flections upon  this  Convention  for  the  reason  of  its  de- 
lay. And  it  is  time  that  the  community  was  informed, 
in  justice  to  ourselves,  that  this  Contention  has  not  been 
idle.  We  have  been  at  work,  and  I  hope  the  commit- 
tees are  the  proper  places  where  the  work  of  the  Con- 
vention is  to  be  digested,  and  well  digested,  before  it  is 
brought  before  this  body.  It  is  unfortunate  that  in  the 
organization  of  our  committees  the  numbers  have  been 
in  every  case  too  large,  and  that  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention have  forgotten,  or  seem  to  have  forgotten,  that 
they  would  have  any  opportunity  after  reports  of  the 
committees  came  before  this  body,  to  offer  their  individ- 
ual amendments,  to  be  considered  here,  and  as  well  to 
be  considered  and  first  proposed  here,  as  any  where  else. 
We  have  perhaps  done  injustice  to  ourselves  by  crowd- 
ing the  committees  with  too  many  propositions,  and 
then  perhaps  the  committees  have  taken  up  all  these 
propositions  too  much  seriatim,  if  I  may  so  say.  Now, 
it  is  never  required  of  any  of  the  committees  of  any  le 
gislative  body  with  which  I  have  been  acquainted,  that 


every  proposition  should  be  taken  up  one  by  one,  and 
each  one  be  considered  before  the  committee  can  make 
its  report.  Yet  that  seems  to  be  the  understanding  of 
many  of  the  committees  of  this  body.  I,  for  one,  regret 
it,  and  if  the  suggestion  is  worth  anything  to  my  friend, 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment as  one  having  some  control  over  the  proceed- 
ings of  that  committee,  in  aid  of  his  desire  to  expedi- 
diate  its  des23atch  of  business,  I  would  suggest  that  they 
should  take  up  a  proposition  of  their  own.  and  that 
members  offer  the  propositions  of  any  body  else  referred 
to  the  committee,  or  their  own  propositions  by  way  of 
amendment.  As  far  as  I  am  informed  as  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  committees  of  this  house,  and  if  the  descrip- 
tion which  I  have  had  of  some  of  them  be  true,  it  will 
be  along  time  before  we  can  say  Italia !  Italia!"  God 
knows  when  we  will  see  land !  Were  I  dictator  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  body — could  I  have  had  the  organi 
zation  of  its  business — I  would  have  commanded  the 
committees  to  take  time  to  test  their  works,  and  to  have 
it  thrice  tested.  But  it  is  not  so  important  what  shall 
be  the  definite  proposition  of  any  of  our  committees,  not 
at  all  so  important,  for  let  them  digest  with  ever  so 
much  deliberation,  or  take  ever  so  much  time — let  them 
perfect  their  work  so  that  they  may  suppose  it  cannot 
be  amended— I  defy  any  committee  to  bring  a  proposition 
before  this  body  that  perhaps  will  not  be  turned  wrong 
side  out  and  perfectly  changed  before  the  Convention  is 
is  done  with  it.  Why  then  the  necessity  for  all  this  de- 
lay, to  be  expended  in  taking  so  much  pains  to  perfect 
the  work  of  the  committees.  I  am  not  willing,  in  reply 
to  the  suggestion  of  my  friend  from  Mecklenburg,  (Mr. 
Goode,)  to  proceed  now  with  this  report — this  isolated 
report — of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment, for  the  reasons  that  were  urged  for  our  adjourn- 
ment'in  November  last.  I  might  accept  now  the  report 
of  the  Executive  Committee,  and  yet  my  own  view  of 
that  report  might  be  much  changed  and  modified  by  the 
very  report  that  the  gentleman  himself  may  bring  in 
from  the  Legislative  Committee.  It  will  depend  upon 
how  you  organize  the  legislative  department  how  I 
would  vote  to  organize  the  executive  department.  It  is 
necessary  that  we  should  have  a  general  view  of  the  con- 
stitutional system  which,  we  propose  to  submit  to  the 
people ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  concealed,  I  suppose,  that 
every  body  on  all  sides  is  waiting  for  the  great  commit- 
tee of  this  body — the  Commiitee  on  the  Basis  of  Repre- 
sentation. In  justice  to  that  committee,  I  presume  they 
have  been  delayed  for  want  of  the  papers  relating  to 
the  census,  and  in  waiting  for  their  correction.  That 
committee  has  also^hadto  perform  the  ministerial  or 
clerical  duty  of  calculation,  and  that  limited  its  time ; 
and  I  make  these  remarks  in  justice  to  the  committee, 
injustice  to  myself,  and  in  vindication  of  this  body  be- 
fore my  constituents  at  home,  who  are  with  uplifted 
countenances  staring  at  us,  and  asking  why  we  are  not 
doing  something  to  gratify  the  curiosity,  if  nothing  more, 
of  the  public.  And  I  say  this  especially  to  guard  the 
friends  of  reform,  of  real  reform,  radical  reform, — con- 
servative reform,  if  you  please  to  call  it — from  a  reproach 
that  may  be  brought  upon  this  body,  to  bring  it  by  de- 
sign into  odium  and  contempt.  I,  for  one,  feel  that  I  am 
capable  of  discharging  my  duty  here,  and  I  am  deter- 
mined to  discharge  it  with  proper  self-respect  and  dig- 
nity, and  make  my  work  the  test  of  my  reputation. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  As  a  member  of  the  committee  on 
the  legislative  department  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me 
to  offer  a  very  few  remarks  to  the  Convention,  suggest- 
ed by  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat.  If  there  has  been  a  working 
committee  belonging  to  this  body,  the  committee  upon 
the  legislative  department  has  been  that  committee, 
for,  from  the  time  it  commenced  its  sessions,  a  day  or 
two  after  the  re-assembling  of  the  Convention,  it  has 
omitted  no  day  since.  It  has  met  and  transacted  busi- 
ness generally  three  hours  in  a  day,  sometimes  longer, 
rarely  less.  The  course  indicated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  is  the  proper  course  for  the  committee  to  pur- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


83 


sue,  and  for  every  committee  of  the  body  to  pursue.  It 
commends  itself  entirely  to  my  approbation,  and  it  has 
commended  itself  to  a  respectable  portion  of  our  com- 
mittee, but  not  to  the  majority.  More  than  a  week  ago — 
The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  to  refer  to  what 
has  occurred  in  committee. 

Mr.  CHILTON".  I  was  only  going  to  remark  that  the 
committee — that  is,  a  portion  of  the  committee-, — were 
ready  to  report  more  than  a  week  ago.  [Laughter.] 
Gentlemen  have  referred  here  to  their  committees,  and 
to  the  state  of  the  business  in  those  committees  and  the 
progress  that  has  been  made  by  them,  and  have  been  al- 
lowed to  proceed.  Now  I  do  not  well  understand  what 
those  measures  are  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Acco- 
mac refers,  to  be  adopted  by  the  body  of  the  Conven- 
tion, to  compel  the  finishing  up  of  business  by  the  com- 
mittees. This  writ  of  mandamus,  as  emanating  from 
this  body,  I  confess  is  wholly  inexplicable  to  me — whol- 
ly so — but,  for  myself,  if  any  means  can  be  adopted  by 
this  body  to  compel  a  speedier  discharge  of  their  duti 


and  an  earlier  report,  not  only  from  this  committee  to 
which  I  belong,  but  from  every  other  committee,  I  shall 
heartily  agree  to  it,  and  tender  my  most  sincere  thanks  to 
any  gentleman  who  may  put  the  measure  in  operation.  I 
rose  mainly  to  refer  to  the  difficulty  between  the  gentle- 
man from  Mecklenburg  (Mr.  Goode)  and  the  gentleman 
from  Botetourt  (Mr.  Anderson).    There  seems  to  have 
been  a  difficulty  between  them — a  misunderstanding 
which  ought  not  to  have  existed  if  they  had  understood 
each  other.    [Great  Laughter.]    I  beg  leave,  on  this 
occasion,  to  interpret  between  them.    I  think  the  object 
of  the  gentleman  from  Botetourt,  and  the  point  of'  his 
inquiry  was,  if  we  refuse  now  to  go  into  committee  of 
the  whole  and  adjourn  until  Monday,  whether  the  op- 
portunity which  such  an  adjournment  would  give  the 
committee  to  hold  longer  sessions,  would  not  enable 
them  to  make  an  earlier  report ;  and  not  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Mecklenburg  seemed  to  understand  him,  that 
the  deliberations  and  discussions  here,  and  the  informa- 
tion or  light  that  would  emanate  from  this  discussion, 
would  have  an  influence  upon  the  conclusions  to  which 
that  committee  would  come  upon  the  various  subjects 
submitted  to  them.    Now,  I  think  the  gentleman  from 
Mecklenburg  did  not  understand  the  gentleman  from 
Botetourt  as  I  understood  him,  and  hence  this  serious 
difficulty  between  them.    [Laughter.]    My  own  opinion 
is,  that  if  we  refuse  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  adjourn  till  Monday,  that  the  legislative  committee 
can  report  fully  on  that  day.    I  suppose  it  will  not  be 
out  of  order  to  say  that  there  are  but  three  subjects  re- 
maining which,  when  disposed  of,  will  remove  all  objec- 
tions to  making  a  report.    And  these  three  subjects  are 
limitations  upon  the  legislative  power,  in  regard  to  which 
I  do  not  think  there  can  be  any  serious  difficulty.  In 
respect  to  one  of  them,  at  least  I  know  of  none,  and  I 
have  exchanged  opinions  with  almost  every  member  of 
the  committee.    In  regard  to  another,  I  apprehend  the 
committee,  or  a  large  majority  of  its  members,  have 
made  up  their  opinions.    And,  in  regard  to  a  single  one 
—-the  only  one  that  can  occupy  much  of  the  time  of  the 
committee — there  cannot  be  much  delay,  so  soon  as  a 
member  of  the  committee  now  absent  from  the  city  re- 
turns, which  we  may  expect  every  day.    If  he  does  not 
come,  the  probability  is  that  the  committee  will  proceed 
to  dispose  of  the  subject  without  waiting  for  him.  These 
three  subjects  may,  I  am  sure,  if  the  committee  should 
be  allowed  to  meet  and  sit  longer  for  the  remainder  of 
this  week,  be  fully  disposed  of ;  and  a  full  report  be 
made  by  Monday  in  regard  to  every  thing  that  I,  as  a 
member  of  the  committee — I  can  only  speak  for  myself 
— consider  of  any  great  moment.    It  is  true,  we  have 
fifty  or  sixty  subjects  of  inquiry  referred  to  us,  relating 
to  other  matters,  about  which  I  do  not  think  the  Con- 
vention will  feel  much  interest,  and  in  regard  to  which 
there  is  very  little  necessity  to  make  any  report. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  There  seems  to  be  an  extraordinary 
solicitude  on  the  part  of  some  gentlemen  to  receive  re- 
ports from  the  committees,  and  a  very  earnest  anxiety 


on  the  part  of  some  other  gentlemen  that  the  people 
should  not  labor  under  the  apprehension  that  we  have 
been  doing  nothing.  Now,  with  a  view  to  gratify  both 
these  gentlemen,  and  at  the  same  time  to  relieve  the 
committee  over  which  Ihave  the  honor  to  preside  from  any 
imputation  of  idleness,  and  for  the  purpose  also  of  afford- 
ing opportunity  to  my  immediate  constituents  to  know 
that  I  have  not  been  an  idle  member  of  this  Convention, 
I  propose  to  submit  a  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  not  in  order  at  this  time. 
Mr.  BOTTS.    What  is  the  question  ? 
The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  on  the  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  hope  I  shall  be  excused  for  not  having 
borne  in  mind  the  question  before  the  Convention,  for  I 
certainly  never  should  have  guessed  it  from  the  current 
of  the  debate.  [Laughter.]  By  way  of  information  to 
the  Convention,  I  will  read  the  report  which  I  proposed 
to  submit. 

On  the  14th  day  of  January,  on  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  King  William,  (Mr.  Douglas,)  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
be  instructed  to  enquire  and  report  if  any,  and  what  pro- 
visions are  necessary  to  be  inserted  in  the  new  Constitu- 
tion concerning  the  Pamunkey  and  Mattaponi  Indians, 
or  any  other  remnants  of  the  old  tributary  Indians,  who 
may  be  still  remaining  in  the  Commonwealth. 

I  desire  to  state,  by  way  of  information,  that  the  com- 
mittee have  had  that  subject  under  their  most  anxious 
consideration,  and  have  instructed  me  to  report  to  the 
Convention  and  request  that  they  be  discharged  from 
the  further  consideration  of  the  subject.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BOCOCK.    We  have  returned,  I  trust,  after  these 
explanations  and  the  reconciliation  which  has  been  ef- 
fected by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,) 
between  my  friends  from  Mecklenburg  and  Botetourt, 
to  the  consideration  of  the  question  before  the  Conven- 
tion, viz ;  Shall  we  now  go  into  Committee  of  the  whole 
and  take  up  and  consider  the  report  on  the  Legislative 
department.     Now  I  think  it  must  be  obvious  to  the 
Convention  that  there  is  an  objection  entertained  by  some 
of  the  members — and  not  a  few  of  the  members — of  this 
body,  to  proceeding  to  do  at  once,  that  which  would 
seem — my  friend  from  Accomac  will  pardon  me  for  say- 
ing— our  manifest  duty ;  that  is,  to  go  into  committee 
of  the  whole  and  consider  the  business  now  before  the 
Convention.    What  the  ground  of  that  objection  is,  I 
think  I  can  understand  and  I  will  state  it.    They  do  not 
desire  to  consider  the  report  of  the  Executive  Committee 
until  they  have  considered  the  report  which  is  to  come — 
and  I  trust  it  soon  will  come — from  the  committee  on  the 
Basis.    I  believe  that  to  be  the  secret  of  the  objection  of 
most  gentlemen  to  considering  this  report  now.    No  gen- 
tleman on  the  floor,  it  is  true,  has  stated  that  objection, 
vet  I  am  not  mistaken,  I  apprehend,  in  my  conception  of 
it,  and  if  I  am,  I  shall  be  happy  to  be  corrected  by  any 
gentleman  who  may  choose  to  do  so.    I  am  not  one  of 
those  who  differ  so  widely  from  these  gentlemen  in  this 
respect,  though  I  shall  most  certainly  vote  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole.    While  then  I  do  not  differ  so 
widely  from  those  gentlemen  who  think  the  report  of 
the  Basis  Committee,  if  it  is  to  come  at  all — and  I  have 
a  right  as  a  member  of  that  committee  to  believe  it  will 
shortly  come — should  first  be  acted  upon  before  any 
other  matter  is  finally  decided ;  yet  I  think  we  can  profita- 
bly employ  our  time  meanwhile  in  the  consideration  of  the 
report  now  before  us.    But  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  if  I  understood  him  correctly 
as  saying  that  gentlemen  attach  too  much  importance  to 
the  reports  which  are  to  come  from  committees,  and  that 
n@  report  will  come  from  any  committee  scarcely  which 
will  not  be  turned  wrong  side  out  by  tins  Convention,  or 
at  least  is  not  as  likely  to  be  altered,  as  agreed  to  in  the 
form  in  which  it  came  from  the  committee.    Did  I  un- 
derstand the  gentleman  from  Accomac  correctly  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  has,  I  believe,  understood 
me  correctly  ;  but  I  will  make  myself  clearly  understood. 
I  meant  to  say  that  I  do  not  believe  it  possible  for  any 


84 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


committee  to  make  a  report  in  which  this  hody  will  be 
found  entirely  to  concur  ;  and  I  will  go  further  and  say 
that  they  cannot  make  a  report  which  this  body  will  not 
materially  change.  The  main  object  of  a  report  from  a 
committee  is  merely  to  get  the  question  before  the  Con- 
vention— the  committee  being  the  mere  organ  of  the 
Convention  in  bringing  the  question  before  it.  It  is  not 
so  important  how  the  report  shall  be  made  as  that  it  shall 
be  made. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  The  gentleman  has  said  that  I  did  not 
misunderstand  him,  and  I  think  he  has  by  his  explana- 
tion shown  the  fact  conclusively.  He  does  not  regard 
the  form  of  a  report  as  a  matter  of  very  great  conse- 
quence, and  yet  I  was  surprised  to  hear  the  gentleman  in 
the  further  course  of  his  remarks,  take  the  position,  if  I 
understood  him  correctly,  that  he  was  unwilling  to  con- 
sider— not  in  Convention — but  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
whose  decisions  all  know  are  not  binding  on  the  Conven- 
tion— not  even  consider  the  report  of  the  Executive 
committee,  and  not  even  to  hear  the  views  of  gentlemen 
given  on  that  report,  until  all  the  reports  of  other  com- 
mittees should  come  in,  lest  peradventure  there  should 
be  something  in  these  reports  not  in  accordance  with  the 
opinions  of  the  committee  on  the  Executive. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  uttered  no  such  sentiment  to  the  extent 
which  the  gentleman  has  carried  it.  I  said  I  was  not 
willing  myself,  to  come  to  a  decision  upon  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Executive  department  of  the  government 
until  I  had  a  view  of  what  was  to  be  the  entire  organiza- 
tion of  the  form  of  government.  I  wish  to  see  the  fit- 
ness of  all  its  parts  before  I  decide.  I  am  very  willing 
if  gentlemen  desire  to  debate  tins  report,  to  listen  to 
them,  and  at  last  perhaps  those  with  whom  I  concur  in 
the  debase  I  shall  be  compelled  to  differ  from  in  the  final 
vote,  by  some  modi  flea;  ion  which  has  been  iuserted  in  the 
report  of  th  legislative  coaimittec*.  Does  not  the  gen- 
tleman see  then,  that  a  gentleman  may  concur  in  some 
regulation  of  the  Executive  power  to-day  from  which 
by  the  ieport  of  the  legislative  committee  he  may  be 
compelled  to  dissent  from  to-morrow.  Then  cui  bono — for 
what  end — -hall  we  now  commence  a  debate,  from  the 
Dositions  assumed  in  which  we  may  be  driven  the  very 
next  < ay  ? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  will  give  my  assent  to  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  as  he  now  explaius  it,  viz:  that 
he  is  unwilling  to  decide  upon  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee on  the  Executive,  until  he  has  heard  the  reports 
from  the  other  committees,  and  if  this  was  a  proposition 
to  vote  to-day  in  Convention  upon  that  report,  then  1 
should  think  his  rem  irks  ware  pertinent,  proper  and 
sound,  and  I  should  go  with  him  against  such  a  motion. 
But  I  do  not  understand  how  it  is  that  because  a  member 
is  unwilling  to  vote  to-dav  upon  the  Executive  article, 
that  therefore — being  anxious  too  to  appear  before  the 
country  as  doing  something,  and  that  the  reporter  em- 
ployed at  £250  a  week  and  the  newspapers  to  whom  we 
are  to  pay  a  premium  of  I  know  not  how  much,  should 
be  doing  something — he  should  be  unwilling  to  begin 
to-day — Thursday — to  debate  in  committee  of  the  whole 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Executive,, when  he 
has  been  advised  too  that  the  other  committees,  the  Ba- 
sis committee  included,  will  certainly  report  next  week 
at  furthest !  I  understand  I  say,  the  gentleman  to  object 
to  beginning  to-day  the  discussion  in  committee  of  the 
whole  of  the  report  of  the  Executive  committee,  be- 
cause he  is  not  willing  that  we  should  decide  upon  that 
report  until  we  shall  see  all  of  the  reports  from  other 
committees.  Now  I  tell  that  gentleman  that  to  begin  a 
discussion  in  committee  of  the  whole  and  to  decide  upon 
the  questions  which  are  to  be  decided  in  the  Conven- 
tion, are  I  fear,  two  very  different  propositions  in  point 
of  time  at  least.  I  fear  there  will  be  a  very  long  space 
of  time  between  the  commencement/  of  a  discussion  on 
a  department  of  the  government  in  committee  of  the 
whole  and  the  decision  of  such  a  question  in  Convention. 
There  cannot  I  think  at  all  events  be  much  risk,  that  if 
we  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  this  report  on 
Thursday,  we  shall  decide  upon  it  in  Convention  before ! 


Monday.  Now  I  think  we  ought  at  once  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  for  many  reasons.  Gentlemen 
have  speeches  to  make — yes  sir, — in  order  that  they 
may  go  out  to  the  public  in  the  newspapers  to  whom 
we  have  agreed  to  pay  a  premium  for  sending  them 
out.  They  have  them  to  make  on  this  as  well  as  on  all 
the  other  departments  of  government,  and  I  for  one 
am  for  beginning  to  hear  them.  "VVe  have  got  to  hear 
them  and  let  us  therefore  begin  to  do  so  at  once.  If 
we  do  not  begin  to  hear,  I  fear  it  will  be  a  long  time 
before  we  get  through  with  hearing.  It  is  not  necessary 
when  we  go  into  committee  of  the  Avhole  on  this  report 
that  we  shall  go  through  with  it  finally  before  we  take 
up  any  other  subject.  I  ask  my  friend  from  Augusta, 
(Mr.  Sheffey,)  who  is  au  fait  in  questions  of  order,  if 
this  is  not  so.  [Laughter.]  I  think  we  are  not  bound 
if  we  take  up  a  report  to  act  upon  it  finally,  before  we 
act  upon  any  thing  else. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY  (in  his  seat.)  No  sir. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  not  mistaken  in  that.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta,  I  am  happy  to  say,  bears  me  out 
in  the  position  that  we  are  not  bound  to  go  through  with 
a  report  when  we  begin  with  it.  [Laughter.]  Well, 
we  may  begin  to-day  with  this  report  and  Ave  have  time 
now  to  hear  two  or  three  speeches  upon  it,  and  they  will 
not  be  lost,  because  there  is  the  reporter  who  will  be  en- 
gaged in  taking  them  down,  and  the  publisher  who  will 
put  them  in  newspaper  form  and  afterwards  in  pamphlet 
form.  They  will  not  be  lost ;  they  will  have  been  made 
and  so  much  time  will  have  been  saved.  [Laughter.] 
They  may  not  all  be  as  amusing  as  the  discussion  which 
we  have  heard  to-day,  but  they  will  at  least  serve  the 
purpose  which  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  has  in  view, 
of  informing  the  people  that  we  are  actually  making  some 
progress  with  the  business,  for  the  transaction  of  which 
this  body  has  been  convened.  I  desire  to  vote  on  the 
Basis  question  first  and  before  all  others,  and  when  that 
report  shall  come  in,  I  will  go  with  gentlemen  who  may 
desire  1o  lay  atide  this  report  of  the  Execmive  commit- 
tee and  take  up  that.  This  is  my  opinion  of  the  course 
of  proceeding  which  we  should  pursue— .hat  we  should 
proceed  at  once  to  consider  the  report  of  the  Executive 
committee  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to  be  laid  aside 
if  necessary,  when  other  and  more  important  subjects 
shall  come  up. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making 
an  inquiry  :  Is  not  this  discu.-^sion  under  the  ninth  rule, 
wholly  out  of  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  sir  ;  the  ninth  rule  refers  to 
the  question  of  reference-  That  question  has  been  de- 
cided. The  question  now  is,  whether  the  Convention 
will  go  into  committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Then  I  am  to  understand  that  a 
motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  is  debateable  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  have  a  resolution  to  offer,  which 
I  shall  be  glad  to  have  acted  upon  before  this  motion  to 
go  into  committee  of  the  whole  shall  be  decided;  and  if 
it  be  not  agreeable  to  the  gentleman  from  Essex  (Mr.  M. 
Oarnett)  to  withdraw  it  for  a  moment,  until  I  can  offer 
the  resolution — as  I  should  be  glad  if  he  would  do,—- then 
I  would  move  to  lay  the  motion  on  the  table,  if  it  be  in 
order.  The  resolution  is  one  that  I  do  not  suppose  will 
give  rise  to  any  discussion  ;  and  I  desire  to  have  it  acted 
upon  now,  especially  if  the  House  shall  adjourn  for  one 
or  two  days,  or  more.  The  resolution  relates  to  impor- 
tant information  which  we  have  before  the  House,  but 
not  now  in  the  form  which  I  think  it  is  desirable  it  should 
ba  furnished  to  the  Convention.  I  will  read  the  resolu- 
tion by  way  of  argument : 

Resolved,  That  the  auditor  of  public  accounts  be  re- 
quested to  prepare  for  the  use  of  the  Convention  a  ta- 
ble of  taxation  similar  to  that  prepared  by  him  and  fur- 
nished to  the  Convention  on  Saturday  last,  except  as  to 
the  taxation  on  lots  and  lands  embraced  therein,  in  lieu 
of  which  he  shall  substitute  the  taxes  on  lots  and  lands 
that  would  be  payable  at  the  present  rate  of  taxation 
under  the  assessment  of  1850. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


85 


The  object  of  this  resolution,  as  gentlemen  will  at 
once  perceive,  is  this  :  The  present  table,  which  has  been 
furnished  to  us,  on  this  subject,  embraces  the  taxation 
upon  lands  and  lots  as  they  were  assessed  before  the 
year  1850  ;  and  the  aggregate  of  taxes  in  this  state- 
ment, is  composed  of  the  taxes  on  lots  and  lands  of  that 
description.  There  has  been  another  table  furnished  un- 
der another  resolution,  showing  the  amount  payable  in 
the  shape  of  taxes  on  lots  and  lands  under  the  assessment 
of  1850 ;  and  in  order  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  taxes  un- 
der the  assessment  of  1850.  it  is  necessary  for  each  gen- 
tleman to  make  a  calculation,  by  comparing  these  two 
documents  together.  It  is  very  desirable  I  think,  that 
that  table  should  be  put  in  a  form  in  which  the  compar- 
ison is  made  by  the  proper  officer  by  which  gentlemen 
would  be  able  to  seethe  amount  of  taxes  on  every  spe- 
cies of  property  at  a  glance.  My  object  is,  merely  to 
offer  that  resolution,  if  I  can  be  allowed  to  do  so  ;  and  I 
would  suggest  that  it  is  very  desirab'e  that  it  should  pass, 
an  i  the  table  be  furnished  before  Monday,  if  it  can  be 
done. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  would  with  pleasure  withdraw 
my  niotioa,  but  I  offered  to  do  so  once  an  i  it  was  ob- 
jected to.  The  gentleman  will  have  no  difficulty  in  of- 
fering his  resolution,  even  if  we  go  into  committee  of 
the  whole,  after  the  committee  shall  ri.-e,  before  the  Con 
vencion  adjourns. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  propose  to 
lay  on  th  table  the  resolution  to  go  into  committee  o:f 
the  whole  ? 

Mr  STANARD.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  would  b< 
in  order  to  move  to  lay  it  on  the  table  far  the  present,  bu: 
lam  confident  if  we  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  at 
half  past  two,  we  shall  have  no  opportunity  to  dispose 
of  anv  ihing  else  to-day,  and  I  am  anxious  to  have  this 
matter  at  once  disposed  of.  While  I  am  up  I  may  be 
allowed  to  make  one  remark  with  respect  to  the  com- 
mittee on  the  Basis  of  Representation,  which  has  been 
referred  to  by  more  than  one  gentleman  in  the  course  of 
the  discussion  which  has  just  taken  place.  It  is  due  to 
the  members  of  that  committee  to  state  the  fact  to  the 
Convention  and  to  the  country,  that  that  committee  is 
not  merely  charged  with  the  duty  of  deciding  upon  the 
principle  of  representation,  but  with  the  further  duty  of 
carrying  out  the  principle  in  the  practical  details  in  the 
shape  of  an  apportionment.  In  order  to  discharge  these 
duties,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  this  committee 
shall  be  furnished  with  the  census  and  taxation  tables. 
That  census  and  these  tables  of  taxes  were  never  fur- 
nished till  last  Saturday,  and  to  my  certain  knowledge 
the  sub-committee  to  which  I  belong,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  the  other  sub-committees,  have  been  diligently  at 
work  day  and  night  since  that  time,  in  attending  to  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  them.  The  infor- 
mation was  at  last  furnished  in  such  a  form  that  we 
were  obliged,  for  our  own  convenience,  to  make  the  very 
statement  which  we  desired  to  be  furnished  with  by  the 
officer  under  this  resolution,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Con- 
vention generally.  I  will  submit  the  motion  to  lay  the 
proposition  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the 
table,  for  I  think  if  we  go  into  committee  of  the  whole 
at  half  past  two  we  can  certainly  do  nothing  afterwards. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  the  motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  it  was  agreed  to. 

TEMPORARY  ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr.  STROTHER.  I  now  renew  the  motion  that  I  be- 
fore offered,  that  when  this  Convention  adjourn  to-day, 
it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  next. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  think  we  have  had  adjournments 
enough — too  much  for  the  public  good — and  I  desire  at 
least  to  show  that  I  am  opposed  to  these  frequent  ad- 
journments, and  I  therefore  ask  that  the  yeas  and  nays 
may  be  ordered. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called,  and  the  motion  being 
taken,  there  were  yeas  51,  nays  69,  as  follows; 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  M.  Bird,  Bland, 


Blue,  Burges,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Rus- 
-el.  Carter  of  Loudon,  Chambers,  Chapman,  Chilton, 
Cocke,  Conway,  Cook,  Faulkner,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Fulker- 
sou.  Fultz,  Gaily.  Garland,  Ho^e,  Janney,  Johnson,  Kill- 
gore,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Miller,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pen- 
dleton, Seymour,  Sheffey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha, 
Smith  of  King  and  Queen,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of 
Greenbrier,  Snodgrass,  Southall,  Stephenson,  Stewart 
of  Morgan,  S'rother.  Tate,  VanWink'e,  White,  Whittle, 
Williams  of  Fairfax,  Williams  of  Shenandoah.— 51. 

Nays — Messrs.  Mason,  (President  )  Arthur,  Banks, 
Beale,  Bocock,  Botts.  Barbour,  Bowles,  Braxton,  Byrd  of 
Frederick,  Chambliss,  Cox  Davis,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Ed- 
wards, Finney,  Flood.  Fuqua,  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  M.  Gar- 
nett, Goode.  Hall,  Hill  Hopkins,  Hunter  Jones,  K<  ni  e 
Knote,  Leake  Lionberger,  Lucas,  Lynch  McCamant, 
McCandlish,  McCcmas,  Martin  of  Henry,  Meredith,  Mon- 
cure.  Moore.  Morris  Newman,  i  rice,  Ridley,  Rives, 
Saunders,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline.  Scott  of  Richmond 
city,  Shell.  Smith  oi  N<  rfoik  county,  Snowden,  Stanard, 
Straughan,  Stuart  of  Pa  rick.  Summers,  Taylor,  Tred- 
way,  Trigg.  Tunis  TumbulL  Wallace,  Watts"  of  Norfolk 
county,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  Willey,  Wingfield,  Wise, 
Worsham,  Wysor  69. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  deci  led  in  the  negative. 

RE- ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  CENSUS   AND  TAXATION'  RETURNS. 

Mr.  STAN  A  RD  I  now  offer  the  following  r  •solution  : 
Resolved,  That  the  auditor  of  public  accounts  be  re 
quested  to  prepare  for  the  use  of  the  Conventioo  a  table 
•;f  taxation  similar  to  that  prepared  by  him  and  furnished 
to  the  Convention  on  Saturday  i<;st.  except,  as  to  the  tax- 
ation <  n  lots  and  lands  embraced  therein,  in  lieu  of 
which  he  shall  substitute  the  taxes  on  lots  and  lands 
that  would  hi  payable  at  the  present  rate  of  taxati'>n 
under  the  assessment  of  1850. 

Mr.  BYRD.  It  strikes  mo.  so  far  as  I  understand  the 
terms  and  object  of  the  resolution,  that  it  calls  for  pre- 
cisely the  same  information  embraced  in  the  resolution 
which  I  offered  on  Saturday  and  which  was  adopted.  I 
would  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  the  resolution  adopted 
on  Saturday. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  referred  to,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Resolved,  That  the  First  Auditor  be,  and  he  is  hereby 
requested,  to  furnish  for  the  use  of  the  Convention  a  ta- 
ble, showing  in  separate  columns  the  free  wdiite,  free  co- 
lored and  slave  population  of  each  of  the  counties,  cities 
and  towns  in  the  four  great  districts  of  the  State,  in  the 
years  1830,  1840,  and  1850,  and  the  amount  and  per 
centage  of  increase,  or  decrease  in  each,  between  those 
periods  respectively:  and  also  showing  the  aggregate 
amount  of  taxes  payable  in  each  county  in  the  year  1840, 
and  what  would  have  been  payable  in  the  year  1850,  at 
the  same  rate  of  taxation,  taxing  land  according  to  the 
value  ascertained  by  the  recent  assessment,  together  with 
the  amount  and  per  centage  of  increase  or  decrease  in 
the  taxes,  so  ascertained,  at  the  two  periods  aforesaid. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  do  not  understand  that  resolutioa 
to  call  for  precisely  the  information  which  I  desire,  at 
least  not  in  the  form  I  desire  to  have  it.  The  docu- 
ment which  was  furnished  us  by  the  auditor  on  Saturday 
last,  relating  to  taxes,  embraces  the  taxes  upon  all  the 
various  objects  of  taxation  in  the  State  ;  among  them  the 
lands  and  lot  tax  as  it  stood  prior  to  the  assessment  of 
1850,  and  that  table  is  now  in  the  hands  of  gentlemen, 
and  it  is  calculated  to  mislead  them,  and  as  I  have  rea- 
son to  know  from  what  has  occurred,  have  actually  misled 
some  gentlemen  who  have  been  making  an  examination 
of  it.  The  table  called  for  by  the  gentleman  from  Frede- 
rick, may  embrace  this  information,  but  in  connection  with 
other  subjects  and  not  in  so  convenient  a  form  as  I  think  it 
will  be  furnished  to  the  Convention  by  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  I  offer.  Another  advantage  of  adopting  this 
resolution  is,  that  by  a  very  slight  change  in  the  calcu- 
lation, the  auditor  can  in  a  day  or  two,  furnish  thi?most 
important  and  necessary  information,  and  furni-h  it  in 
the  form  most  desirable,  whereas,  if  we  have  to  wait  un- 


86 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


til  the  resolution  can  be  responded  to  in  the  form  in 
which  it  has  been  moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Fred- 
erick, it  must  necessarily  require  a  calculation  of  the 
ratio  of  increase  in  a  mixture  of  population  and  taxes  to- 
gether, and  I  suppose  that  some  time  would  probably 
elapse  before  we  can  get  the  table.  I  do  not  think,  even 
if  the  information  be  substantially  called  for,  by  the  re- 
solution just  read,  of  which  I  am  not  entirely  satisfied, 
that  it  will  be ,  furnished  in  so  convenient  a  form  as  is 
suggested  by  the  resolution  I  offered,  and  certainiy 
not  so  promptly. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  rise  to  say  that  we  have  already 
ordered  the  document  to  be  made  out  in  conformity 
with  the  suggestion  of  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Frederick,  (Mr.  Byrd,)  and  it  is  to  be  printed. 
Members  will  recollect  that  the  document  on  taxation 
which  was  furnished  on  Saturday,  is  a  very  expensive 
document,  and  the  only  alternation  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond,  is  in  respect  to  one  column, 
that  is  to  say,  in  relation  to  the  tax  on  lots  and  lands. 
He  wishes  to  substitute  for  the  old  rates  the  rates  as 
they  would  be  under  the  present  assessment  of  lands  and 
iots.  Well  now,  there  quisition  for  that  identical  infor- 
mation is  embraced  in  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Frederick,  (Mr.  Byrd,)  and  if  we  pass  both  resolu- 
tions, we  must  print  these  very  expensive  documents  and 
then  have  the  information  in  no  more  convenient  form 
than  that  in  which  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from 
Frederick  will  present  it.  I  do  not  think  my  friend 
from  the  city  of  Richmond  (Mr.  Stanard)  ought  to 
press  for  so  small  an  amount  of  information,  and  which 
can  be  obtained  too  from  the  document  calledfor  by  the 
gentleman  from  Frederick,  so  expensive  a  result  of  the 
re-publication  of  that  very  large  document. 

Mr.  STANARD.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  when  I  of- 
fered the  resolution  I  was  not  aware  that  any  resolution 
of  that  character  had  been  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Frederick.  I  had  found  the  necessity  for  this  informa- 
tion in  the  course  of  my  examination  of  this  subject  as 
a  member  of  the  Basis  committee.  I  have  certainly  no 
desire  to  subject  the  Commonwealth  to  any  unnecessary 
expense,  as  I  think  my  votes  will  show,  from  the  com- 
mencement. If  the  information  can  be  furnished  in  the 
other  form,  I  have  no  disposition  to  press  my  resolution, 
and  I  will  therefore  move  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  until, 
by  an  examination  of  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Frederick,  I  can  be  satisfied  whether  the  informa- 
tion is  identically  or  substantially  the  same  as  that 
called  for  by  my  own.  I  was  not  aware,  at  the  time  that 
I  offered  my  resolution,  that  any  other  whatever  on  the 
subject  had  been  passed  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  BYRD.  I  rise  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
mond (Mr.  Stanard)  that  my  purpose  was  not  to  oppose 
the  adoption  of  his  resolution,  but  merely  to  call  his  at- 
tention to  a  fact,  which  I  thought  would  satisfy  him  that 
its  adoption  would  not  be  necessary. 

The  resolution  of  Mr.  Stanard  was  then  laid  on  the 
table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  McCANDLISH,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed until  1  o'clock,  P.  M.,  to-morrow. 


FRIDAY,  January,  1351. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist  church. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read  and 
approved. 

RE-ARRANGEMENT  OF    THE  CENSUS  AND  TAXATION  RETURNS. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  ask  that  the  resolution  laid  on 
the  table  by  me  yesterday,  be  taken  up. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  resolution  was 
read  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  auditor  of  the  public  accounts  be 
requested  to  prepare  for  the  use  of  the  Convention  a  ta- 
ble of  taxation  similar  to  that  prepared  by  him  and  fur- 
nish?d  to  the  Convention  on  Saturday  last,  except  as  to 
the  taxation  on  lots  and  lands  embraced  therein,  in  lieu 
of  which  he  shall  substitute  the  taxes  on  lots  and  lands 


that  would  be  payable  at  the  present  rates  of  taxation 
•under  the  assessment  of  1850. 

Mr.  STANARD.  Since  the  Convention  adjourned 
yesterday,  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  examining  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Frederick,  which  it 
was  supposed  called  for  this  information ;  and  the  result 
of  that  examination  satifies  me  that  it  does  not  do  so. 
The  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Frederick  calls  for 
an  amount  of  the  taxes  aggregated  together,  while  the 
object  of  the  resolution  which  I  offered  was  to  furnish 
the  Convention  with  a  table  in  which,  in  addition  to  the 
other  subjects  of  taxation  contained  in  the  table  already 
furnished  us,  should  be  embraced  the  tax  that  will  be 
paid  on  lots  and  lands  in  1850,  instead  of  the  tax  under 
the  assessment  prior  to  1850,  which  is  embraced  in  the 
table  already  furnished.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
adoption  of  this  resolution  will  involve  the  necessity  of 
printing  anolher  large  table  ;  and  as  I  have  no  desire  to 
have  anything  printed  which  I  do  not  consider  absolute- 
ly necessary  for  the  use  of  the  Convention,  I  have  modi- 
fied my  resolution  so  as  to  provide  that  the  Auditor 
shall  furnish  a  table  containing  merely  a  recapitulation 
of  the  subject,  similar  to  that  which  he  has  furnished 
in  another  document.  It  can  be  similar  to  the  other, 
with  the  exception  that  instead  of  the  taxation  on  lots 
and  lands  embraced  in  that  recapitulation,  which  is  the 
tax  under  the  old  assessment,  it  shall  embrace  the  tax 
under  the  assessment  of  1850.  I  have  modified  the  re- 
solution in  that  particular,  and  if  it  is  passed,  all  that 
it  will  be  necessary  for  the  Auditor  to  do  to  comply  with 
it,  will  be  to  furnish  a  table  of  the  description  I  have 
referred  to,  merely  making  the  alterations  which  I  have 
suggested.  This  can  be  done  I  suppose  by  to-morrow, 
and  no  delay  or  expense  be  attendant  upon  it.  The  re- 
solution as  I  have  modified  it,  will  read  as  follows  : — 

Resolved,  That  the  auditor  of  public  accounts  be  re- 
quested to  prepare  for  the  use  of  the  Convention,  a  ta- 
ble containing  a  recapitulation  of  the  subjects  and  rates 
of  taxation,  similar  to  that  furnished  to  the  Convention 
on  Saturday  last,  except  only  as  to  the  taxes  on  lots 
and  lands  embraced  therein,  in  lieu  of  which  he  shall 
substitute  the  taxes  on  lots  and  lands  that  would  be 
payable  at  the  present  rate  of  taxation  under  the  assess- 
ment of  1850. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  modification  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  will  be  received  as  his  resolution  if  it  is 
not  objected  to. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  question  was  taken  on 
the  resolution  as  modified  and  it  was  adopted. 

AMENDMENT  TO  REPORT  ON  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  Will  it  not  be  in  order  to  offer 
an  amendment  to  the  report  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  not  be  in  order  to  do  so 
now,  the  report  having  been  referred  to  the  committee 
of  the  whole. 

Mr.  FULKERSON  I  must  ask  then,  that  it  may  be 
read  for  the  information  of  the  Convention,  as  an  amend- 
ment which  I  propose  to  offer  when  it  shall  be  in  order.. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  amendment,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Strike  out  the  following,  being  the  whole  of  the  2d 
article  of  the  report  : — 

Article  2 — Lietitenant  Governor. 

1.  A  Lieutenant  Governor  shall  be  chosen  at  every 
election  for  a  Governor,  in  the  same  manner,  continue  in 
office  for  the  same  time,  and  possess  the  same  qualifica- 
tions. 

2.  In  case  of  the  impeachment  of  the  Governor,  his  re- 
moval from  office,  death,  refusal,  or  inability  to  qualify, 
designation,  or  absence  from  the  State,  the  powers  and 
ruties  of  the  office  shall  devolve  upon  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  and  the  Legislature  may  by  law  provide  for 
the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability  of 
both  the  Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor,  declaring 
what  officer  shall  then  act  as  Governor  ;  and  such  officer 
shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability  be  removed,  or 
a  Governor  shall  be  elected. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


3.  The  Lieutenant  Governor,  or  other  officer  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Q-overnor,  shall,  during  his  administra- 
tion, receive  the  same  compensation  to  which  the  Govern- 
or would  have  been  entitled,  had  he  continued  in  office. 

4.  The  Lieutenant  Governor  shall,  by  virtue  of  his 
office,  be  President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  only  have  a 
casting  vote  therein ;  whenever  he  shall  administer  the 
Government  or  shall  be  unable  to  attend  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  the  Senators  shall  elect  one  of  their 
own  members  as  President  of  the  Senate  for  the  time 
being. 

5.  While  he  acts  as  President  of  the  Senate,  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  shall  receive  for  his  services  the 
compensation  allowed  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates. 

And  insert  the  following  in  lieu  thereof: — 

1.  in  case  of  the  impeachment  of  the  Governor,  his  re- 
moval from  office,  death,  refusal,  or  inability  to  qualify, 
or  resignation,  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  office  shall 
devolve  upon  the  Speaker  of  the  Senate ;  and  the  Le 
gisiature  may  by  law  provide  for  the  case  of  removal, 
death,  resignation,  or  inability  of  both  the  Governor  and 
Speaker  of  the  Senate,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then 
act  as  Governor ;  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly, 
until  the  disability  be  removed,  or  a  Governor  shall  be 
elected. 

2.  The  Speaker  of  the  Senate  or  other  officer  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Governor,  shall,  during  his  administra- 
tion, receive  the  same  compensation  to  which  the  Gov- 
ernor would  have  been  entitled,  had  he  gone  into  and 
conlinued  in  office. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  If  there  are  no  more  resolutions 
to  be  offered  and  no  further  remarks  to  be  made,  I  will 
move  to  take  up  the  motion  which  I  made  and  which 
was  laid  on  the  table  yesterday,  that  the  Convention  re- 
solve itself  into  committee  of  the  whole  with  a  view  to 
the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
Executive  Department. 

Th3  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  had  better  sub- 
mit a  motion  to  go  into  committee  at  cnce — that  will 
attain  his  object  precisely  as  well. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Very  well  sir,  I  will  make  that 
motion. 

The  question  was  then  put  on  the  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  whole,  and  the  Convention  had  divided— 
the  ayes  having  risen — 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Is  it  too  late  to  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes  sir— the  Convention  has  di- 
vided. 

The  result  of  the  count  was  announced  to  the  Conven- 
tion, ayes  58,  noes  44, — so  the  motion  to  go  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  was  agreed  to. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  then  resolved  itself  [into  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  Mr.  WATTS,  of  Norfolk  county,  in  the 
chair,  upon  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Execu- 
tive Department  of  the  Government. 

The  CHAIR.  The  ordinary  course  is  for  a  report  to 
be  taken  up  section  by  section,  though  any  member  can, 
if  the  Convention  shall  desire  that  course  to  be  pursued, 
present  an  amendment  independent  of  that  course. 

The  1st  section  of  the  report  was  then  read  as  fol- 
lows : — 

Article  1 — Governor. 

1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor.  He  shall  hold  his  office 
for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  day 
of  _  next  preceding  his  election,  and  he  shall  be  in- 
eligible to  that  office  after  his  second  term  shall  have  ex- 
pire 1,  and  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  service. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Are  we  to  understand  that  passing 
by  a  section  without  a  vote  implies  the  tacit  consent  of 
the  Convention  to  the  section  ? 

The  CHAIR.  Only  tacitly  sir — it  can  be  amended 
hereaftei-  if  the  Convention  shall  think  proper. 


There  being  no  amendment  offered  to  the  1st  section 
the  second  section  was  read  as  follows  : — 

2.  The  Governor  shall  be  chosen  by  the  electors  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly,  at  the  times  and  places 
when  they  respectively  vote  for  members  thereof.  The 
returns  of  every  election  shall  be  sealed  and  transmitted 
by  the  proper  returning  officer  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
who  shall  deliver  them  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates,  on  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Assembly,  then  next  to  be  holden.  The  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  shall  open  and  publish  the  within 
one  week  thereafter,  in  the  presence  of  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Delegates.  The  person  having  the 
highest  number  of  votes  shall  be  Governor  :  but  if  two 
or  more  shall  be  equal  and  highest  in  votes,  one  of  them 
shall  be  chosen  Governor  by  joint  vote  of  both  Houses  of 
the  General  Assembly.  Contested  elections  shall  be  de- 
cided by  both  Houses  of  the  Legisleture  in  such  manner 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

The  following  sections  of  the  report  were  then  read 
without  any  amendments  being  proposed. 

3.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Governor 
unless  he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty'  years,  shall 
be  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  shall  have 
been  a  citizen  of  Virginia  for  five  years  next  preceding 
his  election. 

4.  The  Governor  shall  reside  at  the  seat  of  government, 
and  shall  receive  for  his  services  the  sum  of  five  thou- 
sand dollars  for  each  year  of  his  term,  and  shall  not  re- 
ceive within  that  period  any  other  emolument  from  this 
or  any  other  State  or  government. 

5.  He  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted ;  shall,  from  time  to  time,  communicate  to  the  Le- 
gislature the  condition  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  recom- 
mend to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  may 
deem  expedient ;  he  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the 
land  and  naval  forces  of  the  State ;  shall  convene  the 
Legislature  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  when,  in 
his  opinion,  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  re- 
quire it.  He  shall  have  power  to  embody  the  militia, 
when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it ; 
to  remit  fines  and  penalties  under  such  rules  and  regu- 
lations as  may  be  prescribed  by  law ;  to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons,  or  commute  the  punishment,  except  when 
the  prosecution  shall  have  been  carried  on  by  the  House 
of  Delegates,  or  the  law  shall  otherwise  particularly  di- 
rect ;  to  conduct,  either  in  person  or  in  such  other  man- 
ner as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  all  intercourse  with 
other  and  foreign  States ;  and,  during  the  recess  of  the 
Legislature,  to  fill,  pro  tempore,  all  vacancies  in  those  of- 
fices for  which  the  Constitution  and  laws  make  no  pro- 
vision :  Provided,  That  his  appointments  to  such  vacan- 
cies shall  be  by  commission  to  expire  at  the  end  of  thir- 
ty days  after  the  commencement  of  the  session  of  the 
Legislature  next  preceding  the  date  of  such  commission. 

6.  Commissions  and  grants  shall  run  in  the  name  of 
the  CommonAvealth  of  Virginia,  and  bear  teste  by  the 
Governor,  with  the  seal  of  the  Commonwealth  annexed. 

THE  LIEUTENANT  GOVERNOR. 

Article  2 — Lieutenant  Governor. 

1.  A  Lieutenant  Governor  shall  be  chosen  at  every 
election  for  Governor,  in  the  same  manner,  continue  in 
office  for  the  same  time,  and  possess  the  same  qualifica- 
tions. 

2.  In  case  of  the  impeachment  of  the  Governor,  his 
removal  from  office,  death,  refusal,  or  inability  to  qualify, 
resignation,  or  absence  from  the  State,  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  office  shall  devolve  upon  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  and  the  Legislature  may  by  law,  provide  for 
the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability  of 
both  the  Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor,  declaring 
what  officer  shall  then  act  as  Governor  ;  and  such  officer 
shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability  be  removed,  or 
a  Governor  shall  be  elected. 

3.  The  Lieutenant  Governor,  or  other  officer  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Governor,  shall  during  his  administra 


88 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tion,  receive  the  same  compensation  to  which  the  Govern- 
or would  have  been  entitled,  had  he  continued  in  office. 

4.  The  Lieutenant  Governor,  shall,  by  virtue  of  his 
office,  be  President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  only  have  a 
casting  vote  therein  ;  whenever  he  shall  administer  the 
Government  or  shall  be  unable  to  attend  as  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  the  Senators  shall  elect  one  of  their 
own  members  as  President  of  the  Senate  for  the  time 
being. 

5.  While  he  acts  as  President  of  the  Senate,  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  shall  receive  for  his  services  the 
compensation  alloAved  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Delegates. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  I  now  move  to  strike  out  the 
whole  of  the  2d  article,  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
following  : — 

1.  In  case  of  the  impeachment  of  the  Governor,  his  re- 
moval from  office,  death,  refusal,  or  inability  to  qualify, 
or  resignation,  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  office  shall 
devolve  upon  the  Speaker  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Legis- 
lature may  by  law  provide  for  the  case  of  removal, 
death,  resignation,  or  inability  of  both  the  Governor  and 
Speaker  of  the  Senate,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then 
act  as  Governor ;  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly, 
until  the  disability  be  removed  or  a  Governor  shall  be 
elected. 

2.  The  Speaker  of  the  Senate,  or  other  officer  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Governor,  shall,  during  his  administra- 
tion, receive  the  same  compensation  to  which  the  Gov- 
ernor would  have  been  entitled,  had  he  gone  into  and 
continued  in  office. 

The  CHAIR.  Does  the  Chair  understand  the  mem- 
ber as  moving  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  2d  article. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  Yes  sir,  everything  relating  to 
the  Lieutenant  Governor.  Before  the  question  is  taken 
on  the  substitute,  I  desire  to  make  a  very  few  remarks 
in  explanation  of  my  object  in  offering  it.  I  cannot  for 
the  life  of  me  see  what  necessity  we  have  for  a  Lieuten- 
ant Governor.  As  has  been  said  before  and  on  the  pre- 
sent occasion,  he  is  much  like  the  fifth  wheel  of  a  wagon, 
and  as  I  think,  much  more  useless.  When  we  look 
around  for  the  duties  which  are  to  be  devolved  on  this 
officer,  we  find  that  it  is  not  an  impossibility  that  he 
will  have  duties  to  perform,  but  there  is  a  strong  im- 
probability. He  can  only  act  as  Lieutenant  Governor 
when  the  Governor  dies,  refuses  to  qualify,  resigns,  or 
according  to  the  report,  is  absent  from  the  State.  Now 
all  of  these  probabilities  are  remote  ones,  except  that 
the  Governor  may  absent  himself  from  the  State.  Well, 
if  I  thought  our  Governor  would  absent  himself  from 
the  State,  I  think  I  would  go  for  providing  in  the  Con- 
stitution a  fugitive  Governor  law,  and  bring  him  back, 
instead  of  providing  an  officer  to  act  in  his  place.  I  see 
no  reason  why  the  Governor  should  absent  himself  from 
the  State,  and  leave  his  duties  to  be  performed  by  oth- 
ers. As  to  the  probability  of  a  Governor's  dying,  I  think 
we  may  safely  say,  that  like  our  judges,  he  never  dies. 
So  far  as  my  information  goes,  we  have  not  lost  but  one 
Governor  in  Virginia,  during  a  period  of  seventy  years  ; 
and  thus,  according  to  the  report  of  this  committee,  we 
are  to  keep  an  officer  under  pay  for  seventy  years,  waiting 
until  another  officer  shall  die,  to  take  his  place.  I  am 
opposed  to  it,  and  think  it  a  most  useless  expenditure. 
I  think  that  the  Speaker  of  the  Senate  can  be  called 
on  to  perform  the  duties  of  Governor  when  that  officer 
shall  be  absent,  without  subjecting  the  State  to  the  ad- 
ditional expense  of  the  pay  of  a  Lieutenant  Governor. 
Let  the  duties  devolve,  when  necessary,  on  the  Speaker 
of  the  Senate.  This  is  the  provision  in  several  of  the 
States  of  this  Union,  and  we  hear  no  complaint  from 
them ;  and  I  know  that  we  shall  save  a  vast  expense  by  it. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman, that  the  better  motion  for  him  to  have  submit- 
ted, would  have  been  to  strike  out  the  first  section,  as  it 
applies  to  the  appointment  of  a  Lieutenant  Governor; 
and  then  he  might  have  followed  it  up  with  the  amend- 
ments he  has  proposed. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.    I  will  take  any  course  that  will 


reach  the  object  I  have  in  view,  and  therefore  will  mod" 
ify  my  motion  as  the  Chair  has  suggested.  I  move  then 
to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  2d  article  as  report- 
ed by  the  committee. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  was  rejected — a  count  being 
had — ayes  26,  noes  74. 

ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  TO  RE-ELECTION. 

Mr.  TRED  WA  Y.  I  suppose  it  will  be  proper  to  com- 
mence with  the  1st  section  for  amendment  ? 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  proper  to  commence  with  the 
1st  section,  though  a  member  may  move  to  amend  any  sec- 
tion which  he  may  think  proper. 

Mr.  TRED  WAY.  The  other  day  some  amendments 
were  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Rockbridge  (Mr. 
Letcher)  with  the  declaration  on  his  part  that  he  in- 
tended to  move  them  at  the  proper  time,  which  affect 
the  first  section  of  this  report.  I  believe  the  gentleman 
is  unwell  and  is  not  in  the  Convention  tb-day,  and  I  should 
be  unwilling  to  proceed  without  giving  him  an  opportu- 
nity to  propose  his  amendments  and  to  advocate  them 
before  the.  Convention.  There  is  one  amendment,  how- 
ever, which  I  desire  to  propose  to  the  first  section.  I 
wish  to  change  its  wording  so  that  the  Governor  shall 
be  ineligible  to  the  office  after  his  first  term  has  expired, 
and  I  move  therefore  to  strike  out  the  word  second" 
after  the  words  "  shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office  after 
his,"  so  that  the  section  will  then  read : 

Sec  1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor.    He  shall  hold  his  office 

during  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  

day  of   next  succeeding  his  election,  and  he  shall 

be  ineligible  to  that  office  after  his  first  term  of  service 
shall  have  expired,  and  to  any  other  office  during  his 
term  of  service. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  will  support  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Tredway)  if  he  will 
confine  the  restriction  to  the  next  succeeding  term.  I 
am  not  willing  to  make  the  Governor  ineligible  forever 
afterwards,  but  I  am  willing  to  say  he  shall  be  ineligible 
for  the  next  succeeding  term. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.    1  will  accept  that  amendment. 
Mr.  WISE.    By  that  amendment  we  shall  leave  the 
question,  I  believe,  precisely  as  it  now  stands. 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    No  sir. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  To  amend  the  section  as  recom- 
mended by  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  would  be 
to  render  the  Governor  ineligible  for  election  after 
his  term  had  expired  for  the  term  next  succeeding 
that  term,  but  he  might  be  elected  again  at  any  time 
thereafter. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  effect  of  the  amendment  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  will  be  to 
continue  the  provisions  of  the  present  Constitution,  as  I 
understand  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.    I  propose  by  way  of  amendment — 
The  CHAIR.    There  is  a  question  now  pending  and 
the  gentleman  will  not  be  in  order  to  offer  another 
amendment. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  The  effect  of  the  section  as  it  stands 
is  to  allow  the  Governor  to  be  elected  for  two  terms 
successively,  and  then  to  be  ineligible.  My  desire  is  to 
allow  him  to  be  elected  for  one  term,  and  then  to  be  in- 
eligible for  at  least  one  term,  but  not  to  be  ineligible 
afterwards.  I  propose  to  strike  out  the  words  "and  he 
shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office  after  his  second  term 
shall  have  expired"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  "  and  shall  not  be  eligible  for  a  second  term." 

Mr.  TREAD  WAY.  I  accept  of  that  amendment  in 
lieu  of  the  one  I  have  offered,  and  which  I  now  with- 
draw. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  should  be  very  glad  if  the  gentlemen 
who  offer  these  propositions,  either  as  coming  from  the 
committee  or  as  indhidual  propositions,  would  enlighten 
my  mind  for  one,  so  far  as  to  give  me  a  reason  why  this 
restriction  should  be  placed  on  the  powers  of  the  peo- 
ple at  all.  We  have  come  here,  as  I  understand,  for  the 
purpose  of  enlarging  the  power  of  the  people,  and  yet 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


89 


the  very  first  proposition  made  here  is,  that  the  hands 
of  the  people  shall  be  tied  and  they  be  prevented  from 
doing  that  which  they  may  choose  to  do.  I  have  never 
been  one  of  the  advocates  for  what  has  been  generally 
styled  the  "one  term  principle"  either  in  regard  to 
our  federal  or  state  officials.  I  have  always  regarded 
it  as  a  c!ap  trap,  that  was  very  well  calculated  to  serve 
the  purposes  of  aspiring  politicians,  who  might  desire 
to  divide  the  time  between  themselves,  where  there 
were  a  number  of  aspirants  for  the  Presidency  for  exam- 
ple, each  one  anxious  to  serve  for  some  short  time  and 
each  one  willing  to  limit  himself  to  a  single  term,  in  order 
that  all  might  be  accommo  lated.  But  at  the  same  time 
I  have  regarded  it  as  an  infringement  and  encroachment 
on  popular  rights  The  example  was  set  by  the  Father 
of  his  Country,  and  the  framers  of  the  federal  consti- 
tution did  not  deem  it  necessary  in  the  earlier  days  of 
the  government,  to  prescribe  this  limitation  to  the  power 
of  the  people  in  the  election  of  their  President.  The 
first  President  of  the  United  States  wisely  set  the  exam- 
ple of  voluntarily  retiring  at  the  expiration  of  his  sec- 
ond term — an  example  which  I  trust  will  be  followed 
by  all  who  may  succeed  him.  But  wherefore  is  it,  if  you 
have  a  President  or  a  Governor  who  is  decidedly  prefer- 
able to  the  people  to  all  other  men  in  the  Union  or  m 
the  State,  that  you  prop  >se  to  tie  the  hands  of  the  peo- 
ple, to  limit  their  rights  and  to  trammel  them  in  their 
own  selection,  and  force  upon  them  the  necessity  of  turn- 
ing out  a  wise,  judicious  and  acceptable  officer,  for  the 
purpose  of  scrambling  in  the  dark  for  one  who  may  be 
infinitely  objectionable?  I  have  come  here  for  one,  with 
the  purpose  of  enlarging  the  power  of  the  people.  1 
desire  to  take,  so  far  as  practicable,  all  power  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  few  and  confer  it  upon  the  many  ;  or  in 
other  words,  I  am  for  taking  power  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  politicians  and  putting  it  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 
This  proposition  as  it  comes  from  the  committee,  and 
from  the  gentlemen  who  have  offered  their  amendments, 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  work  of  the  politicians  and  not 
the  work  of  the  people.  It  is  to  accomplish  the  ends  of 
politicians — I  do  not  mean  to  ascribe  any  improper  mo- 
tives to  these  gentlemen — I  speak  of  the  effect  and  ope- 
ration of  the  amendment.  It  is  to  wo.k  to  the  advantage 
of  the  politicians  and  of  those  who  desire  to  fill  these 
offices.  But  I  ask  that  gentlemen  will  give  me  some 
reasons  when  they  ask  me  to  give  my  vote  either  for 
the  report  of  the  committee  or  for  the  proposition  in  the 
amendment,  why,  if  we  give  the  power  of  electing 
the  "Governor  to  the  people,  we  should  at  the  same  mo- 
ment take  that  power  from  the  people  after  having  ex- 
ercised it  once  and  once  only.  For  my  own  part,  I  would 
prefer,  to  strike  out  all  that  part  of  it  from  the  fir^t  sec- 
tion so  that  the  sentence  should  read, 

— "  He  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of  four 
years,  to  commence  on  the  day  of   next  suc- 
ceeding his  election,  and  he  shall  be  ineligible  to  any 
other  office  during  his  term  of  service." 

I  had  not  the  remotest  idea,  when  I  came  to  the  hall 
this  morning,  of  taking  any  part  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question.  I  was  willing  to  submit  the  proposi- 
tion as  it  came  from  the  committee  to  the  Convention, 
and  I  had  not  entertained  the  slightest  idea  of  touching 
any  part  of  it  until  I  found  a  disposition  to  trammel 
still  further  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  confine  their 
choice  to  a  single  term.  I  have  now  only  to  ask  for 
some  reasons,  and  to  ascertain  the  motive,  for  the  propo- 
sition of  these  amendments.  If  gentlemen  will  convince 
me  that  they  are  right,  I  will  vote  for  them,  otherwise  if 
nobody  else  does  not,  I  shall  propose  at  the  proper  time 
an  amendment  carrying  out  my  views.  Is  an  amendment 
to  the  amendment  in  order  now  ? 

Mr.  WATTS.  It  is  in  order,  but  the  gentleman  can 
attain  his  object  by  moving  to  strike  out  the  words  he 
has  indicated. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  will  move  then  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment so  as  to  strike  out  from  the  section,  the  words  "  to 
that  office  after  his  second  term  shall  have  expired, 
and" 


Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  understand  there  is  a  motion  to 
strike  out  part  of  what  is  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  and  to  insert  in 
lieu  thereof,  the  words  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Appomattox,  (Mr.  Bocock,)  and  I  imagine  that  it  is  pro- 
per that  the  question  should  be  put  first  on  that  amend- 
ment before  the  question  on  a  motion  to  strike  out  a 
larger  portion,  comprehending  what  is  suggested  to  be 
stricken  out  by  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  be  taken. 
I  suppose  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  is 
receivable,  but  that  the  question  must  first  be  taken  on 
the  motion  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Appomat- 
tox, and  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania, 
(Mr.  Theadway.) 

The  CHAIR.  No,  sir;  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  is  an  amendment  to  an  amendment.  The 
one  proposition  is  to  strike  out  a  certain  portion  of  the 
section,  and  the  other  is  to  amend  that  amendment  so 
that  it  shall  operate  to  strike  out  a  larger  portion. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  desired  to  address  the  Chair 
for  the  purpose  of  moving  to  strike  out  the  word  "  four" 
in  the  1st  section  of  the  first  article.  I  think  that  the 
term  for  which  the  Governor  should  be  elected,  should  be 
first  agreed  upon  by  the  Convention. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  will  state  that  there  is  now 
an  amendment  proposed  to  the  amendment,  and  that  is 
as  far  as  we  can  go  in  the  way  of  amendment. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  vote  on  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Treadway,)  will  depend 
on  the  period  for  which  the  Governor  is  to  be  elected. 
Is  it  in  order  now  to  move  to  strike  out  the  word 
"  four. " 

The  CHAIR.    Not  until  this  question  is  disposed  of. 

Mr.  1  RED  WAY.  The  form  of  the  amendment  which 
I  will  adopt  at  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Ap- 
pomattox, (Mr.  Bocock,)  is  as  follows :  Strike  out  the 
words  "  he  shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office,  after  his  se- 
cond term  shall  have  expired,  and  to  any  other  office  du- 
ring his  term  of  service,  "  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof,  the 
words  following :  "  He  shall  not  be  eligible  for  the  term 
next  succeeding  that  for  which  he  was  elected,  nor  to  any 
other  office  during  his  term  of  service.  " 

I  beg  leave  to  say  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  that  when  I  submitted  this  amend- 
ment, I  had  no  idea  that  I  was  proposing  to  infringe  upon 
any  of  the  rights  of  the  people.  I  certainly  had  no  motive 
to  infringe  upon  or  to  curtail  those  rights.  My  amend- 
ment admits  distinctly  the  right  of  the  people  to  elect 
their  Governor,  and  that  I  understand,  was  the  great  prin- 
ciple  of  reform,  for  which  the  people  of  Virginia  contend- 
ed in  the  last  canvass.  I  do  not  believe  that  when  such 
a  change  is  made  in  our  Constitution,  the  Governor,  after 
his  first  term — if,  indeed,  any  officer  who  is  to  be  elected 
by  the  popular  vote — should  be  eligible  to  a  second  term. 
I  think  there  are  manifest  reasons  and  strong  considera- 
tions of  policy  which  require  that  a  provision  should  be 
put  in  the  Constitution,  by  which  he  shall  not  be  eligible 
after  his  first  term.  And  what  are  they?  The  fact 
in  reference  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who 
may  be  re-elected  a  second  time,  whose  re-election  is  not 
restricted  by  the  Constitution,  and  the  fact  that  in  pur 
suance  of  the  example  set  by  the  father  of  his  country, 
alluded  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  he 
may  be  a  candidate  and  elected  to  a  second  term,  has  been 
a  fruitful  theme  of  complaint  against,  and  often  excited  sus- 
picion and  distrust  of,  the  incumbent — the  man  who  held 
the  office  of  Chief  Executive  of  the  Federal  Government. 
The  cry  throughout  the  land  has  been  that  the  Executive 
officer  who  was  re-eligible,  who  might  be  a  candidate  for 
a  second  term  of  the  office  which  he  then  held,  was  pros- 
tituting the  power  of  his  office  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
curing his  re-election.  I  need  only  to  mention  the  amount 
of  excitement  that  has  been  produced  in  the  country  by 
that  one  fact.  I  submit  to  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  and 
to  this  committee,  whether  if  the  Governor,  the  chief  exec- 
utive officer  of  the  State,  having  the  power  and  the  patron- 
age which  he  must  have  to  some  extent,  will  not 
be  liable  to  the  same  distrust  and  suspicion,  whether 


90 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


he  will  not  be  assailed  if  he  should  be  a  candidate 
or  look  to  a  re-election  ;  and  -whether  the  same  com- 
plaints will  not  arise  throughout  Virginia  in  regard  to 
his  action  while  in  office,  which  we  hear  throughout  the 
Union  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the  President  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  ?  I  think  there  can  be  no  detriment  to  the  public 
good  by  thus  restricting  one  out  of  many  of  those  of  the 
people  of  Virginia,  who  will  be  qualified  to  serve  as  Go- 
vernor. It  would  be  a  very  small,  an  incalculably  small 
restriction. — if  the  gentleman  will  have  it  so — upon  the 
rights  of  the  people ;  so  small  that  it  appears  to  me  that 
it  cannot  compare  with  the  weighty  considerations  which 
require  that  the  Governor  should  not  be  eligible.  I  wish 
to  strip  the  Executive  even  of  a  suspicion  of  coming  down 
and  mingling  in  the  arena  of  politics.  I  wish  to  have  no 
Governor  of  Virginia,  of  whom  it  can  be  said  that  he 
is  prostituting  the  Executive  patronage  and  power  that 
he  may  be  re-nominated  either  by  his  party  or  by  the 
people,  or  that  he  may,  by  that  prostitution,  obtain  a 
re-election  to  the  office  he  then  holds.  I  prefer  rather  to 
remove  from  him  all  pretext  under  which  he  could  do 
that  thing  if  he  were  disposed  to  do  it,  and  to  take  from 
him  all  suspicion  of  being  induced  to  act  from  considera- 
tions of  that  sort.  This  would,  in  my  opinion,  render  the 
office  of  Governor  more  elevated,  more  respectable,  more 
desirable  to  hold,  and  would  be  taking  from  it  much  that 
would  impair  its  dignity,  usefulness  and  respectability  in 
the  opinion  of  the  people  of  the  State  and  of  the  Union. 
That  is  the  reason  why  I  wish  to  see  no  man  re-elected  to 
the  office  of  Governor  when  his  term  shall  have  expired. 
We  have  enlarged  his  term  of  service  from  three  to  four 
years,  if  the  amendment  proposed  in  its  present  form 
shall  be  adopted  by  the  Convention.  "We  increase  the 
length  of  his  term,  and  we  give  to  the  people  the  power 
of  selecting  him  by  their  votes,  the  great  object  aimed  at 
by  those  who  advocated  Constitutional  reform  throughout 
Virginia  during  the  past  year. 

I  think,  for  the  considerations  which  I  have  mention- 
ed, it  would  be  better  that  this  restriction  should  be 
made.  It  would  render  the  incumbent  of  the  office  of 
Governor  much  more  comfortable,  his  position  less 
liable  to  be  assailed,  either  with  or  without  justifiable 
cause,  and  more  useful  and  more  dignified,  to  say  that  he 
shall  not  be  re-elected.  I  cannot  imagine  how  the  mak 
ing  of  one  of  the  citizens  of  Virginia  not  eligible  to  the 
office  of  Governor,  can  possibly,  under  any  circumstances 
which  we  may  look  to  in  the  future,  affect  the  public 
weal.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  have  moved  the  amend- 
ment. How  it  can  affect  any  political  purpose,  I  am 
wholly  unable  to  perceive.  It  may  prevent  the  incum- 
bent from  engaging  in  political  schemes  for  his  own  ag 
grandizement,  but  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  operate  to  af- 
fect the  rights,  political  or  any  otherwise,  of  any  human 
being. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  say  to  the  gentleman  that  I 
did  not  charge  that  any  political  purpose  was  designed 
by  the  amendment.  What  I  meant  to  say  was,  that  its 
effect  would  operate  for  the  benefit  of  politicians. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  wish  to  see  whether  I  understand  the 
amendment.  The  effect  of  the  first  amendment  propos- 
ed, is  to  allow  the  Governor  to  be  eligible  for  one  term, 
and  to  be  ineligible  for  and  during  the  same  term  there- 
after ;  in  other  words,  that  for  four  years  after  the  expi- 
ration of  his  term  of  four  years,  he  shall  be  ineligible  for 
four  years.  As  it  is  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  he  is 
eligible  forever.  This  proposition  makes  him  ineligible 
for  one  term,  and  then  eligible  for  and  during  the  same 
term  thereafter,  and  alternately,  I  suppose,  ad  infinitum, 
or  as  long  as  life  lasts.  The  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
(Mr.  Botts,)  proposes  to  amend  that  amendment,  by,  in 
effect,  leaving  him  re-eligible  forever.  I  am  very  glad 
that  the  gentleman  from  Hemdco  has  made  this  point, 
and  that  this  ball  has  been  taken  at  the  first  hop.  And 
in  the  brief  views  which  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  has 
presented  to  the  committee,  I  fully,  heartily  and  experi- 
mentally concur.  My  own  experience  teaches  me  that  this 
doctrine  of  ineligibility  of  Executive  office  or  any  office 
of  the  people,  is  a  privation  of  popular  rights, — directly 


so.  What  is  the  policy  of  every  individual  ?  How  does 
every  prudent  man  act  in  relation  to  the  same  matter  ? 
If  you  employ  a  physician,  or  lawyer,  or  overseer,  or  ser- 
vant— I  care  not  what  agent  you  employ — and  have  tried 
him,  have  found  him  faithful,  capable  and  competent,  and 
in  allrespects  trustworthy,  do  you  not  continue  him  in  em- 
ployment ?  Is  not  that  the  universal  course  of  all  men  ? 
Is  it  not  the  part  of  every  prudent  man,  when  he  has  tried 
even  a  servant,  to  continue  him  in  service  ?  And  to  say 
that  a  public  servant  well  tried,  shall  not  be  tried  again 
if  he  has  been  once  tried  by  the  people,  is  it  not  an  inva- 
sion of  the  popular  right  of  election  ?  Undoubtedly  it 
circumscribes  the  right  in  the  one  case,  and  in  the  other 
proscribes  it  for  all  time,  and  these  are  all  competing 
propositions.  This  principle  of  ineligibility,  too,  undoubt- 
edly proscribes  the  faithful  and  tried  officer  of  the  go- 
vernment. Now,  what  is  the  reason  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  (Mr.  Tredway,)  for 
this  one  term  principle  ?  It  is  that  the  office  may  be 
prostituted  for  re-election.  And  what  is  the  answer  ? 
Grant  even  that  the  reason  exists,  what  worse  evils  may 
not  follow  on  the  other  hand,  if  this  one  term  principle, 
whether  as  applied  to  the  Executive  of  the  Federal  or  of 
the  State  Government,  if  this  principle  shall  prevail  ? 
Why,  you  make  the  officer  wholly  irresponsible.  Elect 
your  President  for  one  term,  and  let  that  be  the  estab- 
lished doctrine  of  the  country.  He  has  reached  the  highest 
honor  he  can  reach  in  this  country. — his  day  has  passed, 
and  the  time  of  life  has  come  when  he  cannot  look  beyond 
it  either  in  the  course  of  time,  or  of  ambition  ;  yet  if  he 
cannot  electioneer  for  himself  with  the  hope  of  obtain- 
ing office  for  himself,  he  can  for  another,  and  he  can  for 
his  party.  And,  if  he  be  possessed  with  the  demon  of 
party,  what  may  he  not  do  when  he  can  stand  in  the 
pride  of  his  independence  of  the  people  and  say,  you 
have  fixed  it  that  I  cannot  last  but  for  one  term,  and 
now  I  will  do  my  worst  ?  And  can  he  not  do  it  ?  Es- 
pecially if  you  adopt  the  proposition  of  the  committee 
who  have  reported  that  he  shall  be  ineligible  forever, 
you  make  him  wholly  irresponsible.  But  is  it  a  fact  that 
the  succeeding  terms  do  corrupt  an  Executive  ?"  I  can 
say  from  a  pretty  long  experience  at  Washington,  that 
that  fact  never  did  exist,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  eli- 
gibility to  a  succeeding  term  added  greatly  to  the  puri- 
ty of  the  executive  administration.  There  never  was,  in 
my  time,  a  reason  to  say  that  because  a  man  was  eligi- 
ble to  office  afterwards,  that,  for  that  reason,  he  prosti- 
tuted the  executive  office.  The  gentleman  from  Henri- 
co knows,  and  I  know  very  well — though  perhaps  it  is 
not  worth  while  to  tell  here — where  the  one  term  prin- 
ciple came  from.  I  could  tell,  if  I  would.  It  never 
came  from  the  complaints  of  the  people  ;  never,  but  it 
did  come  from  that  very  source  to  which  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  has  referred,  the  eagerness  of  politicians  of 
both  parties,  at  all  events  to  have  half  a  loaf,  rather 
than  none,  ot  the  slice  of  office, — to  have  one  term  at 
least.  It  is  a  principle  which  provides  for  the  aspirants. 
Your  politicians  started  the  cry,  and  they  never  started 
it  pro  bono  publico,  that  you  may  rely  upon.  No,  the 
people  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  privilege,  the  pre- 
eminent prerogative  that  should  be  reserved  by  the  so- 
vereign, the  power  to  retain  in  their  service  the  best 
men,  best  tried,  best  known,  those  once  tried  and  ap- 
proved. The  principle  was  started  to  deprive  the  sove- 
reign of  this  power,  in  order  that  politicians  and  politi- 
cal aspirants  might  have  the  benefit  of  the  one  term 
principle.  I  scout  the  idea,  and  I  say  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico,  that  one  of  the  most  blessed,  one  of 
the  most  benificent  examples,  that  almost  all-wise  man, 
Washington,  set  to  his  country,  was  that  the  Chief  Exec- 
utive should  place  himself  in  a  responsible  position,  and 
that  he  should  submit  and  subject  himself  to  the  test  of 
approval.  If  you  allow  an  Executive  officer  to  be  re-elect- 
ed, vou  at  once  put  him  on  his  good  behavior,  instead  of 
making  him  a  corrupt  officer  to  prostitute  the  public 
place.  Mark  the  history  of  the  Federal  Administration, 
I  have  often  done  it,  and  you  will  find  very  few  offences 
committed  in  the  first  term  of  the  President  They  have 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


91 


been  mostly  committed,  almost  all  of  any  serious  import, 
in  the  second  term.  Is  it  not  so  ?  And  will  gentlemen 
tell  me  that  it  is  no  invasion  of  the  power  of  the 
people,  of  the  right  of  the  people,  and  that  it  is  no  cir- 
cumscription of  their  rights,  no  restriction  of  their  pre- 
rogative, to  say,  that  after  having  elected  a  George  Wash- 
ington, that  they  should  not  indulge  their  preference  in 
re-electing  him.  Had  the  people  of  the  United  St  ates 
been  told  that  they  should  not  re-elect  Andrew  Jackson 
during  the  time  of  the  bank  war  in  this  country,  there 
would  have  been  almost  open  rebellion.  And  what  may 
not  happen  in  this  State  ?  What  might  not  in  these  evil 
times  come  upon  the  State  of  Virginia  ?  You  have  an 
election  coming  on  next  spring,  or  next  spring  twelve 
months,  when  perhaps  you  may  have  need  of  the  very 
best  military  commander  in  the  whole  State,  at  the  head 
of  your  militiaf;  when  perhaps  this  blessed  old  Common- 
wealth might  be  in  the  very  crisis  of  being  torn  asunder  by 
the  demon  of  the  South  contending  with  the  demon  of  the 
North — with  perhaps  one  portion  of  the  people  inarching 
southward  and  another  northward,  or  perhaps  turning 
their  arms  upon  each  other — brother  contending  with 
brother  and  father  with  son  in  the  strife  of  civil  war — 
when  you  will  need  a  father  of  the  State  whose  parental 
voice  alone  could  be  heard,  and  whose  commanding 
power  could  alone  be  felt  to  wield  the  militia  power  of 
the  State.  You  might  have  such  a  man  in  such  a  crisis, 
who  would  have  to  retire  under  this  doctrine  of  ineligi- 
bility, at  the  very  moment  when  there  was  no  other  hand 
to  save  the  people  from  the  fate  of  desolation.  But  for 
the  benefit  of  politicians,  for  the  benefit  of  aspirants,  in 
order  that  Mr.  A  might  have  his  share  as  well  as  Mr.  B. 
of  the  patronage  of  the  people,  and  when  the  people  did 
not  want  to  patronize  him,  the  father  of  the  State,  it 
might  be,  must  retire  ;  the  public  good  must  be  impaired 
and  the  public  safety  itself  must  be  sacrificed,  in  order 
that  the  politicians  may  be  subserved.  I  will  not  vote 
for  this  doctrine  of  ineligibility,  either  for  a  long  term  or 
a  short  term,  either  for  the  Judiciary  or  the  Executive. 
There  is  but  one  office  in  the  State  in  regard  to  whom 
I  will  recognise  that  principle  of  ineligibility,  even  as  it 
h  proposed,  and  there  I  believe  the  good  of  the  people 
perhaps  require  that  it  shall  be  recognised — I  mean  the 
office  of  Sheriff.  That  office  is  a  peculiar  one,  and  it 
may  do  a  little  good  there,  but  I  know  of  no  other  office 
in  the  State  to  which  I  would  apply  it.  Like  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henrico  I  did  not  expect  this  discussion  to 
come  up  to-day,  but  from  the  time  I  entered  this  Con- 
vention I  was  prepared  with  the  best  of  reasons  in  the 
world,  from  observation  and  experience  in  public  life, 
and  as  an  advocate  for  the  power  of  the  people,  to  repel 
this  doctrine  of  ineligibility.  You  may  depend,  disguise 
it  as  you  may — I  certainly  do  not  impugn  the  motive 
of  any  gentlemen  here,  for  they  are  as  pure  in  their  mo- 
tives no  doubt,  as  I  am  in  mine,  and  we  are  aiming  at 
the  same  end  I  hope,  the  good  of  the  people,  the  good 
of  the  whole — that  the  principle  they  advocate  will 
subserve  the  few  at  the  expanse  of  the  many,  and  the 
few  from  whom  the  many  ought  to  be  guarded — the 
party  politician  few  against  the  power,  the  conservative 
power  of  the  sovereign  people. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  power  of  the  people  is  a  phrase 
that  always  meets  with  a  responsive  echo  in  the  breast 
of  every  man,  but  there  must  be  some  limitation  to  it. 
Will  you  say  that  the  Governor  shall  not  be  a  minor  ? 
Will  you  say  that  he  shall  be  thirty-five  years  of  age  ?  If 
you  do — if  you  say  that  there  shail  be  any  restrictionat 
all,  over  the  will  of  the  people,  then  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  is  met.  What  shali 
be  his  age  ?  Shall  it  twenty-five  or  thirty  ?  Many  of  our 
ablest  commanders  have  been  under  thirty,  and  it  might 
be,  that  public  safety  required  that  a  young  and  able  com- 
mander, who  upon  the  battle  field  has  shown  his  ability 
to  command  the  armies  of  the  State,  should  be  called  to 
the  office,  yet  would  gentlemen  say  that  he  should  be 
called  at  any  age  ?  It  might  be,  that  our  Governor  was 
the  man  above  all  others,  suited  to  fill  a  judicial  station, 
and  yet  another  clause  of  this  same  section  declares  that 


he  shail  not  be  elected  to  any  other  station  during  his 
term  of  office  ;  and  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr. 
Botts,)  I  understand  to  approve  of  that  proposition. 
Now,  wherefore  restrict  the  power  of  the  people  ? 
Wherefore  say  that  the  Governor  shall  be  elected  to  no 
other  office  during  his  continuance  in  the  gubernatorial 
chair,  except  it  be  that  you  are  afraid  that  he  will 
abuse  the  office,  to  serve  his  own  personal  purposes  in 
carrying  out  an  aspiring  ambition  ?  But  again,  this  of- 
ficer is  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  and  do  we  expect 
him  to  stump  it  through  the  whole  State  ?  Is  he,  while 
acting  as  Governor,  to  go  from  court-house  to  court- 
house, declaring  before  the  people,  that  he  has  adminis- 
tered his  office  in  a  manner  which  ought  to  be  approved  ? 
If  he  is  not  to  do  this,  who  is  to  meet  his  competitor  ? 
— for  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  when  a  Governor  is  to  be 
elected  by  the  people,  that  the  candidate  will  go  through 
the  State  and  make  himself  known  to  that  people  ? 
Whether  it  is  to  be  expected  or  not,  so  far  as  I  know  it  is 
the  usage,  and  thus  we  shall  have  the  spectacle  present- 
ed, of  the  Governor  of  Virginia  travelling  from  court- 
house to  court-house,  neglecting  his  official  duties,  and 
canvassing  for  his  election  before  the  people  !  If  he 
shall  not  do  this,  how  shall  he  act  ?  Shall  he  remain  in 
dignified  retirement  at  the  seat  of  government,  harassed, 
it  may  be,  by  his  opponent,  and  charges  made  against 
him,  from  court-house  to  court-house,  in  a  hot  election- 
eering campaign  by  his  opponent,  and  he  not  there  to 
meet  him  ?  It  seems  to  me,  there  must  necessarily  be 
involved  in  his  absence,  a  discussion  of  the  measures  of 
his  administration,  and  when  he  cannot  have  a  fair  trial 
before  the  people.  A  man  should  be  confronted  with 
his  accuser,  but  there  he  cannot  be.  His  public  acts 
will  be  under  discussion  by  his  competitor,  and  he  can- 
not be  confronted  with  him,  unless  indeed,  he  shall  de- 
cide to  leave  his  station  in  this  city,  to  go  there  and 
meet  that  accuser.  Shall  he,  by  his  silence,  seem  to  be 
guilty,  or  shall  he  enter  the  political  papers,  and  there 
contest  the  merits  of  his  administration  ?  How  else 
shall  he  go  before  the  people,  for  he  must  stand  as  one 
accused,  and  he  must  be  condemned  unheard,  or  he  must 
go  and  electioneer  before  the  people  ?  But  gentlemen 
contend  that  this  is  a  clause  by  which  politicians  are  to 
be  favored.  Why,  it  is  a  clause,  if  I  understand  the 
gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredwat,)  which  is 
now  embraced  in  the  present  constitution.  The  pre- 
sent constitution  declares  that  the  Governor  may  be 
elected  for  one  term,  shall  not  be  elected  for  a  second, 
may  be  elected  for  a  third,  and  cannot  be  for  a  fourth. 
I  think  the  men  who  were  in  the  Convention  of  1829-'30, 
placed  this  prohibition  on  the  Executive  power,  and  were 
they  providing  merely  for  the  benefit  of  politicians  ? 
Wherefore  did  they  provide  it  as  they  have  ?  Because 
the  same  difficulties  did  not  occur  then  in  the  election  of 
a  Governor  which  might  when  he  was  carried  before  the 
people.  He  was  here  in  the  presence  of  the  Legislature, 
who  could  inquire  into  his  conduct  and  approve  or  con- 
demn all  of  his  official  acts  here,  and  an  official  record  was 
kept  of  all  his  proceedings  in  the  council,  which  might  be 
laid  before  the  Legislature  when  required.  Not  so  when 
his  election  is  carried  before  the  people.  He  must  remain 
here  and  be  condemned  unheard,  or  he  must  enter  the 
political  arena,  either  in  the  political  papers  or  on  the 
hustings,  for  his  administration  must  and  certainly  will 
be  attacked  in  every  hot  political  campaign.  I  do  not 
think  it  can  be  charged  against  the  gentlemen  from  Pitt- 
sylvania, therefore,  on  moving  this  proprosition,  that  even 
the  effect  of  it  can  be  to  provide  for  politicians.  When 
we  entrust  power,  and  when  that  power  carries  with  it 
patronage,  we  must  throw  guards  and  limitations  around 
the  abuse  of  that  patronage  and  power  ;  and  ho  w  can  we 
more  effectually  provide  those  guards  than  by  saying 
that  when  the  officer  has  discharged  his  duties  for  one 
term,  then  for  the  next  succeeding  term,  the  people  will 
choose  another  who,  face  and  face,  has  met  his  opponents  ? 
Then  the  retiring  officer,  in  the  interval  of  two  or  four 
years,  can  go  before  them  and  fairly  discuss  the  merits  of 
liis  administration,  and  the  next  succeeding  term  the 


92 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


people  may  take  him  again  if  they  choose.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  best  possible  safeguard  you  can  throw 
around  the  Executive,  is  to  say  that  he  shall  not  be  se- 
lected for  the  second  term  next  succeeding  his  first.  Then 
if  again  selected  as  a  candidate,  and  arraigned  before  the 
people,  he  can  be  there  to  confront  his  accuser,  and  face 
to  face  answer  all  charges  against  him.  The  first  section  in 
the  report  of  the  Executive  committee  provides  that  the 
Governor  may  be  elected  for  two  successive  terms,  but  that 
thereafter  he  shall  be  ineligible.  I  do  not  feel  myself  call- 
ed upon  to  support  that  secnon,  because  I  do  not  approve 
of  i  ,  but  I  do  approve  of  an  intermediate  term  coming  in 
before  he  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  again.  These  are 
the  few  remarks  which  I  have  deemed  it  proper  to  offer. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  like  to  make  an  explanation. 
The  gentleman  does  not  do  my  arg  ment  justice.  I  did 
not  assert  as  a  reason  against  ineligibility  of  itself,  that 
it  is  a  principle  which  attacks  the  power  of  the  peo- 
ple. I  was  only  replying'  to  the  remark  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Pittsylvania,  that  this  principle  did  not  attack 
the  power  of  the  people.  And  I  defy  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax  to  meet  the  assertion  that  it  does  attack 
the  power  of  the  people,  it  is  no  reply  to  tell  me  that 
the  principle  of  non-age  likewise  attacks  the  power  of 
the  people.  It  is  no  reply  to  say  that  we  will  require 
the  qualification  of  sanity,  and  that  it  will  exclude  the 
people  from  electing  a  lunatic.  No,  the  question  in  de- 
bate is  this,  that  where  a  man  is  a  citizen,  where  he  is 
sane,  where  he  is  at  an  age  which  you  may  prescribe,  and 
where  he  has  every  qualification  that  the  people  them- 
selves determine  to  be  essential  to  a  candidate,  is  the 
fact  that  he  has  been  trusted  and  tried  and  been  found 
faithful,  a  reason  that  he  should  be  rejected?  That  is 
the  question  which  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  asks, 
and  which  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  has  failed  as  es- 
sentially to  answer  as  did  the  gentleman  from  Pittsyl- 
vania. JSFow,  what  is  the  main  reason  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Halifax  proposes  ?  Why,  that  if  we  allow  a 
candidate,  who  has  been  once  elected,  to  be  elected  again, 
he  will  not  have  a  chance  to  electioneer.  Aye,  forsooth! 
Now  whom  does  that  concern,  the  sovereign  people  or 
the  candidate  ?  If  he  has  not  a  fair  chance  to  election- 
eer, why  he  will  calculate,  I  presume,  like  a  wise  poli- 
tician, whether  his  opponent  is  likely  to  beat  him  or  not, 
if  he  is  obliged  to  remain  at  the  capitol  while  his  com- 
petitor is  electioneering.  Let  us  suppose  that  we  had  a 
man  so  popular,  so  able  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  so 
far  above  the  necessity  of  electioneering,  that  he  could 
in  dignity  and  quietness  remain  in  his  gubernatorial  seat, 
at  ease,  without  regard  to  the  efforts  of  his  opposing 
candidate,  and  could  beat  him  all  hollow;  and  I  could 
imagine  such  a  case — a  man  thus  pre-eminently  popu- 
lar, a  man  thus  deserving  to  be  re-elected, — the  doctrine 
is  he  shall  not  be  re-elected,  because  he  will  not  have  a 
chance  to  electioneer  1  That  will  not  do.  That  reason 
did  not  meet  my  argument  at  all.  The  fact  is,  that  to  say 
that  such  a  man  shall  not  be  re-eligible,  is  to  attack  the 
power  of  the  people  unnecessarily  and  without  a  reason — 
that  is  the  argument.  To  say  that  the  people  shall  not 
elect  a  lunatic,  where  there  is  a  reason  for  the  restric- 
tion, does  not  reach  the  question.  It  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  meet  the  issue  to  say,  that  because  a  man  in  of- 
fice cannot  conveniently  electioneer,  that  therefore  he 
shall  not  be  a  candidate.  Will  they  not  electioneer 
at  first — in  the  first  instance,  before  they  are  installed  ? 
Officers  shall  not  electioneer  !  Now  I  will  take  another 
ball  at  the  hop.  I  do  not  think  electioneering  is  so  very 
corrupting  to  public  candidates  as  some  gentlemen  seem 
to  imagine.  I  think  that,  when  properly  conducted,  it 
is  one  of  the  most  beneficial  things  for  the  candidate 
and  for  the  people  too.  To  be  brought  face  to  face  be- 
fore the  people — to  be  brought  into  the  presence  of  the 
majesty  of  the  people — often  strips  off  all  robes  of  of- 
fice, and  takes  down  many  an  aristocratic  plume.  It 
makes  high  officers  know  that  they  are  but  the  servants 
of  the  people  ;  and  not  only  that,  if  he  is  the  right  man, 
fit  to  be  elected,  conscious  not  only  of  his  own  strength 
but  inspired  by  the  truth  and  the  power  of  intellect,  it  will 


do  his  constituents  good  to  hear  him.  Let  him,  if  he 
chooses,  leave  the  chair  of  State,  and  come  down  from 
the  dais  of  the  capitol,  and  mingle  even  with  the  crowd  ; 
and  let  him  be  dusty  with  the  dust,  or  the  powder  of 
the  arena,  the  popular  arena.  If  he  be  a  low,  base, 
grovelling  politician,  if  he  is  a  man  who  relies  upon 
whiskey  and  humbug^ery  to  re-elect  him,  I  rely  upon 
the  people  to  observe  his  points.  If  he  be  the  man  fit 
to  be  re  elected,  it  will  be  good  for  him,  and  good  for 
the  people,  that  he  shall  for  a  while,  leave  the  executive 
chair,  and-- electioneer — if  you  please.  Now,  I  have  no 
fears  upon  that  subject — none  at  all.  A  little  agitation, 
a  little  electioneering,  in  the  right  way,  is  like  a  little 
electricity  in  the  atmosphere — it  is  very  apt  to  purify 
instead  of  corrupting  the  public  men. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  think  I  understand  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac  to  maintain  that  the  Governor  ought 
to  descend  from  his  chair  and  electioneer.  Do  I  under- 
stand the  gentleman  correctly  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  I  said  that  he  may,  at  will  forme,  doit, 
I  leave  him  to  judge  whether  he  will  or  ought  to  do  it — 
and  that  the  fact  that  he  may  be  called  vpo  i  to  do  it, 
whether  he  chooses  to  do  it  or  not,  will  I  e  no  reason 
with  me  why  I  will  not  allow  him  to  do  it,  ( r  why  I  will 
not  make  him  eligible.  It  is  no  manner  of  objection  to 
me.  And  do  not  we  all  do  it?  Thank  God,  that  I  can 
proudly  say  here,  that  whenever  I  have  wanted  public 
office,  without  fear,  without  hypocrisy,  I  have  gone  be- 
fore my  people,  and  asked  them  for  that  office.  Six 
times  in  succession  have  they  favored  me  with  a  seat  in 
he  House  of  Representutives.  I  have  electioneered,  and 
I  have  never  yet  fornd  it  necessary  to  use  the  first  dram 
with  the  people — never. 

The  CHAIR.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  yield 
the  floor? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Certainly,  I  yield  the  floor  for  an 
explanntion. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  beg  pardon,  I  merely  meant  to  m  ike 
myself  perfectly  understood,  that  I  have  no  antipathy 
to  electioneering.  Let  the  people  regulate  that  among 
themselves  and  with  their  candidates. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  We  are  providing  for  an  adminis- 
tration of  the  executive  department  of  the  government. 
The  officer  is  to  be  a  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  we  expect  him  to  discharge  those  duties — it  may  be 
for  a  term  of  two  years  or  of  four  years.  We  provide 
in  one  section  that  he  shall  reside  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. This  State  is  a  large  state — there  are  largely  over 
one  hundred  counties — if  the  Governor's  conduct  is  to 
be  investigated,  how  and  when  is  it  to  be  investigated  ? 
At  the  polls  ?  Certainly  it  can  be  investigated  in  no 
other  way  than  before  the  people.  And  before  the  peo- 
ple he  must  be  arraigned,  and  arraigned  too,  pending  the 
administration  of  his  office.  I  ask,  will  either  the  Gov- 
ernor or  the  people  have  a  fair  chance  while  he  is  yet  in 
office  administering" its  duties?  If  he  replies  at  all,  it 
mpst  be  in  some  distant  corner  of  the  country.  If  he 
goes  from  the  executive  chair  to  meet  his  opponent  on 
the  hustings,  he  must  meet  him  in  the  far  west  and  in 
the  north-west,  in  the  south-east  and  in  the  south-west, 
in  every  corner  of  the  State.  How  long  is  this  election- 
eering to  last  ?  Is  it  to  be  for  a  whole  year  ?  For  if  he 
is  fairly  to  meet  his  competitor  in  every  county  in  the 
State,  and  fairly  canvass  the  opinions  of  his  competitor 
and  defend  the'acts  of  his  own  administration,  it  must 
consume  I  say,  some  months  at  least.  Now  we  are  pro- 
viding for  the  administration  of  the  functions  of  the  exec- 
utive, and  can  these  functions  be  discharged  while  the  ex- 
ecutive is  absent  from  the  seat  of  government,  election- 
eering among  the  people  ?  If  he  electioneers,  he  must  be 
absent.  How  can  he  meet  his  opponent  ?  How  can  he 
confront  him?  How  can  he  hear  the  charges  made 
against  his  administration  ?  He  may  be  charged  with  cor- 
ruption, with  fraud,  or  with  bribery.  He  should  be 
there  to  confront  his  accuser  before  the  people,  that  they 
may  judge  and  vote  understandingly.  If  his  measures 
are  condemned,  he  ought  to  be  there  to  reply ;  and  if  he  is 
at  the  head  of  the  StateGovernment,  he  cannot  be  there  in 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


93 


is  there  to  reply,  the  executive  functions  of  the  govern- 
ment must  suffer  in  his  absence.  If  you  elect  the  Gov- 
ernor for  two  years,  one  entire  year,  if  he  canvasses  the 
entire  State,  he  must  be  occupied  in  that  canvass.  If 
you  elect  for  four  years,  why  the  best  part  of  his  time 
must  be  occu  pied  in  that  way.  I  do  not  think,  when  I  re- 
quire that  the  people  shall  have  a  fair  chance  to  act  under- 
standing^ in  the  selection  of  their  executive  officers,  that 
lam  acting  merely  for  the  benefit  of  politicians  or  unneces- 
sarily infringing  upon  popular  rights.  When  charges  are 
made  against  him,  and  the  executive  officer  is  not  there  to 
answer  them — it  is  to  ex  parte  testimony.  And  ex  parte  tes- 
timony is  always  doing  injnstice,both  to  the  accused,  in  this 
instance,  and  to  the  people,  and  neither  can  have  justice. 
The  people  cannot  judge  justly,  unless  he  is  there  to  reply 
to  the  charges  against  him.  And  if  he  is  there  to  reply  and 
to  show  himself  to  be  such  an  Executive  officer  as  we  want 
at  the  head  of  the  state  government,  he  cannot  be  here  in 
the  discharge  of  those  duties,  for  he  cannot  be  at  both  pla- 
ces at  once.  Now,  we  must  either  throw  these  restrictions 
around  the  executive,  and  to  some  extent,  trammel  the  un- 
limited rights  of  the  people,  as  we  do  in  respect  to  age,  or 
the  public  servi  ce  will  suffer.  This  is  a  proper  restraint  to 
throw  around  the  unlimited  exercise  of  popular  pow- 
er. The  people  wish  the  Governor  to  have  a  fair  hear- 
ing. If  his  administration  is  attacked,  they  want  him 
there  to  reply.  They  cannot  have  him  there  unless  they 
have  an  intervening  term. 

Mr.  WISE.    I  simply  wish  to  remark  that  the  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  is  still  whether  the  governor 
ought  to  be  a  candidate  or  not,  and  not  whether  he  shall 
be  eligible  or  no  .    The  gentleman,  instead  of  addressing 
himself  to  public  reasons,  addresses  himself  to  private 
reasons.    Instead  of  addressing  himself  to  the  reasons 
of  public  g  >od,  he  addresses  himself  to  the  motives 
which  might  govern  a  particular  person  in  office,  as  to 
the  question  whether  he  will  be  a  candidate  or  not.  Now, 
if  the  State  be  so  large,  the  larger  the  sphere,  the  more 
reasons  for  his  not  going  forth  to  reply  to  electioneerers. 
Neither  he  nor  his  opponent  would  be  expected  to  can 
vass  the  whole  State.    But  suppose  his  opponent  does 
canvass  the  whole  State  and  the  Governor  sits  in  his  chair : 
I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  electioneering  eam- 
paigas,  and  when  any  candidate  attacks  his  competitor  in 
his  absence,  when  the  people  know  that  the  candidate  at 
tacked  cannot  be  at  the  hustings,  and  that  his  opponent 
has  the  advantage  of  running  by  himself,  in  every  single 
instance  that  I  have  ever  seen,  the  cause  of  the  absent 
candidate  has  the  advantage,  almost  uuiversally  so. 
There  is  a  sense  of  justice  that  governs  the  crowd,  and 
they  will  say  Lo  themselves,  this  man  who  is  arraigning 
his  competi  or  is  very  b>ld  in  the  absence  of  his  oppo- 
nent.   Any  man  then,  of  sagacity,  already  in  office,  will 
sec  that  he  has  an  advantage  in  bei  ig  compelled  to  stay 
at  home  anl  attend  to  his  executive  duties.    But  I  have 
an>t'ier  answer  to  the  gentleman,  and  it  is,  that  the  po 
litical  caavass  for  the  office  of  Governor  in  this  State, 
large  as  it  is,  will  hardly  ever  depend  upon  the  Individ 
ual  exertions  of  the  candidates  themselves.    You  will 
have  an  organization  of  parties.    They  wiil  have  to  do 
as  the  gentlemau  from  Richmond  and  myself  in  the  1 
Presidential  campaign  of  1847  were  compelled  to  do —  i 
instead  of  electioneering  for  themselves,  they  will  have 
friends  to  electioneer  for  them,  and  I  will  insure  if  you  i 
have  a  democrat  and  a  whig  candidate,  that  you  will 
have  your  every  sixty  miles  square  man,  your  every  < 
county  man,  ready  to  meet  an  opponent.    And  the  Lord  < 
help  some  of  the  candidates  when  they  come  into  con-  l 
tact  with  some  of  these  little  county  court  lawyers.  ! 
You  start  your  candidate  on  going  the  rounds  of  the  i 
State,  and  he  must  be  a  very  big  man  who  sets  himself  < 
up  to  take  the  place  of  Governor.    Every  thing  is  ex-  i 
pected  from  him  by  the  crowd  but  nothing  from  little  < 
Jack — somebody — no  matter  who — who  happens  to  rise  1 
to  oppose  him,  and  little  Jack  whips  the  candidate  in  I 
their  estimation.    And  he  will  do  it  a  great  deal  better 
than  the  Governor  incumbent  would  do  it  for  himself,  t 
I  know  something  of  the  arts  of  electioneerers  and  the  i 


gentleman  does  also.     This  is  all  fal-lal — I  say  it  with 
due  respect  to  the  gentleman  from  Halifax — this  idea 
i  that  you  must  make  a  man  ineligible  because  he  will  not 
have  a  fair  chance  to  electioneer  for  himself.    That  rea- 
!  son,  I  repeat,  will  not  do. 

Mr.  TRIGG.   I  may,  perhaps,  be  peculiarly  situated 
in  regard  to  this  particular  question.    It  happens  to  be 
,  my  particular  good   fortune  to  concur  with  both — 
the  gentleman  from  Halifax  and  the  gentleman  from 
i  Accomac.    [Laughter.]     That  being  my  position,  it 
i  will  appear  very  evident  to   this  committee,  that  this 
proposition,  as  it  now  stands,  from  the  report  of  the  Ex- 
;  ecutive  Committee  or  either  of  the  amendments  which 
,  have  been  proposed  by  other  gentlemen  to  the  section 
of  that  report,  cannot  meet  my  views.    I  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  asking  whether  it  would  now  be  in  order  to 
move  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  that  section. 
The  CHAIR.    It  would  not  be  in  order. 
Mr.  TRIGG.    When  this  question  before  the  commit- 
mittee  shall  be  disposed  of,  and  the  question  shall  be  de- 
cided, will  it  then  be  in  order  ? 

The  CHAIR.  It  will  then  be  in  order. 
Mr.  TRIGG.  Before  the  question  is  put,  I  will  read 
my  proposition,  in  order  to  show  the  committee  that  I 
am  right  in  stating  my  agreement  with  both  the  gentle- 
man from  Halifax  and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac.  It 
is  the  proposition  that  was  submitted  the  other  day  by 
the  gentleman  from  Rockbridge,  (Mr.  Letcher,)  and  is 
as  follows  : 

Strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
report  of  the  Executive  Committee,  as  follows : 

"  1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor.    He  shall  hold  his  office 

for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  day 

of  next  preceding  his  election,  and  he  shall  be  in- 
eligible to  that  office  after  his  second  term  shall  have  ex- 
pired, and  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  service." 
And  insert  the  following  in  lieu  thereof,  viz  : 
Sec.  1st.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Common- 
wealth shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor,  to  be  elected  by 
the  qualified  voters.  He  shall  hold  his  office  for  two 
years,  to  commence  on  the  day  of  next  suc- 
ceeding his  election.  He  shall  be  re-eligible  for  a  second 
term,  and  ineligible  to  any  other  office  during  his  term 
of  service. 

If  the  office  of  Governor  is  to  be  for  a  term  beyond  two 
years, — if  it  is  to  run  to  the  length  of  tour  years,  as  is 
submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Halifax,  then  I  would 
go  for  making  him  ineligible  for  a  second  term.  If,  how- 
ever, the  office  is  not  to  be  held  for  such  a  length  of  term 
of  service  as  four  v ears,  and  the  term  shall  be  of  short 
duration,  then  I  would  go  for  making  the  office  eligible 
for  a  second  term.  I  am  therefore  with  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax  in  his  principle  of  ineligibility  after  the  sec- 
ond term;  and  on  the  other  hand  I  am  Avith  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac,  in  his  principle  of  re-eligibility  after 
the  first  term.  This  proposition  will  be  subaiittted 
either  by  the;  gentleman  from  Rockbridge  or  myself  at 
the  proper  time. 

The  CHAIR.  There  are  two  propositions  before  the 
Committee.  The  first  is  from  the  gentleman  from  Pitt- 
sylvania, (Mr.  Tredway,)  as  follows  : — strike  out  the 
words  "  and  he  shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office,  after  his 
second  term  shall  have  transpired,"  and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof,  the  words  "  and  he  shall  not  be  eligible  to  that 
office  for  the  term  next  succeeding  that  for  which  he  was 
elected."  The  other  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico.  He  proposes  to  strike  out  the  words  "to 
that  office  after  his  second  term  shall  have  expired,  and," 
and  to  insert  nothing.  As  these  are  propositions  of 
comparison,  and  as  the  friends  of  the  measure  have  the 
right  to  perfect  it  before  a  final  motion  to  strike  out,  the 
question  must  first  be  taken  on  the  amendment  submitted 
by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania.  If  that  fails,  then 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  comes  up. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  the 
motion  that  the  committee  now  rise  and  report  progress, 
and  ask  leave  to  sit  again.    I  am  myself  not  in  a  situa* 


94 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tion  to  give  ray  vote  upon  the  pending  question.  The 
debate  has  come  on,  I  confess,  unexpectedly  to  me,  and 
I  hope  the  committee  will  agree  to  rise  and  report  pro- 
gress. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  rose, 
reported  progress,  and  had  leave  to  sit  again. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Norfolk  county.  I  move  that  when 
the  Convention  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  to-morrow 
morning  at  12  o'clock. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  move  that  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yf  hat  was  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Norfolk  ? 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  made  my  motion  expressly  to 
override  that  gentleman's. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Conven- 
tion adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 


SATURDAY,  February  1,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

ALLOWANCE  OF  AN  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  BRAXTON  offered  the  following  resolution,  and 
it  was  adopted. 

Resolved,  That  Alfred  T.  Thornton  be  allowed  $2  per 
day  for  attending  to  this  Convention,  and  the  building  in 
which  it  holds  its  session. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  STRAUGHAN,  the  Convention  re- 
sumed the  consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
(Mr:  WATTS  of  Norfolk  in  the  chair,)  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR.  When  the  committee  rose  yesterday 
there  were  two  propositions  before  it ;  one  offered  by 
Mr.  Tredway,  who  moved  to  strike  out  the  words 
"  and  he  shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office  after  his  second 
term  shall  have  expired,  and  to  any  other  office  during 
his  term  of  service,"  from  the  first  section  of  the  first 
article,  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words.  "  and  he 
shall  not  be  eligible  to  that  office  during  the  term  next 
succeeding,  nor  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of 
service."  The  second  proposition  was  by  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  who  moved  to  strike  out  in  the 
same  section  the  words,  "  to  that  office  after  his  second 
term  shall  have  expired,"  so  that  the  sentence  would 
read :  "  he  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of  four 
years,  to  commence  on  the  day  of  next  suc- 
ceeding his  election,  and  he  shall  be  ineligible  to  any 
other  office  during  his  term  of  service."  These  are  the 
propositions  before  the  committee.  The  question  will 
be  first  on  the  proposition  submitted  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Trebway.) 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  was  on  my  motion  that  the  commit- 
tee rose  on  yesterday,  and  as  by  parliamentary  usage  I 
am  entitled  to  the  privilege,  I  will  address  some  obser- 
vations to  the  Chair.  I  do  not  rise  for  the  purpose 
of  making  what  is  properly  called  a  speech ;  but  simply 
for  the  purpose  of  throwing  out  some  suggestions  to  the 
members  of  this  body  in  regard  to  the  propositions 
which  now  occupy  their  attention.  I  confess  that  when 
the  report  of  the  Executive  Committee  was  promul- 
gated, and  I  had  an  opportunity  in  common  with  others 
to  see  the  result  of  their  labors,  I  was  much  disappointed. 
I  might  say  and  with  perfect  sincerity,  I  was  much 
pained,  to  find  that  they  had  in  fact  recommended  the 
election  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  Commonwealth 
for  a  period  of  eight  years — an  election  originally  for  four 
years,  with  a  re-eligibility  for  a  second  term.  If  I  was 
pained  and  surprised  at  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of 
the  committee,  imagine  how  much  more  I  was  pained 
and  astonished  when  I  found  that  ray  honorable  col- 
league who  sits  before  me,  (Mr.  Botts,)  was  in  favor  not 
only  of  the  election  of  this  great  officer,  who  is  to  be 


commander-in-chief  of  all  the  military  force  of  the  State 
for  this  long  period  of  eight  years,  but  desirous  that  he 
might  be  rendered  eligible  to  this  high  office  even  dur- 
ing a  long  life.  That  there  should  in  his  opinion  be  no 
limitation  whatever,  none,  to  the  eligibility  of  a  solitary 
individual  to  the  office  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  Vir- 
ginia !  And  the  opinion  of  my  honorable  colleague  was 
endorsed  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise.) 
That  gentleman  took  the  position  that  the  man  who  is 
to  be  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  navy  and  of  the 
army  of  the  State,  who  shall  have  the  power  to  pro- 
rogue the  Legislature,  and  to  convene  it, — in  whom  is  to 
be  contained,  in  a  word,  the  entire  executive  power  and 
patronage  of  the  State, — that  this  individual,  who  will 
be  possessed  with  the  entire  executive  power  of  the 
State,  and  the  military  power  of  the  State  to  boot,  shall 
be  eligible  to  this  office  for  life.  I  have  had  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  people  of  Virginia  in  the  various  sections 
of  it  for  no  very  short  time,  and  I  can  say  with  entire 
sincerity,  that  I  never  have  met  with  the  first  individual 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  school  of  the  black  cockade 
federalist,  who  desired  that  the  office  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  should  be  continued  in  the 
same  individual  during  the  life  of  that  individual  j  and 
so  also  have  I  never  met  the  first  individual  in  Virginia 
who  desired  that  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  Virginia  should 
be  elected  for  a  period  like  this,  or  that  he  should  be  el- 
igible for  a  period  like  this.  Now,  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  eligibility  for  a  second  term  is  tantamount  to  an 
election  for  the  second  term,  unless  the  incumbent  in 
office  has  been  guilty  of  some  flagrant  misdeed.  I  take 
it  for  granted  if  the  Governor  of  Virginia  is  eligible  for 
a  second  term,  that  unless  some  charges  of  the  most  se- 
rious character  are  made  and  proved  upon  that  man, 
that  he  will  be  selected  by  the  people.  Yes,  I  go  fur- 
ther and  express  it  as  my  humble  opinion,  that  even 
with  these  charges  against  him,  considering  the  vautage 
ground  which  that  officer  will  occupy,  the  patronage 
which  he  will  wield  in  his  position,  will  give  him  a  most 
decided  advantage  over  his  competitors  ;  unless  indeed 
he  shall  either  be  most  unfortunate,  or  shall  have  per- 
petrated some  act  against  the  public  interest  of  an  out- 
rageous character.  This  officer  is  to  be  continued  in 
office  for  a  period  of  eight  years.  Is  this  reform  I  Is  this 
republican  reform  ?  Is  this  the  reform  that  the  people 
of  Virginia  expect  at  the  hands  of  this  Convention?  I 
have  never  known  any  gentleman  upon  the  hustings  to 
declare  that  it  was  his  intention  to  advocate  an  election 
of  the  Governor  for  a  period  like  this.  When  our  fore- 
fathers of '76  formed  a  constitution,  they  provided  that 
the  chief  Executive  officer  should  be  elected  annually — 
it  is  true  by  the  Legislature — but  elected  annually.  And 
after  he  had  been  elected  for  three  successive  terms  of  a 
year  each,  he  was  then  by  that  constitution,  (the  work 
of  such  men  as  Henry,  and  Mason,  and  Jefferson,)  declared 
to  be  ineligible  to  that  office  for  a  like  period  of  three 
years.  So  in  regard  to  the  Convention  of  '29  and  '30, 
the  distinguished  men  who  formed  the  constitution  of 
that  period,  provided,  it  is  true,  that  the  Governor  should 
be  elected  for  three  years,  and  not  annually,  but  they 
took  care  to  provide  also  that  after  having  served  those 
three  years,  he  should,  in  like  manner  be  ineligible  for  a 
period  of  three  years.  Was  it  ever  known  by  any  gen- 
tleman here  or  elsewhere,  that  it  wak  a  cause  of  com- 
plaint, in  regard  to  the  authors  of  this  constitution,  tha,t 
an  individual  was  rendered  ineligible  [to  the  office  after 
having  served  in  it !  Was  it  ever  complained  by  any 
man  in  Virginia  that  the  constitution  is  objectionable 
upon  this  score  ?  No,  I  venture  the  assertion  that  the 
complaint  was  never  made  ;  at  least  if  it  "Was,  it  never 
reached  my  ears.  An  argument  was  '  adduced  by  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  yesterday),  that  the  time 
might  come  when  it  would  be  of  necessity  proper  to 
continue  the  same  man  in  office  ;  that  iche  circumstances 
of  the  State  might  require  as  a  matterf  of  necessity  that 
the  people  should  continue  the  man  who  occupies  the 
the  Gubernatorial  chair  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
manding the  army  if  need  be,  for  the  protection^  of  the 
State.    Did  it  not  strike  the  Convention  that  this  is  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


95 


plea  ever  resorted  to  by  tyrants.  Necessity  is  the  ty- 
rant's plea.  It  was  necessity  that  caused  Julius  Caesar 
to  pass  the  Rubicon.  It  was  necessity  that  compelled 
Napoleon  to  the  performance  of  many  of  his  ambitious 
schemes.  He  was  the  subject  of  fate.  Necessity  re- 
quired that  he  should  perform  this  act  and  the  other  for 
his  own  ambition  and  aggrandizement.  I  cannot  be- 
lieve the  time  will  ever  arrive  in  Virginia,  when  there 
will  be  but  one  man  in  the  good  old  Commonwealth  ca- 
pable of  acting  as  Chief  Magistrate,  and  if  need  be,  of 
commanding  our  armies.  I  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  occasion  will  ever  produce  the  means  and  the  man 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. I  cannot  then  accord  with  the  argument  of  neces- 
sity. I  cannot  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
that  this  Constitution  should  leave  the  door  open  to  the 
perpetual  election  of  the  same  individual,  because  for- 
sooth, there  may  be  no  other  man  than  he  who  occupies 
the  chair  of  State  for  the  time-being,  capable  of  guiding 
the  counsels  of  the  State.  Why,  I  ask,  should  we  de- 
part from  a  rule  which  has  worked  well  ?  Why  should 
we  depart  from  this  rule  prescribed  by  our  ancestors 
of  1776,  and  prescribed  by  our  cotemporaries  of  1829, 
'30  in  regard  to  this  principle  of  ineligibility  after  a 
length  of  time  in  service  ?  Why  should  we  introduce 
upon  the  present  occasion,  this  new  principle  ?  Is  it  to 
give  to  a  particular  portion  of  this  good  old  Common- 
wealth perpetual  control  of  the  other  portion  of  it  ?  I 
listened  yesterday  for  some  reason  that  could  operate  on 
my  mind  why  this  essential  change  should  be  made,  but 
I  heard  none.  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  exam- 
ine into  the  various  constitutions  of  the  other  States  of 
this  Union,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  this 
principle  has  been  engrafted  into  those  constitutions.  But 
I  have  a  recollection  of  some  few  of  them,  and  I  am  very 
elear  that  this  principle  of  perpetual  eligibility  is  en- 
grafted in  none  of  them.  I  believe  if  it  be  engrafted  on 
this  Constitution  which  we  propose  to  make,  and  which  I 
trust  we  shall  make,  that  it  will  be  entirely  new.  Will 
a  constitution  that  authorizes  the  chief  Executive  Mag- 
istrate to  be  elected  for  life  be  a  republican  constitution? 
Is  it  a  republican  principle  that  the  Executive  Govern- 
ment shall  be  vested  in  the  Chief  Executive  officer  for 
life  ?  I  repeat,  is  it  a  republican  principle  ?  It  certainly 
was  not  so  considered  in  1776.  It  certainly  was  not 
considered  a  republican  principle  by  such  men  as  Mason, 
Grayson  and  Henry  and  those  sages  who  prepared  the 
venerable  instrument  which  has  been  so  much  praised, 
and  with  justice.  It  is  an  instrument  which  has  been 
regarded  by  many  as  forming  the  wisest  set  of  rules 
ever  prescribed  for  the  government  and  the  regulation 
of  any  people.  This  compliment  bestowed  upon  the 
Constitution  of  1776  did  not  eminate  from  ordinary 
men.  The  opinions  of  the  excellence  of  that  constitu- 
tion were  expressed  by  such  men  as  Marshall,  Randolph 
and  Leigh,  and  a  host  of  others  of  equal  or  approximating 
celebrity  and  estimation  in  this  country.  But  I  am  in 
favor  of  the  principle  of  re-eligibility.  Iam  in  favor  of 
submitting  the  public  servant  to  the  people,  who  have 
conferred  the  office  upon  him.  I  am  in  favor  of  his  be- 
ing required,  or  of  his  having  the  privilege,  of  passing  in 
review  before  those  whose  appointment  he  has  exercised, 
because  I  am  satisfied  that  this  will  be  an  incentive  to  a 
proper  discharge  of  his  duties.  I  am  satisfied  that  the 
man  who  is  elected  Chief  Magistrate  for  two  years,  and 
who  knows  that  he  may  be  re-elected  for  two  years 
more,  will  be  induced,  excited  and  stimulated  to  exert 
himself  in  office  that  he  may  deserve  the  approbation 
and  approval  of  his  constituents.  If,  however,  you  ex- 
tend this  principle  to  an  unreasonable  extent,  if  vou 
render  the  individual  thus  re-eligible  for  life,  you  intro- 
duce a  counter  principle  ;  a  principle  utterly  at  war  with 
the  one  of  rotation  in  office,  and  subversive  of  other 
principles  dear  to  liberty,  and  which  never  will  be  sur- 
rendered in  my  humble  judgment,  by  the  people  of  Vir- 
ginia. The  gentleman  who  addressed  you  on  yesterday 
said  that  this  principle  of  the  one  term  was  the  work  of 
small  politicians.    Yes,  and  that  at  Washington  the  at- 


tempt to  limit  the  Presidency  to  a  single  term  was  the 
machinations  of  small  politicians.  Who  those  small  pol- 
iticians were  or  are,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture,  unless 
they  were  such  men  as  Clay  and  Cass,  and  Polk,  and  some 
others  who  have  reached  the  Presidency.  I  fancy  these 
gentlemen— small  politicians  if  they  be— are  in  favor  of 
the  one  term  principle ;  and  I  believe  that  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  who  are  also  small  politicians— for 
there  are  hardly  any  of  us  who  are  not  politicians  of  some 
calibre  or  other,  [laughter,]  require  this  rotation  in  office. 
They  believe  in  the  principle  of  rotation. 

But  it  was  said  by  one  or  both  .of  the  distinguished 
gentlemen  who  addressed  you,  that  Washington  himself 
had  given  his  sanction  to  the  principle  of  re-eligibility. 
It  is  true  that  Washington  gave  his  sanction  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  re-eligibility.  That  great  and  good  man,  it  is 
true,  served  a  second  term,  and  he  retired  with  every 
honor  which  it  was  possible  that  a  human  being  could 
receive  at  the  hands  of  other  human  beings.  But  sup- 
pose that  this  great  and  good  man,  instead  of  setting  the 
great  and  good  example  that  he  did  set  in  retiring  from 
the  office  of  President  after  the  second  term  had  expired, 
had  held  on  to  the  office,  and  continued  in  it  to  the  day 
of  his  death,  think  you  that  other  politicians  would  not 
have  followed  in  his  footsteps  ?  Think  you  that  his  suc- 
cessors would  not  have  endeavored  to  follow  in  his  co- 
lossal strides  ?  My  life  upon  it,  that  even  the  small  poli- 
ticians alluded  to  by  my  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Botts) 
and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  would 
have  attempted  to  have  continued  themselves  in  the 
office  of  President  for  life.  That  very  clause  which  ren- 
ders the  President  eligible  for  life,  constitutes,  as  far  as 
my  information  goes,  one  of  the  strongest  objections  to 
the  Federal  Constitution.  It  may  be  said  of  it— it  was 
said  of  it— that  the  wise  men  who  formed  this  Constitu- 
tion established  the  principle  of  eligibility  for  life  ;  but  let 
gentlemen  cast  back  their  recollections  to  the'  period 
when  the  Constitution  was  formed  and  the  circumstan- 
ces under  which  it  was  formed.  Let  them  cast  back  their 
minds  to  the  proposition  made  in  the  Convention  of 
1787.  If  I  do  not  mistake  the  history  of  that  period, 
there  was  a  party  in  these  United  States  at  that  time' 
not  only  disposed  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
should  be  eligible  to  office  for  life,  but  that  he  should  be 
elected  outright  for  life.  That  party  was  the  party  of 
Hamilton.  There  were  others,  it  is  true,  who  were  dis- 
posed that  the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 
elected  for  a  very  short  period,  and,  if  my  information  is 
not  at  fault,  there  were  some  who  proposed  even  that  he 
should  be  elected  for  a  single  year.  The  constitution  of 
these ^  United  States  then  was  like  every  other  constitu- 
tion in  this  respect,  a  matter  of  compromise.  It  was 
a  compromise  between  the  extremes  of  the  two  parties, 
and  the  principle  of  re-eligibility  was  adopted.  It  was 
said,  however,  that  this  re-eligibility  was  intended  only 
for  the  first  President  of  the  United  States— how  that 
may  be  I  am  not  prepared  to  answer.  If  it  was  so  in- 
tended, that  great  and  good  man  gave  to  those  who  in- 
tended that  he  should  occupy  the  chair  of  state  for  life, 
that  wise  rebuke  which  he  was  so  competent  to  give. 
But  perhaps  an  argument  may  be  used  that  the  Govern- 
or, after  he  is  elected  for  a  term  or  two,  will  retire.  The 
Governor  of  Virginia,  with  a  salary  of  five  to  seven 
thousand  dollars,  with  all  the  delightful  patronage  which 
will  attach  to  that  office,  after  having  served  in  it  for  a 
term  or  two,  will,  like  Washington,  retire,  and  let  others 
succeed  him!  Let  us  test  this  by  a  little  experience. 
How  many  gentlemen  who  are  elected  for  a  term  of  two 
years  to  Congress,  retire  ?  How  many  gentlemen  who 
are  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  State  for  four  years,  re- 
tire? Why  just  so  many,  I  think,  as  are  compelled'  by 
the  votes  of  their  constituents,  and  no  more.  [Laughter.] 
And  so,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  will  be  in  regard  to 
the  gubernatorial  office.  The  Governor,  if  he  is  a  man  of 
address,  ability  and  liberality,  will  be  in  for  life;  unless 
the  proposition  of  your  committee  is  amended,  he  will  be 
in  for  eight  years  certainly,  a  period  twice  as  long  as  I 
am  prepared  to  say  any  man  should  occupy  the  office  of 


96 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


chief  magistrate  of  the  State.  I  would  consent  to  vote 
for  a  term  of  two  years,  and  render  him  eligible  for  two 
years  more ;  and  perhaps  I  might,  as  a  matter  of  compro- 
mise, extend  his  eligibility  to  a  third  term,  which  would 
give  him  a  period  of  six  years,  but  beyond  that  period  I 
cannot,  I  will  not  go.  If  I  am  forced  to  vote  between 
these  competing  propositions,  1  shall  be  compelled  to 
vote  for  that  which  confines  the  election  to  a  single  term 
of  four  years.  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  voting 
against  the  proposition  of  the  committee,  but  I  shall  vote 
against  the  proposition  of  my  honorable  colleague  (Mr. 
Botts)  with  even  more  pleasure  than  I  shall  against  that 
of  the  committee.  The  proposition  of  the  committee,  in 
my  humble  judgment,  is  bad  enough,  but  when  we  ex- 
tend that  proposition  to  an  election  for  life,  I  think  it 
will  be  found  unendurable. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  (In  his  seat.)  There  is  no  such  proposi 
tion  pending. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  gentleman  says  there  is  no  such 
proposition  as  would  extend  au  election  to  the  life  of  the 
incumbent.  I  certainly  did  not  understand  that  there 
was  any  restriction  in  the  proposed  amendment,  but 
that  the  incumbent  of  the  executive  office  might  under  it. 
be  elected  over  and  over  again  as  long  as  the  people 
thought  proper  to  elect  him.  I  have  found  it  necessary 
— I  have  thought  it  due  to  myself  to  say  this  much.  I 
have  been  very  little  prepared  for  the  discussion,  and 
there  are  many  other  tilings  that  might  be  said.  I  shall 
be  compelled  to  vote  against  the  proposition  to  amend 
the  report  of  the  committee  by  the  proposition  of  my  col- 
league, and  I  shall  vote  for  the  proposition  which  will 
confine  the  election  of  the  chief  magistrate  to  a  period  of 
four  years  only.  And  I  hope  and  trust  it  will  be  the 
pleasure  of  the  Convention,  that  it  will  be  its  wisdom,  to 
confine  the  term  of  the  chief  executive  officer  to  a  short 
period.  I  hope  and  I  trust  that  the  reflections  of  this 
committee  will  satisfy  them  that  it  is  necessary  to  an 
swer  the  public  expectation,  that  they  shall  remember 
that  this  Convention  was  convened  with  a  view  to  pro- 
pose reforms  that  should  render  the  Constitution  more 
republican  and  more  congenial  to  the  wishes  of  the  peo- 
ple. And  I  repeat  again,  there  is  no  man  who  has  ever 
expressed,  either  in  print  or  in  any  address,  coming  with- 
in my  cognizance,  a  desire  to  seethe  chief  executive  offi- 
cer elected  for  a  period  equal  even  to  eight  years,  not  to 
say  twelve  or  sixteen  years,  or  for  life. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  question  propounded  to  the  Con- 
vention by  the  report  of  the  Executive  committee,  if  I 
understand  it  correctly,  is  the  propriety  of  electing  your 
Governor  for  four  years  and  then  of  rendering  him  ineli- 
gible for  a  like  term  of  four  years.  I  believe  that  there  is 
wisdom  in  having  a  provision  in  your  Constitution  impo- 
sing this  restriction  upon  the  privileges  of  those  who 
might  be  successful  candidates  for  the  gubernatorial  of- 
fice. Gentlemen  have  argued  the  question  upon  the  sup- 
position that  to  put  a  restriction  of  this  kind  in  your 
Constitution  is  to  limit  the  rights  of  the  people,  but  I 
believe  it  to  be  only  a  restraint  upon  the  privileges  of 
those  who  may  be  your  Governors.  It  is  no  restraint 
upon  the  rightful  power  of  the  people,  and  cannot  and 
will  not  result  in  any  detriment  to  the  public  service. 
From  other  modes  of  thinking,  brought  about  by  the  ar- 
bitrary character  of  other  governments  and  the  limited 
rights  of  the  people  under  those  governments,  whenever 
the  proposition  is  propounded  of  putting  restraints  upon 
the  rights  and  the  powers  of  the  people,  the  relative 
proposition  is  at  once  suggested  that  the  object  is  to  in- 
vest the  government  with  a  power  which  is  taken  from 
the  people.  That  is  not  the  object  of  the  proposition 
now  before  the  Convention.  No  one  advocates  the  di- 
vesting of  the  people  of  any  lawful  authority  and  the  in- 
vesture  of  it  in  the  government.  On  the  contrarv,  it  is 
a  restraint  which  the  people  through  their  representa- 
tives are  voluntarily  determining,  if  adopted,  to  put  on 
their  own  action ;  for  the  interest  of  all  is  that  the  rights 
of  the  minority  shall  never  be  injured  by  the  capricious 
exercise  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  majority.  Is 
there  anything  in  this  like  a  violation  of  popular  rights  ? 


Are  we  disregarding  the  fundamental  principles  of  liber- 
ty and  republicanism  when  we  voluntarily  choose  to  re- 
strain our  own  powers,  and  when  experience  has  demon- 
strated  that  no  evil  can  result  from  that  voluntary  re- 
straint ?  What  is  the  objection  to  a  proposition  making 
your  governor  ineligible  ?  It  must  be  because  you  there- 
by put  an  improper  restriction  upon  the  privileges  of 
this  member  of  the  community,  or  you  sacrifice  the  pub- 
lic interest  by  doing  it,  or  you  put  an  unnecessary  re- 
straint upon  the  wishes  and  the  pleasure  of  the  majority. 
Either  one  of  these  causes  or  reasons  must  be  in  favor  of 
the  opposition  to  this  restraint,  or  some  of  them,  or  all 
of  them.  Wow,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  we  are  not 
here  for  the  purpose  of  legislating  for  individual  advan- 
tage. We  all  admit  that  this  Convention  has  been 
called  to  extend  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  people. 
And  how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  Not  by  removing  any 
wholesome  restraint  which  has  heretofore  been  imposed 
upon  the  exercise  of  power,  but  to  take  from  the  hands  of 
their  agents  powers  which  they  have  heretofore  exercis- 
ed, and  return  it  to  the  hands  of  the  people.  I  am  in 
favor  of  the  election  of  the  chief  magistrate  by  the  peo- 
ple. The  election  has  been  heretofore  made  by  the  le- 
gislature, and  the  reform  I  understand  the  people  to  de- 
sire, so  far  as  I  have  any  knowledge  of  the  wishes  of  the 
people  on  that  point,  is  to  take  this  power  from  the  hands 
of  their  agents,  and  place  it  in  their  own  hands.  To  do 
this,  is  it  necessary  to  go  a  step  further  and  throw  off  all 
the  wholesome  restraints  which  heretofore  have  been 
imposed  upon  the  power  of  the  majority  by  the  consti- 
tution under  which  we  have  lived,  and  say  that  there 
shall  be  no  restraint  whatever  upon  the  power  and  wish- 
es of  the  people  ?  Land-marks  have  heretofore  existed, 
by  which  we  liave  been  guided  in  exercising  this  power, 
or  by  which  our  agents  have  been  guided  and  no  evil  has 
resulted.  Shall  we  strike  down  and  obliterate  those 
land-marks  and  say  that  the  people  shall  be  under  no  re- 
straint whatever,  and  may  exercise  the  power  even  capri- 
ciously if  they  choose,  without  any  wholesome  restraint 
which  may  be  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the 
minority  '?  No  gentleman,  I  suppose,  desires  that  there 
shall  be  removed  any  restraint  which  has  heretofore  ex- 
ercised a  wholesome  influence  in  protecting  the  rights  of 
the  minority.  If  then  no  one  will  say  that  it  is  ri^ht 
and  proper  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  that  this  restric 
tion  be  removed,  that  there  should  be  none  such  in  jour 
Constitution,  I  humbly  conceive  that  no  one  will  object 
to  a  resolution  of  this  sort,  in  order  that  individuals  may 
reap  the  benefit  of  its  omission.  No  one  has  asserted 
any  such  argument  as  that  in  favor  of  this  principle  of 
re-eligibility  to  any  indefinite  length  of  time. 

Well  then,  is  it  necessary  for  the  public  good  that 
your  chief  magistrate  should  be  re-elected  as  long  as  the 
people  choose  ?  If  there  were  even  benefits  resulting 
from  the  power  of  re-electing  him  as  often  and  so  long 
as  a  majority  of  the  people  might  desire,  and  there  were 
counterbalancing  evils  resulting  from  it,  it  would  still  be 
the  duty  of  the  Convention  to  restrict  their  power.  The 
gentleman  from  Accomac,  in  illustrating  his  position, 
made  a  reference  to  the  ordinary  occupations  and  em- 
ployments of  life,  which  it  did  seem  to  me  was  entirely 
inapplicable  as  an  illustration  of  the  question  now  be- 
fore this  committee.  The  gentleman  told  us  that  if  he 
had  a  man  in  his  employment,  who  had  faithfully 
exercised  the  powers  with  which  he  had  been  en- 
trusted for  the  promotion  of  his  employer's  benefit, 
that  the  fact  that  he  had  faithfully  discharged  his  du- 
ties for  a  length  of  time,  would  constitute  no  good  rea- 
son for  displacing  him  and  employing  some  one  else. 
Certainly  not ;  but  is  that  a  parrallel  case  with  the  one 
now  before  us  ?  There  a  single  individual  had  the  con- 
trol of  the  person  in  his  employment,  and  he  had  the 
power  of  making  him  carry  out  his  wishes,  and  of  see- 
ing that  he  attended  to  the  protection  of  his  interests. 
But  here  it  is  not  so.  Suppose  this  agent  had  beeniu  the 
employment  of  three  persons,  for  the  purpose  of  attend- 
ing to  a  business  in  which  all  were  interested,  but  in 
which  the  interests  of  each  of  the  seperate  parties  were 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


97 


conflicting  ;  if  a  majority  of  these  persons  thus  associa- 
ted together  in  business  had  the  unlimited  control  of 
keeping  this  agent  in  their  employ,  and  their  interests 
were  different  and  conflicting,  and  there  was  a  means 
by  which  the  interests  of  the  two  could  be  attended  to, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  interests  of  the  third,  would  there 
not  be  some  propriety  in  having  a  provision  in  the  arti- 
cle of  agreement  bv  which  this  agent  should  not  be 
employed  for  any  length  of  time  by  the  majority  of  the 
concern  ?  That  is  the  case  here.  The  people  of  Virginia 
form  a  sovereign  State,  but  that  sovereignty  is  made 
up  of  many  parts,  of  diversified  interests  and  feelings, 
and  of  conflicting  interests  and  feelings,  and  if  this  agent 
has  a  temptation  to  be  corrupt  in  his  employment,  by 
attending  to  the  interests  of  the  majority  at  the  expense 
of  the  minority,  will  not,  I  ask,  that  temptation  be  strong 
enough,  according  to  the  history  of  human  governments 
heretofore,  to  induce  him  to  violate  the  rights  of  that 
minority,  to  attend  more  exclusively  to  the  interests  of 
the  majority,  and  to  shape  his  conduct  so  as  to  retain 
the  support  of  that  majority  ?  The  essence  of  govern- 
ment is  power,  and  power  must  be  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  men,  who  are  ever  frail,  and  power,  consequently,  in 
their  hands  is  always  liable  to  abuse.  It  is  true  that 
we  are  not  here  exposed  to  the  same  dangers  to  which 
the  people  are  in  less  free  and  republican  forms  of  gov- 
ernment. In  a  monarchy,  the  interests  of  the  whole  may 
be  subverted  at  the  will  and  caprice  of  a  single  man,  and 
in  aristocracies,  the  rights  of  the  many  are  subservient 
to  the  wishes  of  the  few.  How  is  it  in  republican  gov- 
ernments ?  Why  the  rights  of  a  minority  may  be  sub- 
verted to  the  will  of  the  majority.  We  are  all  exposed 
to  that  danger.  The  evil  is  not  entirely  removed,  be- 
cause we  have  adopted  a  free  and  republican  govern- 
ment. There  is  still  power  lodged  somewhere,  which, 
if  not  properly  restrained,  may  result  in  injury  and  in 
detriment  to  the  rights  of  the  minority,  and  I  say  it  is 
wise  and  proper  in  framing  your  organic  law,  that  you 
should  have  a  reference  to  this  fact.  We  may  trust  that 
none  of  these  conflicts  of  feelings  and  interests  which 
may  place  temptation  in  the  way  of  the  man  who  is 
your  chief  magistrate,  may  occur,  but  no  man  can  tell 
when  they  will  come.  We  have  certainly  a  diversity  of 
feeling,  and  of  interest  too,  among  us,  and  the  only  ques- 
tion is,  whether  we  will  not  place  voluntarily  on  ourselves 
the  restraint  which  may  prevent  any  evils  from  growing 
out  of  this  office. 

This  is  not  a  new  principle.  It  is  one  which  has  always 
existed  in  the  Constitution  of  Virginia — the  first  written 
constitution  of  any  American  State — a  constitution  made 
by  wise""and  patriotic  men,  and  from  the  first  day  of  its 
existence  to  the  latest  there  has  been  no  evil  resulting 
from  it.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  people  of  Virginia 
have  ever  suffered  because  their  Governors  were  not  re- 
eligible.  Gentlemen  say  that  it  is  necessary  that  our 
Governor  should  be  re-eligible  in  order  to  incite  him  to 
the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duties  while  in  office.  Has 
that  been  necessary  according  to  the  history  of  the  gu- 
bernatorial office  in  Virginia  %  Has  it  not  heretofore  been 
a  stepping  stone  to  some  higher  office  ?  And  now  that 
the  election  is  to  be  made  by  the  people,  will  not  aspi- 
ring, ambitious  men  most  gladly  seek  it,  with  a  view 
that  they  may  become  popular  among  the  people,  in  or- 
der to  obtain  a  higher  office  ?  The  incentive  has  hereto- 
fore existed  to  induce  yeur  governors  faithfully  to  per- 
form their  duties,  so  far  as  virtuous  and  proper  incen- 
tives should  exist  for  that  purpose.  That  may  not  be 
exactly  the  case  in  regard  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  In  the  opinion  of  our  countrymen  general- 
ly, there  is  ao  higher  honor  to  be  sought  for  than  the 
Presidency.  A  man  who  has  obtained  that  high  post 
cannot  look  any  higher  for  a  round  to  climb  up  on  the 
ladder  of  ambition.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man 
who  is  elected  even  to  that  high  office,  needs  the  incen- 
tive of  the  prospect  of  re-election,  to  induce  him  to  dis- 
charge faithfully  his  duties.  I  have  that  faith  and  con- 
fidence in  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people,  and 
in  their  powers  of  judgment  and  discrimination,  to  W- 
7 


lieve  that  they  never  will  place  in  office  a  man  who 
could  only  be  iuduced  to  the  faithful  performance  of  his 
duty,  by  holding  out  to  him  the  reward  of  a  re-election. 
Whenever  you  get  a  man  in  office  who  can  only  be  in- 
duced to  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duty,  by  holding 
up  to  him  that  glittering  prize,  he  will  be  found  to  be 
one  who  will  sacrifice  the  rights  of  those  over  whom  he 
has  control,  to  serve  his  purpose.  If  there  is  not  virtue 
enough  in  him  to  induce  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  du- 
ty without  the  hope  of  a  re-election,  I  humbly  conceive 
that  there  is  very  little  confidence  to  be  placed  in  his 
action,  by  holding  up  any  prize  of  that  kind  for  the  pur- 
pose. Suppose — and  in  legislating  in  the  formation  of 
the  organic  law  of  our  State,  it  is  our  duty  to  look  to 
all  probable  contingencies — the  time  should  arise  when 
there  was  a  conflict  of  section  with  section  in  the  State 
— if  your  governor  was  to  be  re-elected,  would  there 
not  be  a  temptation  thrown  in  his  way  to  take  sides  in 
that  conflict  ?  Suppose  any  action  of  your  governor 
was  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  truth 
and  justice,  and  of  the  rights  of  any  portion  of  your  State, 
and  he  was  called  on  for  a  re-election.  Suppose  this  er- 
ror of  his,  this  violation  of  his  trust,  was  of  such  an  im- 
portance as  to  make  it  proper  that  there  should  be  a 
rightful  decision  of  the  people  of  his  action,  what  would 
be  the  proper  way  to  get  an  impartial  decision  of  the 
matter  ?  Would  it  be  for  the  governor  to  seek  a  re- 
election, to  enter  into  the  political  arena  and  to  enlist 
his  personal  friends  and  those  who  were  benefitted  by 
his  misconduct,  in  his  behalf,  in  order  to  secure  are-elec- 
tion, and  thereby  the  sanction  of  his  error  by  the  popu- 
lar judgment  and  feeling  ?  It  does  seem  to  me,  that 
when  these  conflicts  are  to  come  about,  and  when  it  is 
requisite  for  the  proper  working  of  our  republican  gov- 
ernment that  all  these  questions  should  be  justly  deci- 
ded, that  there  should  not  be  any  personal  appeal  made 
to  the  people  in  this  way,  by  those  who  have  committed 
these  misdemeanors,  if  we  want  to  have  a  proper  judg- 
ment upon  them.  I  believe  that  some  of  the  worst  er- 
rors which  have  found  countenance  and  support  among 
the  republics  of  this  country,  have  originated  in  the  ef- 
forts to  defend  the  character  and  to  maintain  the  policy 
of  those  who  have  called  upon  us  for  a  re-election.  In 
the  administration  of  your  federal  government,  no  chief 
executive  who  is  put  in  power  by  a  large  party,  and 
who  applies  to  that  party  for  a  re-election  after  having 
committed  what  is  thought  by  the  other  party  and  what 
the  unbiased  judgment  of  the  country  will  pronounce  to 
be  abuses  of  office,  will  fail  to  enlist  the  feelings  of  his 
party  in  the  support  of  those  abuses,  in  order  to  justify 
before  the  people,  that  call  for  a  re-election.  All  power 
here  is  vested  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  all  of  us,  that  the  only  way  to  secure  the 
permanency  of  our  institutions,  and  to  give  stability  to 
our  form  of  government,  is  to  preserve  pure  the  virtue 
of  the  people.  Corrupt  it,  and  your  government  and  ev- 
ery thing  connected  with  it,  becomes  insupportable.  And 
the  only  way  to  preserve  it  pure  and  incorrupt,  is  never 
to  allow  any  man  who  is  identified  with  a  great  and 
popular  party,  to  come  before  the  people  for]a  re-election, 
who  will  have  to  have  his  conduct  vindicated  by  them 
in  order  to  excuse  a  re-election.  The  feelings  of  his 
party  become  enlisted  in  his  behalf  and  they  necessarily, 
in  order  to  vindicate  his  conduct,  by  degrees  become  en- 
listed in  support  of  even  his  errors,  and  so  far  from  ben- 
efit, evil,  and  nothing  but  evil,  can  result  from  it. 

This  principle  for  which  we  are  contending,  is  no  new 
one.  Under  the  old  constitution  the  Governor  was  elect- 
ed annually,  could  serve  three  years,  and  then  was  ineli- 
gible for  three  years  after.  Under  the  present  constitu- 
tion he  serves  for  three  years,  and  then  is  ineligible  after 
that  time.  We  propose  but  to  keep  up  this  principle. 
There  have  been  no  complaints  against  it,  and  no  pul  blic 
inconvenience  resulting  from  it,  and  why  depart  from  a 
principle  engrafted  on  our  fundamental  law  by  wise  and 
patriotic  men,  when  there  is  not  a  solitary  complaint 
against  it  ?  We  are  told  by  gentlemen  that  they  are  in 
favor  of  the  most  unlimited  exercise  of  the  popular  voice. 


98 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Well,  we  are  not  for  taking  away  from  the  people  any 
power  at  all — we  are  not  for  restricting  them  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  power  further  than  to  say  that  here  is  a  public 
officer  who  has  been  once  elected  and  whose  re-election 
may  produce  evil,  when  no  good  can  possibly  result  from 
it — and  we  voluntarily  determine  that  we  will  not  exer- 
cise the  power  of  placing  that  individual  in  office  who 
may,  from  his  station,  use  the  powers  with  which  he  is 
invested,  to  the  injury  of  some  for  the  benefit  of  others. 
Are  we  at  all  depriving  the  people  of  their  rights  ? — are 
we  at  all  infringing  upon  any  great  principle  of  public 
liberty  ?  Is  it  necessary,  in  order  that  all  the  great  rights 
of  freedom  shall  be  secured,  that  the  people  should  have 
the  unlimited  right  of  electing  any  man  to  office  whom 
they  please  ?  We  have  imposed  other  restraints  and  no 
one  has  objected  to  them.  This  restraint  is  a  wholesome 
one,  has  heretofore  existed,  and  without  complaint  from 
the  people,  and  why  should  we  now  strike  it  out  ?  I  had 
supposed  that  the  progress  which  had  been  made  in  re- 
publican government,  and  in  the  development  of  the 
rights  of  man,  had  resulted  in  establishing  the  fact  that, 
the  power  of  the  government  ought  to  be  so  exercised 
as  to  protect  the  rights  of  all.  I  do  not  understand  that 
the  advancement  which  we  have  been  making  in  free  in- 
stitutions and  in  democracy,  requires  that  we  should 
give  the  majority  unlimited  power.  The  more  restraints 
that  you  throw  around  power,  the  better  it  is  for  the 
rights"of  all.  The  more  you  put  it  beyond  the  power  of 
the  government  to  oppress  any  man,  the  greater  advances 
have  you  made  in  liberty,  and  civilization ;  and  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  we  are  taking  a  backward  step  when  we 
say  that  a  majority  shall  not  be  limited  or  controlled  at 
all  in  the  exercise  of  power,  but  may  govern  as  will  or 
caprice  may  dictate.  It  is  the  part  of  a  wise  man  to 
throw  restraints  upon  himself.  He  is  liable  to  act  under 
excitement  and  from  sudden  impulses — and  for  his  own 
protection,  for  his  own  liberty,  and  for  his  own  welfare, 
he  imposes  restraints  upon  himself  to  prevent  such  sud- 
den action  under  sudden  excitements.  And  such  re- 
straints are  equally  proper,  wise,  and  salutary,  when 
voluntarily  imposed  upon  the  people  by  themselves. 
They  are  liable  to  act  under  sudden  excitement,  to  be 
influenced  by  passion,  and  by  sectional  jealousy,  and 
from  which  conflicts  may  spring  up,  no  body  can  tell 
when,  and  it  is  only  a  proper  restraint  for  them  to  say, 
we  will  not  exercise  a  power  which  may  result  in  injury 
to  some  portion  of  the  community,  and  which  is  not  ne- 
cessary for  the  benefit  and  protection  of  the  people.  I 
believe  that  no  good  can  result  from  this  inovation — it 
is  not  required  by  the  demands  of  the  people,  nor  by 
public  necessity  ;  and  I  will  not  consent  to  the  making 
of  an  innovation  merely  because  we  love  novelty  and 
are  unwilling  to  be  taught  by  the  experience  and  wisdom 
of  the  past. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  The  question  before  the  Conven- 
tion is  one  that  involves  a  very  important  principle. 
As  I  understand  it,  at  this  time  there  are  three  distinct 
propositions  before  the  Convention — one  proposition  is  to 
make  the  Governor,  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the 
State,  elective  for  four  years  and  re- eligible  for  a  second 
term,  and  ineligible  thereafter.  That  is  the  report  of 
the  executive  committee.  Another  proposes  to  make 
him  ineligible  for  a  second  term,  and  re-eligible 
thereafter.  And  a  third  proposes  to  do  away  with 
all  restrictions,  and  make  him  eligible  for  life,  if  it  shall 
be  the  pleasure  of  the  people  to  re-elect  him  so  long. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  The  gentleman  mi  stakes  the  proposition ; 
and  a  very  material  mistake. 

The  CHAIR.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
give  way  ? 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  Certainly  sir,— I  have  no  desire 
to  misrepresent  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  put  the  gentleman  right  as 
to  the  actual  proposition  before  the  Convention.  No 
proposition  has  been  submitted  to  this  Convention  to 
make  any  man  eligible  for  life.  It  is,  to  make  him  re- 
eligible  just  so  long  as  he  suits  the  people  better  than 
any  body  else. 


Mr.  MEREDITH.  Precisely  sir.  I  do  not  know  that 
I  have  misstated  the  proposition.  I  desired  to  say  that 
the  proposition  made  him  re  eligible  for  life,,  if  the  people 
choose  to  elect  him. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    No  sir — re  eligible  for  two  or  four  years. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  Well,  re-eligible  for  terms  of  four 
years,  for  life,  if  the  peojne  choose  to  make  him  so — 
that  is  the  proposition.  I  would,  if  it  were  in  or- 
der, submit  another  proposition,  for  no  one  of  those 
now  before  the  committee  entirely  expresses  my  ideas 
upon  this  subject.  I  would  make  this  officer  wholly  in- 
eliible  after  the  expiration  of  one  term.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  origin  of  the  one  term  principle  is,  but  we 
were  informed  yesterday,  by  my  friend  and  colleague 
from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  and  by  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  that  the  principle  had  its  origin 
with  the  politicians  of  the  country.  That  may  be  so, 
but  whatever  its  paternity,  I  believe  it  is  a  principle 
which  has  met  with  entire  favor  with  the  great  body  of 
the  people  ;  and  I  am  led  to  this  belief  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  a  principle  which  has  been  adopted  on  more  oc- 
casions than  one,  by  both  the  great  political  parties  of 
the  country.  And  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  those 
sagacious  gentlemen  called  politicians,  would  be  willing 
to  go  before  the  people  of  the  country  with  a  principle 
inscribed  upon  their  banners  which  they  believed  to  be 
unpopular.  I  have  never  heard  any  public  dissent  to 
the  principle,  and  I  give  to  it  my  most  hearty  approba- 
tion. I  would  see  it  engrafted  upon  the  Constitution, 
for  I  believe  it  not  only  finds  favor  with  the  people,  but 
that  it  can  be  vindicated  upon  principle.  But  from  the 
indications  shown  by  the  Convention  yesterday,  I  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  offer  that  proposition.  The  indica- 
tions seemed  unfavorable  to  the  adoption  of  any  such 
principle,  and  in  this  condition,  I  shall  endeavor  to  sup- 
port the  one  that  comes  nearest  to  it ;  and  I  shall  there- 
fore support  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Ap- 
pomattox, (Mr.  Bocock,)  as  accepted  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredway,  )  which  is,  to  make 
the  Governor  ineligible  for  the  second  term — the  next 
succeeding  term.  I  believe  it  will  accomplish  very  nearly 
the  same  end.  If  we  can  once  get  him  out,  we  can  keep 
him  out. 

I  said  that  this  principle,  I  thought,  could  be  defended 
upon  sound  argument,  and  the  reasons  which  have  led 
me  to  advocate  it,  are  simply  these :  In  the  first  place, 
I  believe  it  will  secure  to  the  people  of  this  country  a 
pure  administration  of  the  executive  office.  J  believe 
that  you  will,  by  making  this  officer  ineligible  for 
a  second  term,  withdraw  from  him  all  motive  to  exercise 
the  functions  of  his  office  for  corrupt  and  intriguing  pur- 
poses. There  is  a  tendency  in  this  country,  and  particu- 
larly in  the  history  of  this  State,  for  the  last  four  or  five 
years,  possibly  ten,  to  accumulate  the  appointing  power, 
particularly  in  the  executive  department — to  put  pat- 
ronage there.  Well,  now,  it  must  strike  the  mind  of 
every  gentleman,  that  if  you  put  patronage  into  his 
hands  and  hold  out  to  him  the  inducements  of  a  re-elec- 
tion, that  you  present  to  him  the  strongest  possible  mo- 
tives to  abuse  that  patronage.  Do  you  believe  that  these 
appointments  will  be  made  with  any  view  to  the  public 
interest  ?  Do  you  not  believe  that  patronage  will  be 
bestowed  from  selfish  motives  and  that  self,  not  patriot- 
ism, will  be  the  controlling  principle  of  the  executive 
officer,  and  that  he  will  bestow  that  patronage  with  a 
view  to  insure  his  nomination  for  a  second  term,  and  se- 
cure his  election  upon  that  nomination  \  Gentlemen  who, 
doubt  that  fact  are  blind  to  the  instructive  teachings  of 
history,  and  the  practice  of  our  government.  It  may 
be  said  that  there  is  very  small  patronage  in  this  govern- 
ment. There  is  some  and  it  is  accumulating.  But  it  is 
not  merely  in  the  bestowment  of  patronage,  that  this 
officer  may  abuse  his  trust  to  electioneer  for  a  second 
term.  There  are  the  duties  of  that  office,  and  they  may 
be  performed  in  a  manner  and  with  a  view  to  attain  the 
same  end — his  own  selfish  purposes.  An  executive  act 
may  be  done,  an  executive  duty  may  be  performed, — not 
with  a  view  to  advance  equally  the  interests  of  this 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


99 


great  Commonwealth — but  with,  a  view  to  secure  the 
influence  of  some  influential  politician  in  the  country,  to 
please  and  gratify  some  particular  section  of  this  State, 
and  to  enlist  the  influence  of  that  individual  or  that  quarter 
of  the  State,  in  the  service  of  the  executive  officer  in  his 
canvass  for  re-election.  And  I  would  put  a  check  upon 
him,  not  merely  in  the  distribution  of  his  patronage,  but 
in  the  mode  or  manner  in  which  his  duties  themselves 
.are  to  be  performed.  But  it  is  not  only  that  you  will 
secure,  by  making  him  ineligible,  a  purer  administration 
of  the  executive  duties,  but  you  will  do  what  is  still 
more  important,  you  will  make  the  officer  independent. 
How,  I  understand  it  to  be  a  principle  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  republican  liberty,  that  you  >hould  keep 
separate  the  three  great  departments  of  government — 
the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial — and  it  will  be 
equally  conceded  as  a  principle,  that  you  must  not  only 
keep  them  separate,  but  in  order  to  preserve  that  sepa- 
ration, you  must  make  them  independent.  If  you  per- 
mit the  functions  of  the  executive  and  legislative  power 
to  be  under  the  control  of  any  one  body,  whether  that 
body  be  composed  of  many,  a  few,  or  one,  or  whether  it 
be  hereditary,  self-appointed,  or  elective,  if  these  func- 
tions come  under  the  control  of  the  same  body,  you  are 
living  under  a  tyranny,  and  the  most  despoticai  tyranny. 
That  is  conceded  by  all  statesmen  to  be  sound  republi- 
can doctrine.  If  that  be  so  then,  do  you  not  perceive 
that  by  making  this  officer  re-eligible,  you  may  put  in 
jeopardy  the  independence  of  the  executive  department  ? 
This  officer  is  ported  here  at  the  seat  of  government ; 
the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  assembles  here 
likewise  ;  a  re-nomination  preceding  a  re-election  is  to 
be  made  ;  and  how  do  you  suppose  that  nomination  will 
be  made  ?  It  will  either  be  made  by  a  legislative  caucus, 
or  it  will  be  made  by  what  is  termed  a  convention  of  the 
people,  in  which,  from  the  very  necessity  of  the  thing,  a 
large  portion  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  will  par- 
ticipate, from  the  fact  that  they  represent  constituencies 
very  remote  from  the  seat  of  government.  j^Tow,  the 
nomination  is  the  great  thing ;  and  it  is  to  be  made — 
gentlemen  cannot  close  their  eyes  to  this  fact — it  is  to  be 
controlled  to  a  great  extent,  by  the  members  of  this  co- 
ordinate department  of  the  government.  Do  you  not  per- 
ceive that  you  will  make  this  officer  liable  to  yield  the 
independence  of  his  department,  to  be  more  pliant  to- 
wards the  legislature  i  Do  you  think  that  when  that 
department  is  making  encroachments  on  his  rights  and 
his  duties,  and  thus  mingling  together  these  co-ordi- 
nate departments  of  the  government,  that  he  will  be  as 
ready  to  sound  the  alarm  of  danger,  when  that  nomina- 
tion which  is  to  secure  his  election  is  pending  before 
them  ?  Is  it  not  human  nature  that  he  will  be  more 
pliant  and  yielding  to  that  department  ?  I  would  make 
him  ineligible,  and  infuse  into  him  a  little  more  of  that 
sterner  stuff  which  is  necessary  to  resist  legislative  en- 
croachments. "We  know  that  this  legislative  department 
of  the  government  possesses  great  power.  Its  powers 
are  almost  indefinite,  and  incapable  of  being  defined. 
"We  know  that  the  tendency  of  that  department  is  to  en- 
croach upon  the  others.  "We  know  that  the  members  of 
that  department  represent  the  people.  They  feel  strong 
from  that  fact,  and  they  possess  from  their  talent  and 
influence,  great  means  of  influencing  public  sentiment. 
And  it  is  for  that  reason,  because  I  know  there  is  a  ten- 
dency in  that  department  to  encroach  upon  the  executive, 
that  I  would  make  that  officer  as  independent  as  possible, 
that  he  may  resist  that  encroachment.  But  if  you  make 
him  re-eligible,  do  you  not  make  it  his  interest  to  yield 
to  encroachment,  and  do  you  not  destroy  one  of  the 
most  effectual  checks  ever  placed  around  power ;  and 
that  is,  to  make  the  interest  of  the  officer  unite  with  the 
duties  of  the  office.  By  the  principle  of  re-eligibility 
you  not  only  surrender  that  check,  but  you  make  it  the 
interest  of  the  officer  to  surrender  his  duty,  and  not  per- 
form it.  I  would  avoid  that  state  of  things.  I  would 
make  this  officer  as  independent  as  possible ;  aud  I  would 
not  make  it  his  interest  to  yield  any  of  the  prerogatives 
and  rights  of  his  department.    There  is  another  reason  ; 


j  I  would  have  the  executive  officer,  in  conformity  with 
a  well  settled  principle  of  republican  government,  at  a 
I  stated  period  to  return  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
j  whence  he  was  taken,  that  he  might  there  share  and  par- 
ticipate in  the  effect  of  the  measures  of  his  administra- 
tion; that  he  might  feel  that  his  interests,  like  the  in- 
terests of  the  people,  were  involved  in  the  pure,  inde- 
|  pendent  and  proper  administration  of  the  executive 
i  office.  This  has  been  held  to  be  one  of  the  strongest 
j  checks  that  you  can  place  upon  any  officer.  Let  him  go 
j  back  to  the  people,  not  for.  a  re-election,  but  to  reside 
i  among  them,  to  share  and  participate  in  the  effect  of  his  ad- 
I  ministration ;  to  re-learn  a  knowledge  of  their  necessities 
and  to  recover  that  sympathy  with  their  feeling,  which 
power  and  exalted  station, — and  "the  pride  and  pomp  and 
j  circumstance  "  cf  official  dignity,  are  ever  calculated  to 
}  obliterate  from  the  minds  of  our  rulers.  I  would  bring  him 
j  back  there  for  that  purpose,  and  the  most  effectual  means 
I  of  seeming  that  end  is  to  make  him  ineligible  for  a  second 
j  term.  lS"ot  only  this,  but  why  should  you  place  it  in  the 
'  power  of  any  one,  because  he  happens  to  get  into 
this  place,  to  take  a  chance  of  holding  it  for  life,  at  suc- 
cessive intervals  of  four  years  ?  Why  do  that  ?  Do 
you  not  give  him  a  great  advantage  over  any  other  com- 
petitor for  the  same  office  ?  Do  you  not  clothe  him  with 
power  and  patronage  and  with  all  the  advantages  which 
station  ever  confers  ?  I  would  make  this  office  open 
alike  to  all  and  let  all  have  an  equal  and  fair  chance  at 
every  election,  of  securing  its  honors.  You  would 
arcuse  a  proper  and  commendable  spirit  of  emulation 
throughout  the  country".  You  would  not  have  that  dearth 
of  qualification  which  was  referred  to  yesterday  by  gen- 
tlemen, where  you  would  have  but  one  man  in  che  State 
properly  qualified  to  discharge  those  duties.  If  you 
make  this  officer  ineligible  at  the  expiration  of  each 
term,  do  you  not  invite  others  to  qualify  themselves  by 
a  proper  course  and  system  of  study,  to  prepare  them- 
selves to  discharge  the  high  executive  duties  of  the 
State  ?  "Why  unquestionably  you  do.  You  hold  out  to 
them  the  inducement  to  pursue  a  course  of  patriotism 
and  of  propriety  ;  that  course  which  makes  "  ambition 
virtue."  It  is  the  fair  and  legitimate  consequence  of  this 
rotation  in  office.  But  if  you  make  him  re-eligible, 
you  do  not  allow  the  competitor  for  this  office,  in- 
duced to  it  by  an  honorable  and  patriotic  ambition, 
to  enter  the  lists  upon  fair  and  equal  terms.  I  would 
have  that  done  by  rendering  him  ineligible.  "We 
are  told  that  if  we  make  this  officer  ineligible,  that 
whilst  you  may  possibly  make  him  a  little  more  indepen- 
dent, you  will  at  the  same  time  make  him  careless  in  the 
manner  in  which  he  will  perform  his  duties,  because  you 
remove  from  him  the  hope  of  a  reward  which  a  re-elec- 
tion would  hold  out.  There  is  nothing  in  that  argument 
when  it  is  closely  considered.  Those  who  have  looked 
into  the  discussions  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
constitution  will  recollect  that  it  was  the  great  argument 
used  there  in  favor  of  re-eligibility  ;  but  does  that  argu- 
ment apply  here  \  "Why,  as  my  friend  from  Goochland 
(Mr.  Leake)  just  now  remarked,  the  chief  officer  of  the 
j  United  States  is  the  highest  known  to  the  people  of  this 
country,  and  if  you  withdraw  the  hope  of  re-election, 
there  is  no  reward  that  the  people  can  confer  upon  him. 
I  Is  that  the  case  here  ?  Does  the  argument  apply  here  ? 
Is  the  state  of  facts  here  the  same  now  as  they  were  in 
I  the  Union  when  that  constitution  was  adopted?  There 
are  other  offices  in  this  State,  both  state  and  federal, 
which  the  people  can  bestow,  of  equal  dignity  with  the 
executive ;  and  if  he  performs  the  duties  of  his  office 
faithfully,  if  he  shows  ability  and  displays  administra- 
tive talent  and  capacity,  is  it  not  the  very  strongest  re- 
commendation he  could  have  to  an  election  for  some 
other  office  \  And  thus,  so  far  from  taking  away  any 
j  hope  of  reward,  as  gentlemen  argue  who  say  that  making 
|  him  ineligible  will  do,  you  hold  out  the  strongest  induce 
I  ment  to  him  so  to  administer  the  office  as  to  acquire  a 
j  reputation  for  fitness  and  capacity  that  'will  secure  him 
some  other  post,  if  not  more  elevated,  at  least  as  much 
I  so.    There  is  nothing  in  this  argument  of  withholding 


100 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  hope  of  reward  when  closely  examined,  that  is  enti- 
tled to  one  moment's  consideration.    But  we  were  told 
further  yesterday  that  the  State  would  lose  the  great 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  his  experience.  That  doctrine 
of  experience  is  the  strong  argument  that  is  ever  pressed 
in  favor  of  hereditary  governments,  monarchical  or  aris- 
tocratic.   It  is  the  great  argument,  and  one  of  the  great 
advantages  which  the  advocates  of  that  form  of  govern- 
ment say  it  possesses  over  a  republican  government. 
And  one  of  the  defects  of  a  republican  government,  if  it 
has  any  defects,  is  the  inexperience  of  its  officers.    It  is 
an  inherent  defect.    It  springs  directly,  and  is  insepara- 
ble from  the  great  principle  of  rotation  in  office,  which 
is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  free  government.  When- 
ever you  surrender  that  principle  of  rotation,  you  sur- 
render republican  government ;  and  the  question,  the 
only  question,  which  this  argument  of  experience  pre- 
sents, is  simply  whether  it  is  hot  better  to  take  an  in- 
experienced officer  with  the  advantages  of  checks  and 
restraints  upon  the  abuses  of  power,  than  to  take  an 
experienced  one  with  all  the  disadvantages  that  cor- 
ruption and  intrigue  and  an  improper  abuse  of  that 
power  may  bring  upon  the   people.     That  is  the 
simple  inquiry,  and  the  lovers  of  republican  govern- 
ment have  adopted  that  form  of  government  notwith- 
standing the  defects  resulting  from  inexperience.  Now 
I  hope  I  shall  not  be  misunderstood  as  attributing  any 
thing  like  monarchical  or  aristocratic  sentiments  to  any 
gentlemen  on  this  floor.    I  do  not  believe  that  any  here 
entertain  such  sentiments,  and  I  do  not  mean  so  to  rep- 
resent them.    I  merely  mean  to  say  that  the  question 
which  the  argument  of  experience  presents  is,  whether 
it  is  not  better  to  have  a  little  less  experience  with  more 
checks  than  more  experience  with  greater  liability  to 
abuse  of  power  ?    It  is  for  the  Convention  to  decide. 

The  argument  most  relied  on  yesterday  was,  that  this 
is  a  check  or  rather  a  restriction  upon  the  rights  of  the 
people.  Now  I  submit  that  is  not  the  question.  Why, 
as  my  friend  from  Halifax  (Mr.  Edmunds)  very  properly 
said,  is  not  the  Constitution  itself,  every  article  of  that 
Constitution,  and  every  clause  of  every  article,  a  restric- 
tion upon  the  rights  of  the  people  ? — a  wholesome  and 
necessary  restriction,  which  they  voluntarily  impose 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  other  and  greater  benefits  ? 
Why,  gentlemen  who  present  that  argument  themselves, 
go  for  some  restrictions,  for  some  qualifications,  and  every 
qualification  and  every  restriction  which  the  Constitution 
imposes,  is  a  limitation  upon  popular  rights  and  popular 
sovereignty.  And  the  simple  difference  between  the  gen- 
tlemen who  use  that  argument  and  ourselves  is,  that  they 
think  it  is  right  to  impose  restrictions  in  some  instances — 
we  in  others.  Therefore,  it  is  merely  a  question  of  ex- 
pediency and  not  of  principle.  They  are  the  advocates 
of  certain  qualifications,  which  are  restrictions,  and  there- 
fore it  is  merely  a  question  how  far,  to  what  extent,  you 
will  impose  these  restrictions.  But  I  deny  that  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  restriction  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  That  is 
not  the  question  which  this  principle  of  in-eligibility  pre- 


should  be  ineligible  after  having  served  one  term,  or  at 
least  that  one  term  should  intervene  before  he  comes 
before  the  people  for  a  re-election. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    Mr.  Chairman— 
_  Mr.  CLAIBORNE.    I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Hen- 
rico if  he  will  give  way  for  a  motion  that  the  committee 
rise. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  With  pleasure,  if  it  is  desired  by  the 
Convention,  I  do  not,  however,  wish  the  motion  to  be 
made  on  my  account. 

_  Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  move  that  the  committee  now 
rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose,  reported  progress,  and  Lad  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  DENEALE  the  Convention  then 
adjourned  until  Monday  at  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 


sents. 

power ;  that  is  the  question  which  it  presents.  Now  I  main- 
tain that  it  is  better  to  put  that  restriction  upon  the  abuse 
of  power,  than  to  surrender  the  restriction,  and  let  the 
people  judge  whether  an  officer  should  be  re-eligible,  at 
intervals  of  four  years— for  life.  I  understand  it  to  be 
a  sound  principle  of  free  government  that  you  should 
invest  your  rulers  with  as  little  power  as  possible,  and 
that  you  should  throw  around  that  little  all  the  checks, 
and  all  the  restrictions  which  are  compatible  with  the 
due  efficiency  of  the  office  itself.  Then  why  should  we 
surrender  any  check — any  restriction  upon  a  department 
that  may  be  abused  ?  We  are  organizing  a  department, 
the  power  of  which  may  be  used  for  corrupt  and  in- 
triguing purposes.  I  submit  that  it  is  better  to  retain 
the  principle  of  ineligibility,  and  thus  secure  abetter  ad- 
ministration of  office,  and  thus  make  the  officer  indepen- 
dent, and  at  the  same  time  more  familiar  with  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  people.  I  submit  that  sound  policy 
and  true  republican  principles  require  that  this  offioer 


MONDAY,  February  3,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Howell. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

Mr.  PENDLETON.  1  have  received  the  proceeding  s 
of  a  public  meeting  held  in  the  county  of  Giles  on  the 
13th  of  the  last  month,  touching  a  subject,  which,  in 
the  opinion  of  those  comprising  that  meeting,  is  among 
the  most  interesting  and  important  that  can  occupy  the 
attention  of  the  Convention.  I  have  risen  to  present 
them  to  the  Convention  and  to  ask  that  they  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  of  Representation,  to 
which  properly  they  belong.  It  is  well  known  that  this 
subject  of  representation  more  than  all  others,  disturbed 
the  harmony  and  distracted  the  councils  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1829;  and  without  intending  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree to  reflect  upon  the  members  of  that  most  distin- 
guished body,  I  cannot  forbear  to  remark  that  the  arbi- 
trary apportionment  adopted  by  them  has  in  my  opinion 
been  destructive  to  a  great  extent,  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  State.  I  would  state  that  this  meet- 
ing to  which  I  have  referred  was  composed  of  gentlemeii 
of  the  highest  respectability,  and  however  deeply  they 
feel  the  necessity  of  reform  in  the  judicial  and  othej 
departments  of  the  government,  they  regard  the  subject 
of  representation  as  in  point  of  magnitude  far  exceeding 
all  others,  and  upon  its  proper  adjustment  by  this  body 
will  depend  their  approval  of  all  other  questions.  It  ia 
not  and  should  not  be  disguised,  that  the  west  have  ever 
felt  most  seriously  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon  them  by 
the  arbitrary  apportionment  of  1829,  by  which  at  this 
time,  near  100,000  free  citizens  of  the  west  are  denied 
representation  in  the  councils  of  the  State.  I  will  not , 
because  it  is  not  the  proper  occasion,  enter  into  a  discus- 
sion of  this  subject,  and  I  have  barely  referred  to  it 
because  it  is  directly  connected  with  the  proceedings  of 
this  meeting. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  paper  as  follows, 


and 

It  is  a  question  of  restriction  upon  abuses  of  the  j  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis 

At  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Giles  county,  on  Mon- 
day, January  the  17th,  (that  being  court  day,)  on  mo- 
tion, Gapt.  William  A.  Howe  was  appointed  Chair .na  n 
and  David  M.  French  Secretary. 

The  object  of  the  meeting  was  explained  in  a  very 
happy  and  lucid  manner  by  Mr.  John  J.  Wade,  and  Ru- 
fus  A  French  of  Giles,  and  John  Echols,  Esq.,  of  Monroe, 
On  motion,  a  committee  consisting  of  John  J.  Wade, 
Rufus  A.  French,  Manleous  Chapman,  Col.  Richard  Ea- 
ton, and  Samuel  Bare  were  appointed  to  draft  a  pre- 
amble and  resolutions,  and  after  retiring  brought  in  the 
following  which  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

Whereas,  the  citizens  of  the  county  of  Giles,  in  con- 
nexion with  their  brethren  of  Western  Virginia,  have 
seen  with  deep  mortification  the  stubborn  stand  which 
has  been  taken  by  the  representatives  of  the  East,  in 
general  Convention  now  assembled,  against  the  right  of 
equal  representation  on  the  part  of  the  West  in  the 
councils  of  the  State ;  and  whereas,  they  have  also  seefi 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


101 


with  pride  and  delight  the  noble  position  which  the 
delegation  from  the  West  have  assumed  in  the  main- 
tenancy  and  defence  of  the  rights  of  freemen ;  therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  of  the  course 
of  the  Representatives  of  the  West  in  the  Convention 
now  in  session  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Basis  of  Representation. 

2.  Resolved,  That  while  we  most  sensibly  feel  the  ne 
cessity  of  many  radical  changes  in  the  present  Constitu 
tion  under  which  we  live,  we  yet  look  upon  the  reform 
in  the  Basis  of  Representation  as  paramount  to  all  oth- 
ers, and  one  upon  which  we  as  freemen  are  now  called 
upon  to  insist. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  pledge  ourselves  to  resist  to  the 
last  the  adoption  hereafter  of  any  Constitution  which 
shall  recognise  any  other  basis  of  representation  than 
that  founded  upon  the  free  white  population  of  the 
State. 

4.  Resolved,  That  we  respond  most  heartily  to  the 
sentiments  expressed  by  the  citizens  of  Monroe,  in  their 
meeting  held  in  the  town  of  Union. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting  o« 
published  in  the  papers  published  in  the  town  of  Finca*- 
tle,  and  that  the  papers  throughout  the  western  portion 
of  the  State,  and  the  city  of  Richmond,  be  requested  to 
copy  the  same. 

6.  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  requested  to  fur- 
nish to  each  of  the  delegates  in  Convention  a  copy  of  the 
foregoing  resolutions. 

On  motion,  the  meeting  adjourned. 

Wm.  H.  Howe,  Ch'n, 
D.  Mo  French,  Sec'y.  • 

THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &G. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.    It  will  be  remembered  by  the  Con- 
vention that  a  few  days  ago,  an  inquiry  was  submitted 
as  to  the  probable  time  at  which  the  Committee  on  the 
Basis  would  be  able  to  make  a  report.     In  response  to 
that  inquiry  I  stated  that  we  entertained  the  hope  of 
being  able  to  report  on  Saturday  last,  but  that  a  report 
might  be  expected  on  this  day  at  farthest  from  that 
committee.    I  felt  authorized  to  make  the  statement 
which  I  then  did,  from  my  own  knowledge  of  the  pro- 
gress of  business  before  that  committee,  and  by  com- 
munication with  the  members  of  the  committee.  Being 
disappointed  however  in  our  ability  to  make  a  report 
to-day,  it  has  been  deemed  proper  that  I  should  state 
the  cause  of  the  delay.     And  inasmuch  as  there  has 
been  much  dissatisfaction  at  the  slow  progress  of  busi- 
ness before  this  Convention,  I  may  take  this  occasion  to 
say,  that  there  has  been  no  delay  in  the  labors  of  the 
committee,  save  such  as  has  been  unavoidable.    It  will 
be  remembered  that  when  we  adjourned  in  October  last, 
the  expectation  of  all  was,  that  when  we  re-assembled 
on  the  6th  of  January,  complete  returns  of  the  census 
taken  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
together  with  all  the  other  information  needed  in  this 
work,  would  have  been  furnished  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Basis  and  Apportionment  of  Representation.  S( 
far  from  that  expectation  having  been  fulfilled,  the  re 
turns  of  the  Deputy  Marshals  .have  come  in  very  irregu 
larly  and  slowly,  and  it  is  only  within  a  short  time 
that  full  returns  of  the  census  have  been  received  at  the 
Auditor's  office,  and  it  was  not  until  last  Saturday  week 
that  the  committee  and  the  Convention  were  furnished 
in  printed  form  with  the  returns  of  the  census  of  the 
Commonwealth,    At  the  same  time  we  were  furnished 
with  a  statement  showing  the  amount  of  taxes  paid 
by  the  several  counties,  cities  and  towns  in  the  State. 
Now  it  will  occur  to  all  that  inasmuch  as  this  com- 
mittee has  been  directed  by  the  resolution  of  the  Con- 
vention, not  only  to  report  a  principle  of  representa- 
tion, but  also  to  make  an  apportionment  of  representa- 
tion, that  these  tables,  statements  and  information  were 
absolutely  necessary  to  make  any  progress  in  the  work 
of  the  committee.     Upon  one  basis  of  representation 
the  tables  of  the  white  population  were  absolutely  ne- 
cessary ;  upon  the  other  basis  spoken  of,  both  the  tables 


of  population  and  taxation  were  absolutely  necessa.  v , 
and  no  progress  could  be  made  on  the  work  of  appor- 
tionment without  the  presence  of  both.    I  will  state  to 
the  Convention  that  the  committee  of  twenty- four  as  soon 
as  it  was  furnished  with  the  materials  for  making  these 
apportionments,  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  a  sub-di- 
vision of  labor,  and  with  a  view  to  expedite  the  busi- 
ness with  which  they  were  engaged,  two  smaller  portions 
of  their  body  as  sub-committees  to  work  out  the  appor- 
tionments on  the  different  principles  of  representation 
which  were  advocated  in  committee.    These  sub-corn 
mittees  had  made  progress  in  their  work,  and  indeed 
had  gone  so  far  as  to  justify  me  in  making  the  statement 
which  I  did  to  the  Convention  a  few  days  ago,  as  to  the 
probable  time  at  which  a  report  might  be  expected.  But 
I  must  here  state  that  in  reference  to  taxation,  the  table 
furnished  by  the  auditor  did  not  furnish  the  amount 
of  taxes,  payable  upon  the  recent  assessments  of  the 
lands  of  the  Commonwealth.     That  was  furnished  in 
another  and  a  distinct  report  from  the  auditor's  office, 
and  to  enable  the  committee  to  ascertain  the  exact 
amount  of  taxes  paid  in  the  several  divisions,  and 
several  counties  of  the  Commonwealth,  they  had  to 
re-construct  and  form  tables  for  themselves.    Now  it 
will  occur  to  all  that  this  business  of  apportionment  is 
one  not  without  its  difficulties.    You  have  to  be  pos- 
sessed in  the  first  place  with  accurate  information  upon 
which  to  found  the  apportionment.    In  this  case  the  la- 
bors of  the  sub-committees  had  nearly  been  concluded, 
and  they  were  nearly  ready  to  report  to  the  general  com- 
mittee, when  errors  were  debated  in  the  tabular  statements 
on  which  they  had  acted,  which  required  in  justice  to  this 
body  and  to  the  general  committee  itself  that  they 
should  obtain  a  correction  and  recapitulation  of  these 
tables  of  population  and  of  taxation.    This  has  rendered 
it  necessary  for  them  to  go  over  the  work  again,  and 
this  necessity  has  produced  the  delay  winch  has  oc- 
curred.   Now  it  is  due  to  the  committee,  and  especially 
due  to  the  sub  committees,  each  of  them,  to  say  that  they 
have  labored  as  assiduously,  as  unremittingly  and  as 
anxiously,  to  produce  a  report  at  an  early  period  to  the 
Convention  as  any  body  of  men  ever  have  labored. 
There  has  been  no  reluctance,  no  delay,  no  indifference. 
We  hope,  however,  to  be  able,  and  we  feel  it  to  be 
our  duty  to  present  the  results  of  the  action  of  the  com- 
mittee in  as  correct  a  form  as  it  is  possible  to  attain. 
For  these  reasons  the  committee  has  not  been  able  to  re- 
port as  was  expected,  and  it  has  been  deemed  proper  to 
state  them  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Convention  and  injus- 
tice to  the  committee.  Without  designating  now  any  par- 
ticular day,  for  it  may  so  happen  that  disappointment 
will  again  occur,  I  will  only  state  that  there  is  eveiy 
reason  to  believe  that  the  committee  will  be  able  to  re- 
port within  a  very  few  days,  and  to  assure  the  Conven- 
tion that  they  will  make  that  report  at  the  very  first 
moment  that  they  are  enabled  to  do  so  satisfactorily  to 
themselves. 

CHANGE  OF  THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.    I  move  that  when  the  Conven- 
tion adjourn  to-day,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  the  hour  of  1 2 
o'clock  to-morrow  and  every  succeeding  day. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Mr.  BOTTS,  from  the  Committee  to  whom  was  refer- 
red the  Bill  of  Rights,  &c,  presented  the  following  re- 
port : 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  and  such  parts  of  the  Constitution  as  are  not  re- 
ferred to  any  other  of  the  standing  committees  of  the 
Convention,  have  had  the  subjects  to  them  referred  un- 
der their  consideration,  and  have,  in  part  performance  of 
the  duties  devolved  on  them,  agreed  to  recommend  to 
the  Convention  the  adoption  of  the  following  amend- 
ments to  the  Bill  of  Rights : 

1st.  To  strike  out  the  first  two  lines  and  part  of  the 
third,  down  to  the  word  "  first "  inclusive  of  the  fifth 
article,  and  insert, 


102 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


2.  "  That  the  Legislative,  Executive  and  Judicial  pow- 
ers of  the  State  should  be  separate  and  distinct,  and 
that  the  members  thereof,"  so  as  to  make  it  read 

3.  That  the  Legislative,  Executive  and  Judicial  pow- 
ers of  the  State  should  be  separate  and  distinct,  and  that 
the  members  thereof  may  be  restrained  from  oppression 
by  feeling  and  participating  in  the  burthens  of  the  peo- 
ple, they  should  at  fixed  periods,"  &c. 

2d.  Strike  out  the  first  part  of  the  second  line  in  the 
6th  article,  down  to  the  word  "  Assembly"  inclusive,  and 
insert, 

2.  "  That  all  elections,"  so  as  to  make  it  read  "  That 
all  elections  ought  to  be  free." 

With  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention,  I  beg  leave 
very  briefly  to  explain  to  the  understanding  of  the  Con- 
vention, the  amendments,  together  with  the  objects  to 
be  accomplished.  The  fifth  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
draws  a  distinction  between  the  legislative  and  executive 
and  the  judiciary  departments  of  the  government.  The 
Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights  have  indulged  the  hope 
and  expectation  that  the  distinction  drawn  in  regard  to 
these  several  departments  would  be  swept  away  by  the 
action  of  the  Convention  and  the  three  departments 
placed  on  the  same  platform.  The  section  proposed  to 
be  amended  reads  as  follows  : 

"  5.  That  the  legislative  and  executive  power  of  the 
State  should  be  separate  and  distinct  from  the  judiciary, 
and  that  the  members  of  the  two  first  may  be  restrain- 
ed from  oppression  by  feeling  and  participating  in  the 
burthens  of  the  people,  they  should  at  fixed  periods  be 
reduced  to  a  private  station,  return  into  that  body  from 
which  they  were  originally  taken,  and  the  vacancies  be 
supplied  by  frequent,  certain  and  regular  elections  in 
which  all  or  any  part  of  the  former  members  may  be 
again  eligible  or  ineligible  as  the  laws  shall  direct." 

The  committee  propose  to  strike  out  the  words  "that 
the  legislative  and  executive  power  of  the  State  should 
be  separate  and  distinct  from  the  judiciary,  and  that  the 
members  of  the  first ;"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  following : — "  That  the  legislative,  executive  and 
judicial  powers  of  the  State  be  separate  and  distinct, 
and  that  the. members  thereof,"  &c. 

It  will  then  become  only  necessary,  if  the  hope  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights  should  be  gratified,  that 
this  election  should  be  made  so  as  not  to  draw  the  dis- 
tinction which  now  exists. 

j|  The  committee  also  propose  to  amend  the  sixth  article 
which  reads  as  follows  : 

"  6.  That  elections  of  members  to  serve  as  representa- 
tives in  the  Assembly  ought  to  be  free,"  &c. 

They  merely  propose  to  alter  this  sentenee  of  the  ar- 
ticle so  that  it  shall  read,  "  that  all  elections  ought  to  be 
free  " — drawing  no  distinction  between  the  election  of 
representatives  in  the  General  Assembly  and  any  other 
representatives.  I  move  that  the  report  be  laid  on  the 
table  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

TRIAL  BY  JURY. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  am  further  instructed  by  the  commit- 
tee to  report  to  the  Convention  a  recommendation  that 
the  following  provision  be  incorporated  in  the  Constitu- 
tion: 

1.  That  in  all  prosecutions,  and  in  all  controversies 
respecting  property,  and  in  all  suits  between  man  and 
man,  where  the  subject  in  controversy  shall  exceed  the 
sum  of  twenty  dollars,  the  trial  by  jury  of  twelve  men 
shall  be  held  sacred  and  inviolable. 

I  move  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

mechanics'  lien  on  property. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  There  were  two  other  subjects  referred 
to  the  committee — one  a  petition  from  Hancock  county, 
praying  that  a  constitutional  provision  be  adopted  se- 
curing a  mechanics'  lien  on  property.  The  committee 
are  under  the  impression  that  the  subject  is  one  more 


properly  belonging  to  the  Legislature  than  to  the  Con- 
vention, and  they  ask  to  be  discharged  from  its  further 
consideration. 

THE  MATTAPONI  AND  PAMUNKEY  INDIANS. 

The  committee  also  ask  to  be  discharged  from  the 
further  consideration  of  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights 
be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report  if  any,  and  what  pro- 
visions are  necessary  to  be  inserted  in  the  new  Consti- 
tution concerning  the  Pamunkey  andMattaponi  Indians, 
or  any  other  remnants  of  the  old  tributary  Indians,  who 
may  be  still  remaining  in  the  commonwealth. 

The  request  of  the  committee  was  agreed  to  and  the 
committee  were  accordingly  discharged  from  the  further 
consideration  of  these  subjects. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  If  there  be  no  other  business  before  the 
Convention,  I  move  that  the  Convention  resolve  itself 
into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  report  of  the  execu- 
tive committee. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  accordingly  resumed  the  considera- 
tion in  committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  WATTS  in  the 
Chair,  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  executive 
department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  propositions  pending  to  be 
those  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr. 
Tredway,)  and  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,) 
on  the  subject  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Governor,  as 
read  yesterday — the  question  occurring  first  on  the  first 
mentioned  proposition. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  When  I  took  my  seat  in  this  Conven- 
tion I  took  it  with  very  strong  impressions  on  my  mind 
as  to  the  reforms  that  ought  to  be  made  in  this  constitu- 
tion of  Virginia,  which  we  have  been  called  together  by 
the  people  of  Virginia  for  the  purpose  of  amending  and 
improving.  But  so  far  as  it  was  possible  for  me  to  do 
so,  I  had  resolved  to  come  here  with  no  fixed  determina- 
tion by  which  I  was  to  be  bound,  in  opposition  to  and 
resistance  of  arguments  that  might  be  addressed  to  me 
by  gentlemen  from  various  parts  of  the  State.  I  came 
with  my  mind  open  to  conviction  upon  all  questions.  I 
came  with  one  determination,  and  that  was,  so  far  as  lay 
in  my  power,  to  be  a  warm  and  strong  advocate  of  popu- 
lar rights.  I  came  for  the  purpose  of  imposing  no  re- 
striction upon  the  popular  power  that  did  not  seem  to 
me  absolutely  and  indispensably  necessary,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  public  necessity  or  convenience  did  not  re- 
quire. I  planted  myself,  as  I  plant  myself  now,  upon 
the  broad  foundation  that  this  is  a  popular  government, 
and  consequently,  that  all  power  emanates  from  the 
people,  and  that  there  is  no  propriety  in  imposing  a  re- 
striction upon  that  power  that  cannot  be  shown  to  be 
necessary.  I  do  not  hold  that  it  devolves  upon  me,  or 
those  gentlemen  concurring  in  opinion  with  me,  to  show 
the  absence  of  the  necessity  ;  for  if  the  power  belongs 
by  right  to  the  people,  I  maintain  that  you  must  show 
that  a  necessity  exists  before  you  deprive  them  of  that 
power.  And  where  there  is  a  failure  to  show  it,  either 
upon  this  or  any  other  question  that  may  be  presented 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  I  shall  be  found 
among  those  who  will  stand  up  fearlessly  to  resist  it. 
Accordingly  when  the  first  report  presented  from  one 
of  the  standing  committees  of  this  Convention,  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Convention,  was  taken  up  for  de- 
liberation, I  felt  it  my  duty  at  the  outset  to  call  upon 
those  gentlemen  who  had  proposed  to  restrict  the  power 
of  the  people,  to  assign  to  me  some  sufficient  cause,  why 
I  should  be  expected  to  vote  with  them ;  with  my  mind 
then  open  to  conviction,  but  with  the  determination,  if 
they  faded  to  give  me  satisfactory  and  sufficient  reasons, 
that  I  would  resist  it.  Well,  I  asked  for  reasons,  and 
five  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  have  undertaken  to  assign 
reasons  why  thi3  power  should  be  restricted.  It  is  my 
disposition  and  it  is  my  determination  to  treat  every 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


103 


gentleman,  and  every  argument  that  is  addressed  to  the 
Convention  by  any  gentleman  upon  this  floor,  with  the 
most  profound  respect.  But  I  propose  to  examine  into 
the  reasons  that  have  been  assigned,  seriatim,  and  in  the 
order  in  which  they  were  presented. 

First  came  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr. 
Tredway.)  He  was  very  brief  and  laconic  in  the  reasons 
that  he  assigned — such  as  they  were,  however,  I  will  not 
treat  with  indifference  or  disrespect.  I  shall  notice  them 
as  I  go  along.  The  first  declaration  made  by  that  gen- 
tleman was,  that  no  person  elected  by  the  people  ought 
to  be  re-elected.  Indeed  sir  !  Indeed !  Is  it  true,  that 
no  person  elected  by  the  people  ought  to  be  re-elected  ? 
How  long  since  has  the  gentleman  made  that  discovery  ? 
*  Has  he  himself,  in  the  exercise  of  his  prerogative  as  a 
-citizen  of  the  State  of  Virginia  or  of  the  United  States, 
never  voted  for  the  re-election  of  any  man  who  had  been 
•elected  by  the  people  ?  Does  he  mean  to  apply  this 
general  and  sweeping  denunciation  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  select  their  own  representatives  to  members  of 
Congress,  to  members  of  the  Legislature,  to  your  audi- 
tors and  treasurers,  if  these  elections  should  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people,  and  to  your  judges,  too  ?  I  presume 
not ;  and  I  presume  the  declaration  was  more  broad  and 
sweeping  than  the  gentleman  himself  designed  it  to  be. 
And  I  draw  that  inference  from  a  remark  which  imme- 
diately followed  it,  and  that  is.  that  the  power  of  the 
President  would  be  prostituted  for  his  own  re-election  ; 
and  I  conjectured  that  the  gentleman's  mind  was  run- 
ning upon  federal  politics  and  not  upon  the  State  Con- 
stitution. Now  what  have  we  to  do  with  the  powers  of 
the  President  ?  "We  have  not  come  here  to  make  a  Con- 
stitution for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  en- 
large or  to  limit  or  to  restrict  his  powers  ;  and  there  lies 
the  source  of  the  difficulty  with  all  the  gentlemen  who 
have  addressed  the  Convention  on  this  subject.  They 
do  not  discriminate  between  the  power  of  the  President 
and  the  office  of  the  Governor  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Virginia.  Who  ever  heard  that  there  was  danger  in  office 
when  the  office  was  stripped  of  power  ?  It  is  the  accu- 
mulation of  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man  that  becomes 
dangerous  when  exercised  for  too  long  a  period  of  time. 
"Will  you  establish  the  principle  in  your  government 
that  all  those  persons  who  may  be  called  into  the  public 
service  by  the  popular  voice,  the  moment  they  have 
served  their  apprenticeship,  and  are  just  fit  to  become 
journeymen — the  moment  they  have  acquired  the  quali- 
fications that  are  necessary  to  enable  them  to  discharge 
their  duties  to  the  public  wisely,  discreetly,  judiciously 
and  satisfactorily — shall  be  turned  out  of  office  to  seek 
some  new  employment.  No  gentleman  in  this  Conven- 
tion, I  take  it  upon  myself  to  say,  is  more  opposed  to 
the  accumulation  of  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man,  and 
no  gentleman  in  this  Convention  is  more  opposed  to  the 
exercise  of  those  accumulated  powers  in  the  hands  of 
one  man  for  a  length  of  time,  than  I  profess  to  be.  And 
I  hope  that  in  the  course  of  my  public  service,  I  have 
displayed  that  hostility  and  opposition  to  the  exercise 
of  undue  power.  Do  you  propose  to  clothe  your  Gov- 
ernor with  the  power  with  which  the  framers  of  the 
■Constitution,  the  republicans  of  ancient  times — to  whom 
I  shall  presently  refer  for  the  benefit  of  my  worthy 
friend  who  sits  before  me,  (Mr.  Davis,) — conferred  upon 
him  ?  Do  you  propose  to  confer  the  same  powers  upon 
the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  that 
are  already  conferred  by  the  constitution  of  the  federal 
government  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  ? 
If  you  do,  then  I  will  abandon,  to  some  extent,  the  prop- 
osition that  I  have  submitted,  and  the  grounds  upon 
which  I  have  sustained  it.  Nor  would  I  then  impose  the 
restriction  that  is  proposed  either  by  the  executive  com- 
mittee, or  by  the  gentlemen  who  have  supported  that  re- 
port, in  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Appomattox,  (Mr.  Bocock.)  But*I  would  adopt  some 
limitation — and  here  I  beg  leave  to  draw  a  distinction 
between  wholesome  and  unnecessary  restrictions.  So 
much  for  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsyl- 
vania, (Mr.  Teed  way.) 


Next  in  order  came  the  gentleman  from  Halifax,  (Mr. 
Edmunds.)  the  chairman  of  the  committee  who  submitted 
this  report  He  spoke  of  the  restriction  of  age.  Well, 
now,  I  am  not  exactly  prepared  to  say  that  I  am  for  any 
restriction  as  to  age.  I  am  inclined  to  flunk  that  no  man 
under  the  age  prescribed  by  the  committee  is  likely  to  be 
selected  by  the  people,  unless  he  should  be  a  remarka- 
bly distinguished  gentleman — one  who  has  rendered  im- 
portant services  to  his  country,  one  who  has  given  evi- 
dence of  qualifications  not  to  be  found  in  any  one  of 
more  experienced  age.  But  the  gentleman  says,  that 
even  I  am  in  favor  of  the  prohibition  of  his  being  elected 
to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  service.  I  beg 
leave  to  say,  in  connection  with  this  remark,  that  my 
attention  had  not  been  specially  directed  to  the  report 
of  the  committee  until  at  the  very  moment  I  submitted 
that  proposition ;  and  then  it  was  induced  by  the  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox.  (Mr.  Bocock,) 
to  impose  a  still  further  restriction  than  that  which  had 
been  imposed  by  the  report  of  the  committee  itself.  The 
idea  embodied  in  my  proposition  very  naturally  at  once 
suggested  itself  to  my  mind — entertaining  the  views 
that  I  do  upon  this  principle — that  all  power  belongs 
to  the  people,  and  is  safer  to  be  entrusted  there  than  in 
the  hands  of  a  few ;  but  if  my  attention  had  been  more 
particularly  called  to  the  subject,  I  am  not  sure  but  I 
would  have  struck  out  that  provision  of  the  report  of  the 
committee.  I  do  not  know  precisely  what  is  meant  by 
the  terms  employed  by  the  committee,  that  he  shall  not 
be  eligible  to  any  other  office  during  his  term  of  service. 
I  can  hardly  suppose  that  it  wa3  contemplated  by  the 
committee  that  any  man  who  was  elected  Governor  of 
Virginia  would  undertake  at  the  same  time  to  fill  the 
office  of  Senator  of  the  United  States,  or  member  of  the 
Legislature,  or  member  of  Congress.  If  they  meant 
simply  to  say  that  he  shall  not  fill  two  offices  at  the  same 
time,  and  shall  resign  his  gubernatorial  chair  before  he 
accepts  of  any  other  office,  then  I  see  very  good  reasons 
why  it  should  be  adopted,  or  rather  I  see  no  reason  why 
it  should  not  be  adopted.  But  if  they  meant  to  say  that 
no  man  shall  be  eligible  during  the  term  for  which  he 
has  been  elected,  then  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  it.  Do 
you  mean  to  say  by  that  report,  that,  if  you  have  a  Gov- 
ernor of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  whose  services 
the  people  desire  to  transfer  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
United  States — a  man  so  superior  in  intellect- — a  man 
whose  integrity  is  so  fully  established  as  to  have  com- 
manded the  confidence,  not  only  of  his  own  State,  but  of 
the  other  States  in  this  Union — if  his  services  shall  be 
demanded  elsewhere  than  in  the  gubernatorial  chair  of 
Virginia — that  they  shall  be  restricted  in  their  choice  ? 
Why,  if  you  mean  that,  your  provision  is  nugatory.  You 
have  no  power  over  the  subject.  You  cannot  deny  to 
him  the  right  of  resignation,  and  when  he  has  resigned, 
what  power  have  you  over  his  acceptance  of  any  office 
in  the  federal  government  ?  You  may  control  him  in 
respect  to  the  State  government,  but  you  cannot  control 
him  as  to  the  federal  government,  because  the  federal 
constitution  prescribes  the  qualifications  of  its  officers. 

There  was  one  part  of  the  discussion  that  I  must  be 
pardoned  for  expressing  my  deep  and  profound  regret 
at  having  heard.  It  was  rather  the  conversation  that 
passed  between  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  and  my 
friend  from  Accomac,  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  election- 
eering for  this  office.  And  my  friend  from  Accomac 
seemed  to  think  that  electioneering  was  a  very  whole- 
some practice.  He  had  no  doubt  about  it.  I  know  very 
little  about  it.  [Laughter.]  I  have  been  a  long  time 
trying  to  learn;  but,  when  I  have  set  out  about  it,  as  I 
have  done  when  circumstances  required  it,  I  endeavored 
to  play  my  part  as  well  as  I  could ;  but  I  am  a  very 
incompetent  hand  at  it.  But  I  take  occasion  here  to 
say,  that  if  I  believed  that,  in  the  canvass  for  this  office 
of  governor  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia— a  State 
embracing  some  sixty-four  thousand  square  miles — is 
to  be  travelled  over  by  the  candidates  for  this  high, 
and  distinguished,  and  dignified  office,  -though  stripped 
of  its  power — if  I  believed  that  that  was  to  be  the  prac- 


104 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tice  under  the  new  constitution  of  the  State,  I  am  not 
very  sure  that  I  would  not  say  at  once,  let  the  election 
remain  where  it  is.  But  that  does  not  prevent  the  of- 
fice from  being  electioneered  for,  but  not  by  the  candi- 
dates themselves.  To  call  upon  a  governor  of  Virginia 
to  travel  over  a  hundred  and  thirty  odd  counties,  over 
64,000  square  miles,  to  make  speeches  in  every  county 
to  the  multitude,  in  order  to  have  his  views  understood. 
Why,  the  next  proposition  that  might  be  proposed, 
would  be  to  bring  down  the  presidential  candidates  into 
the  political  arena,  and  have  them  travel  over  the  dif- 
ferent States  of  the  Union,  and  electioneer  from  Cali- 
fornia to  Maine,  and  from  Maine  to  Florida !  Now,  I 
entertain  no  such  opinions.  I  would  not  vote  for  the 
man  who  would  descend  to  it.  Let  it  be  electioneered 
for  as  other  high  offices  are  electioneered  for,  by  the 
frieDds  of  the  parties.  Gentlemen  need  not  be  afraid 
that  the  governor,  and  the  course  he  shall  adopt,  will  be 
misunderstood;  for,  if  he  is  worthy  of  them,  he  will 
have  friends  to  advocate  and  to  explain  that  course  of 
conduct  intelligibly  and  understandiugly  to  the  people. 
And  in  this  way  the  office  will  be  electioneered  for,  as 
the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  is  election- 
eered for.  But  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  says  he  is 
in  favor  of  permitting  him  to  serve  four  years  in  the 
gubernatorial  chair,  and  then  the  next  four  years  he 
may  spend  in  electioneering,  in  order  to  be  re-instated 
at  the  expiration  of  that  four  years.  I  should  say  the 
governor  of  Virginia  would  be  pretty  constantly  occu- 
pied— very  unprofitably  employed — if  you  elect  him 
for  four  years,  and  then  turn  him  out  four  years  more, 
that  he  may  devote  that  time  to  electioneering  in  order 
to  get  back  again. 

I  differ  with  my  friend  from  Accomac  in  another  par- 
ticular, and  that  is  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of 
sheriff.  If  I  understood  him  correctly,  he  expressed 
the  opinion  that  all  the  officers  of  government  should 
be  re-elected  with  the  exception  of  sheriffs,  which  was  a 
peculiar  office.  What  peculiarity  there  is  in  this  class 
of  officers  to  make  them  ineligible,  I  am  unable  to  per- 
ceive. If  my  friend  from  Accomac  can  give  me  any 
good  reasons  why  they  should  not  be  re-eligible,  when 
the  question  comes  up,  1  shall  be  disposed  to  agree  with 
him  ;  but  if  he  does  not,  he  must  pardon  me  for  expres- 
sing the  opinion  that,  perhaps,  there  is  no  officer  in  this 
Commonwealth  who  ought  more  emphatically  to  be 
presented  for  a  re-election  than  the  sheriffs,  because  of 
the  peculiarity  of  the  service  which  they  will  have  to 
perform.  I  would  have  re-eligibility  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  responsibility  to  the  people,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  every  man  up  to  his  good  behavior, 
and  for  his  hope  of  re-election,  upon  the  fidelity  and 
ability  with  which  he  discharges  the  duties  of  that  office. 
It  is  official  responsibility  that  I  am  seeking,  in  connex- 
ion with  the  rights  of  the  people. 

Next  in  order  comes  my  very  highly  esteemed  friend 
who  sits  before  me,  (Mr.  Davis,)  and  I  scarcely  know 
whether  to  congratulate  my  colleague  or  to  sympathise 
with  him — whether  to  sympathise  for  the  pain  he  en- 
dured upon  hearing  this  proposition  submitted  by  one 
of  his  colleagues,  or  to  congratulate  him  on  that  infinite 
gratification  it  will  afford  him  to  vote  against  the  prop- 
osition. [Laughter.]  It  is  a  fair  offset — there  is  as 
much  pleasure  as  pain,  and  as  much  pain  as  pleasure. 
And  I  hope  my  friend  finds  himself  in  no  more  uncom- 
fortable position  between  the  two  than  before  I  submitted 
the  proposition.  [Laughter.]  But  he  is  excessively  alarm- 
ed at  the  enormous  power  that  is  proposed  to  be  given  to 
the  Governor  of  Virginia — the  power  with  which  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  is  to  be  clothed — and  in  searching 
in  his  own  mind  for  this  dangerous  power  that  is  to  be 
exercised,  what  is  the  result  ?  Why  the  military  power, 
the  military  power  of  the  governor  ?  And  do  you  pro- 
pose, says  my  colleague,  to  invest  the  Governor  with 
the  militrry  power  for  life  ?  Why,  of  all  the  powers  in 
this  government,  if  there  is  any  that  ought  to  be  con- 
ferred for  life,  it  is  that  very  military  power.  When 
you  appoint  a  Brigadier  General  or  a  Major  General  do 


you  limit  him  to  two  or  three  or  four  years  with  ineligi- 
bility, er  do  you  confer  it  for  life  ?  Is  my  colleague  pre- 
pared to  strike  the  epauletts  from  the  hero  of  two 
wars — the  conqueror  of  Mexico — not  only  the  first  Gen- 
eral in  this  age,  but,  in  my  opinion,  the  first,  at  least, 
that  has  lived  since  the  days  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  ; 
a  man  who,  in  a  military  capacity,  has  rendered  more 
distinguished  services  to  his  country  than  any  other 
since  the  days  of  Washington  ?  Is  it  dangerous  to  per- 
mit him  to  continue  for  life  in  the  occupation  of  his 
high  office  of  Major  General  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States,  to  which  the  gentleman  in  his  mind  compares 
the  military  power  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia  ?  What 
military  power  has  he  ever  exercised  ?  I  know  of  none, 
I  never  saw  but  two  of  them,  as  I  recollect,  on  parade 
in  my  life,  and  one  was  my  friend  Captain  Tyler. 
[Laughter.]  Once  on  a  fourth  of  July,  when  he  was 
Governor  of  Virginia,  I  recollect  to  have  seen  him  re- 
viewing the  volunteers  in  the  capitol  square,  and  after- 
wards participating  with  them  in  a  sumptuous  dinner. 
The  other  was  the  venerable  father  of  my  almost  vener- 
able friend  from  Albemarle,  (Mr.  Randoph.)  I  well 
recollect  to  have  seen  him  on  a  similar  occasion,  on  the 
4th  of  July,  reviewing  the  troops,  and  accompanying 
them  down  to  Norfolk  to  accept  the  hospitalities  of  the 
volunteers  of  that  city.  This  is  about  the  extent  of  the 
military  power  exercised  by  any  Governor  of  Virginia. 
I  do  not  believe  that  Governor  Barbour,  during  the 
war,  exercised  any  military  power ;  that  he  ever  took 
command  of  a  regiment  or  any  other  body  of  soldiers. 
But  the  Governor  is  declared  by  the  constitution  of  Vir- 
ginia to  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of 
the  State  of  Virginia.  Is  not  my  friend  very  apprehen- 
sive of  this  extraordinary  executive  power  as  comman- 
der of  the  navy  as  well  as  the  army  of  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia ?  [Laughter.]  The  military  power  is  all  that  my 
friend  is  afraid  of,  and  he  did  not  advert  to  one  single 
civil  power,  with  which  it  is  proposed  to  clothe  him  ;  be- 
cause, in  truth,  there  was  nothing  to  which  he  could  refer 
as  at  all  dangerous  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  any  man  elec- 
ted every  two  or  four  years  by  the  people. 

The  gentleman  said  he  had  never  known  any  other 
than  a  black  cockade  federalist  to  advocate  this  contin- 
uance in  power,  or  re-eligibilty  to  office.  I  do  not 
know  whether  my  friend  meant  that  as  a  fling  at  me  or 
not ;  but  let  me  take  occasion  to  say  to  him,  and  to  this 
Convention,  that  of  all  the  men  he  ever  looked  upon  in 
his  life,  I  have  the  least  regard  for  names,  and  especial- 
ly for  names  given  to  parties. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  the  gentleman  will  give  way  for  an 
explanation, — 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  did  not  mean  any  fling  at  my  hono- 
rable colleague.  Far  from  it.  I  intend  to  fling  nothing 
at  any  gentleman  in  this  Convention.  I  was  endeavor- 
ing to  meet  an  argument  drawn  by  my  colleague,  and 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  in  favor  of 
the  principle  of  the  continuance  in  office  of  Governor 
for  life,  by  the  example  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  And  I  said  in  that  connection  and  no  other, 
that  I  had  never  known,  during. my  acquaintance  with 
politics, not  very  short,  any  other  than  a  black  cockade 
federalist,  support  or  claim,  for  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  a  continuance  in  office  for  life.  That  is 
what  I  said,  without  intending  any  fling  at  any  one. 
By  the  black  cockade,  I  meant  simply  an  ultra  federal- 
ist of  the  Hamiltonian  school.  I  wonder  the  percep- 
tions, the  keen  perceptions,  of  my  colleague,  did  not 
draw  the  distinction. 
Mr.  BOTTS.  Mr.  Chairman- 
Mr.  WISE.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  as  I 
have  been  alluded  to  in  this  gentleman's  reply,  allow 
me  to  make  an  inquiry  of  his  colleague,  (Mr.  Davis.) 
If  I  understood  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  who  is 
now  in  his  seat,  when  he  made  that  remark,  he  applied 
it  not  only  to  an  office  elective  for  life,  but  to  an  office 
re-eligible  during  life. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


105 


Mr.  BOTTS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  must  stop  my  col- 
league, he  is  taking  my  speech  out  of  my  mouth. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  WISE.  The  question  I  was  going  to  put  to  the 
gentleman  who  represents  the  metropolitan  district  of  the 
State,  (Mr.  Davis,)  was,  if  he  had  ever  read  the  yeas  and 
nays  in  the  Convention  that  adopted  that  very  principle 
in  the  Constitution — 

Mr.  BOTTS.    Still  trespassing  on  my  manor. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Will  my  colleague  allow  me  to  an- 
swer? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Certainly,  I  will  do  anything  out  of 
courtesy,  but  I  am  fearful  that  one  reply  will  lead  to 
another,  and  thus  I  shall  be  cut  out  of  my  speech. 

The  CHAIR.    Does  the  gentleman  yield  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Do  I  understand  my  colleague  that  he 
will  yield  the  floor  that  I  may  answer  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac  ?  (Mr.  Wise.) 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Not  if  the  gentleman  is  going  into  a 
regular  speech.  He  will  have  an  opportunity  to  answer 
him  at  another  time.  His  speaking  now  would  produce 
irregularity.  I  am  always  ready  to  give  way  to  gentle- 
men, but  it  is  evident  that  this  sort  of  bye-play  between 
gentlemen  will  cut  off  much  that  I  propose  to  say.  I 
should  not  have  taken  it  amiss  if  my  friend  had  intend- 
ed a  fling  at  me,  or  to  brand  me  as  a  black  cockade  fe- 
deralist, because  I  know  he  would  not  have  done  it  in  a 
spirit  of  unkindness,  and  I  never  take  offence  at  anything 
not  intended  in  unkindness.  This  fling,  I  am  sure,  was 
not  at  me  nor  at  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  but  at  the  arguments  introduced  by  both.  Is 
my  colleague  aware  who  these  black  cockade  federalists 
were  that  favored  re-eligibility  to  office  ?  They  were 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  1789.  Gen.  Wash- 
ington himself  was  one  of  those  black  cockade  federal- 
ists who  sustained  the  right  of  the  people  to  re-elect 
just  as  long  as  they  desired  his  services  as  the  President 
of  the  United  States — an  officer  clothed,  as  it  has  turned 
out  since,  with  almost  kingly  powers.  He  was  one,  to 
whom  I  certainly  understood  the  gentleman  to  apply 
the  term,  as  by  his  example  he  countenanced  the  doc- 
trine of  re-eligibility, — and  if  he  did  not  so  apply  it,  his 
argument  is  without  meaning. 

Mr.  DAVIS,  (in  his  seat.)  I  referred  to  those  who 
advocated  re-eligibility  for  life. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  No  one  ever  proposed  to  re-elect  for 
life.  That  idea  then  had  no  bearing,  no  reference  to  the 
question,  because  the  proposition  was  simply  to  give  to 
the  people  the  power  of  re-electing  as  long  as  they  de- 
sired, not  for  life,  but  for  a  term  of  years — which  is  not 
yet  fixed  in  your  Constitution — whether  it  shall  be  two 
or  four  years.  James  Madison  was  another  of  those 
black  cockade  federalists  who  went  for  the  same  power 
in  the  federal  constitution.  My  colleague  could  not  dis- 
pense to  me  a  higher  distinction — one  that  would  fill 
every  aspiration  of  my  heart — than  to  place  me,  side  by 
side,  with  such  black  cockade  federalists  as  George  Wash- 
ington, James  Madison,  and  John  Marshall.  I  will  take 
occasion  here  to  say  in  regard  to  this  black  cockade  fed- 
eral party,  what  I  believe  every  candid  intelligent  gen- 
tleman is  prepared  to  admit,  that  it  was  not  only  the 
most  intelligent  but  the  most  honest  party  that  has  ever 
existed  in  this  country.  They  committed  errors — no 
doubt  they  committed  errors — errors  that  I  have  repro- 
bated, and  errors  from  which  I  should  have  dissented  if 
I  had  been  in  public  life  at  that  time,  and  entertaining 
the  views  that  I  do  now.  But,  I  ask,  which  of  the  par- 
ties that  have  ever  been  in  power  has  not  committed  er- 
rors ?  And  that  party  that  has  been  longest  in  power, 
perhaps  would  contrast  unfavorably  in  regard  to  the 
abuses  of  the  power  which  they  have  exercised,  with  the 
Federal  party.  They  have  all  abused  power,  they  have 
all  done  wrong,  and  they  all  will  do  wrong.  Perfection 
does  not  belong  to  our  nature ;  and  until  you  can  find 
not  only  one  perfect  man,  but  until  you  can  find  a  per- 
fect party  of  men,  errors  will  be  committed,  no  matter 
what  party  is  in  power. 

My  colleague  asked  the  question  and  I  supposed  the 


question  was  intended  for  me :  Did  I  ever  know  any 
gentleman  on  the  hustings  to  declare  himself  in  favor 
of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  ?  I  will  answer  my 
colleague,  in  all  candor  and  sincerity,  that  I  did  not ;  nor 
do  I  mean  to  say  that  any  candidate  made  any  such  de- 
claration. I  was  not  here,  and  I  did  not  hear  a  single 
discussion  upon  this  subject.  I  did  not  regard  myself  as 
a  candidate  for  the  Convention,  for  I  was  called  upon  to 
know  if  I  would  be  a  candidate,  and  I  expressly  declined. 
But  when  called  upon  to  give  my  general  views,  I  did 
give  them ;  and  I  expressed  a  willingness  to  serve  if  it 
was  the  will  of  the  people  to  elect  me.  But  I  refused 
to  become  a  candidate,  and  therefore  I  did  not  hear  any 
gentleman  proclaim  upon  the  hustings  an  opinion  in 
favor  of  the  re -eligibility  of  the  governor — nor  do  I  gup- 
pose  the  question  was  discussed  at  all.  Such  views  as  I 
did  present  were  in  the  English  language,  in  print,  and 
in  terms  so  intelligible  that  I  was  not  under  the  neces- 
sity of  printing  them  i»  German.  [Laughter.]  I  am 
not  mistaken  in  believing  that  the  gentleman  printed 
his  address  in  German,  but  I  did  not  see  it,  and  if  I  had, 
I  would  not  have  understood  it,  for  I  do  not  read  that 
language.  [Laughter.]  But  will  my  colleague  permit 
me  to  ask  another  question  here  ?  Did  he  hear  any  gen- 
tleman upon  the  hustings  say  he  was  afraid  to  trust  the 
people  with  the  power  of  selection  as  well  as  of  elec- 
tion of  public  officers  ?  Did  any  gentleman  take  the 
ground,  either  in  English  or  German,  that  he  was  afraid 
to  trust  the  people  ? 

To  give  power  to  the  people,  I  understood  to  be  the 
object  of  all  those  who  ran  upon  what  was  termed  the 
radical  ticket ;  but  that  there  must  be  a  curtailment  of 
this  power,  that  they  only  had  the  right  of  electing,  and 
not  the  right  of  selecting,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  my 
colleague  did  not  hear  any  gentleman  say.  But  auy 
worthy  friend  inquires,  why  should  we  depart  from  the 
precedent  of  the  conservatives  of  the  convention  of 
1829— from  the  precedent  of  1776  and  of  1829  ?  Why 
should  we  depart  from  the  precedent  established  in  1776 
and  1829  ?  Why  !  does  the  gentleman  want  to  go  back 
to  the  constitution  of  1776  ?  or  does  he  want  to  go  back 
to  the  constitution  of  1829  ?  Did  the  gentleman  hear 
any  body  on  the  hustings  take  the  ground  that  we  should 
be  guided  by  the  precedent  established  in  1776  or  1829  ? 
Why,  what  is  the  object  of  the  assembling  of  this  Con- 
vention ?  Is  it  not  to  reform — to  change — to  improve 
upon  the  Constitution,  and  upon  the  principles  laid  down 
in  1776  and  1829  ?  Is  the  gentleman  prepared  to  go  back 
to  the  principle  laid  down  or  the  precedent  established 
in  1776,  confuting  the  suffrages  of  this  State  to  the  free- 
holders of  the  State  ?  Is  he  for  the  inequality  of  repre- 
sentation that  existed  upon  the  principles  established  by 
the  precedent  of  1776,  in  giving  to  the  county  of  Loudoun 
no  more  representation  upon  the  legislative  floor  tha- 
the  county  of  Warwick  ?  That  was  one  of  the  principles 
established  by  the  convention  of  1776,  and  which  I 
thought  the  convention  of  1829  was  designed  to  im- 
prove upon.  And  I  thought  this  Convention  was  designed 
to  alter,  modify,  reform,  change  and  improve  upon  the 
convention  of  1829.  But  it  seems  not.  It  seems  now, 
you  would  commit  a  monstrous  heresy  by  departing  from 
the  principles  of '76.  Suppose  we  confine  ourselves  to 
the  principles  of  1776,  in  regard  to  this  particular  office  ; 
does  the  gentleman  find  either  in  that  Constitution  of 
Virginia  or  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  any 
constitutional  restriction  upon  the  re-eligibility  to  office? 
On  the  contrary,  by  the  federal  constitution,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  is  liable  to  be  re-elected  just 
so  long  as  the  people  choose  to  re-elect  him  ;  and  in  re- 
gard to  the  office  of  governor  of  Virginia,  by  the  consti- 
tution of  '76,  he  was  re-eligible  for  three  terms.  Now, 
let  me  beg  this  Convention,  and  my  honorable  friend  par- 
ticularly, to  remember  the  difference  between  1776  and 
1851.  What  were  the  republicans  of  1776  ?  ]S"o  gen- 
tleman in  this  Convention  entertains  a  higher  degree  of 
respect  and  veneration  for  those  venerable  and  sage  men 
than  I  do.  But  what  were  they  but  an  off-shoot,  as  it 
were,  from  the  most  aristocratic  government  that  ever 


106 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


existed  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  They  made  great  and 
giant  strides  towards  republican  principles,  but  they  fell 
far  short  of  the  work,  and  they  expected  us  who  come 
after  them,  to  perfect  that  work.  What  were  the  powers 
exercised  by  the  old  colonial  governments  under  Great 
Britain  ?  They  were  almost  regal,  and  therefore  they 
felt  the  necessity  at  that  time  of  imposing  this  limitation 
of  the  election  of  Governors.  And  that  too  was  a  re- 
striction upon  the  legislature  that  made  the  appoint- 
ment, and  not  upon  the  people,  to  whom  the  election  is 
now  to  be  transferred.  Is  the  gentleman  prepared  to 
stand  up  here  in  this  Convention  and  advocate  the  pre- 
cedent established  by  the  convention  of  1116,  or  of  1829, 
either  in  regard  to  your  county-court  system — another 
branch  of  the  aristocracy — a  self-constituted,  self-crea- 
ted and  self-perpetuating  body,  without  one  particle  of 
responsibility  to  the  people  ?  That  was  a  remnant  of 
aristocracy.  The  magistracy  of  that  day  was  Composed 
of  the  aristocracy,  who  thought  it  unsafe  to  trust  the 
people  with  too  much  power.  They  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  go  the  full  length,  just  emerging,  as  it  were, 
from  a  royal  government  of  Great  Britain,  and  laboring 
to  establish  a  new  government  of  their  own,  based  upon 
general  and  fundamental  republican  principles.  It  was 
not  to  be  expected  for  one  moment,  that  so  suddenly 
they  were  to  carry  out  all  the  great  reforms,  that  it  might 
reasonably  be  anticipated  their  successors  would  aid 
them  in  carrying  out.  No,  if  my  friend  is  right  in  sup- 
posing that  it  was  not  considered  republican  in  1776  to 
authorise  the  people,  in  the  majesty  of  their  power,  to 
make  a  selection  of  their  own  candidate,  and  continue 
those  men  in  office  who  had  given  the  most  unqualified 
satisfaction;  neither  was  it  republican  in  '76  to  extend 
the  right  of  suffrage  to  any  other  than  a  freeholder.  Is 
the  gentleman  prepared  to  bind  himself  down  now  in 
this  Convention  to  the  precedents  established  at  that 
time  ?  I  presume  not— I  am  sure  not.  But  I  must  say, 
in  all  sincerity  to  my  friend,  if  I  am  to  interpret  his  fu- 
ture action  here  by  the  course  of  remarks  in  which  he 
indulged  on  Saturday,  I  must  be  permitted,  in  all  kind- 
ness, to  say,  that  he  mistook  the  ticket  upon  which  he 
run,  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  this  Convention.  [Laugh- 
ter.] There  was  a  conservative  and  a  radical  ticket,  and 
I  think  he  mistook  the  ticket.  He  should  have  been  upon 
the  conservative  ticket  if  lie  desired  to  go  back  to  the 
principles  of  1776.  [Laughter.] 

But  the  gentleman  remarked  upon  "  the  small  politi- 
cians requiring  rotation  in  office,"  and  ascribed  that  re- 
mark to  me.  I  did  not  say  so.  It  was  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac  who  spoke  of  small  politicians — the  word 
did  not  escape  my  mouth.  What  I  said  was  this  :  I  said 
that  I  never  had  been  an  advocate  for  the  one  term 
system,  in  regard  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States, 
because  I  believed  it  to  be  a  clap-trap  of  politicians, 
which  was  to  affect  the  rights  of  the  people — which  was 
a  violation  »f  popular  rights — and  which  was  never  in- 
tended to  be  observed  by  any  man  or  adopted  if  he  could 
get  into  office  himself.  The  rotation  in  office  that  they 
speak  of.  is  rolling  out  of  a  small  office  into  a  big  one, 
and  holding  on  to  that  as  long  as  they  can.  I  have  not 
designed  to  introduce  political  questions  here — I  mean 
the  present  political  questions  of  the  day — but  I  believe 
that  all  those  gentlemen  who  have  been  elected  to  the 
Presidency,  professing,  when  they  went  in,  a  desire  to 
confine  themselves  to  the  one  term  principle,  have  ex- 
erted themselves  to  the  utmost  extent  of  their  power, 
either  to  re-instate  themselves  or  secure  the  success  of 
their  partizan  friends.  And  I  believe  if  you  make  the 
occupant  of  this  office  of  Governor  ineligible,  that  you 
will  not  have  the  same  integrity  and  fidelity  to  the  pub- 
lic interests  in  the  discharge  of  the  gubernatorial  duties, 
as  if  you  held  out  to  him  the  prospect  of  reward  by  his 
re-election.  That  has  been  the  result  of  my  experience 
on  federal  matters. 

Next  in  order  comes  my  friend  from  Goochland,  (Mr. 
Leake,)  and  I  propose  to  give  a  brief  examination  of  the 
reasons  he  assigned  why  the  people  should  be  restricted 
in  the  power  of  selecting  their  candidates.    He  com- 


menced by  asking  what  is  the  object  of  restricting  eli- 
gibility to  office,  but  to  protect  minorities  against  the 
capricious  exercise  of  power,  and  he  spoke  of  conflicting 
interests  in  this  matter.    The  gentleman  does  think  then 
that  there  is  something  like  a  capricious  exercise  of  pow- 
er on  the  part  of  the  people  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that 
the  people  are  not  capable  of  self-government.    That  is 
the  question  to  which  he  comes.    You  deprive  the  peo- 
ple of  the  power  of  re-electing  one  to  office  who  has 
served  them  with  honesty,  fidelity,  and  the  highest  de- 
gree of  ability.    And,  as  there  are  conflicting  interests 
in  the  State,  the  gentleman  thinks  it  proper  to  restrict 
the  people  in  the  selection  of  their  candidates  for  fear 
there  will  be  a  capricious  exercise  of  power,  and  because 
it  is  necessary  to  protect  minorities  !    Well,  how  does 
he  propose  to  protect  minorities  against  this  capricious 
exercise  of  power  ?    This  State  is  now,  and  has  been  for 
many  years  past,  and  will  be,  perhaps,  for  all  time  to 
come,  divided  into  two  great  political  parties ;  and  are 
we  to  understand  the  gentleman  that  if  one  party  suc- 
ceeds at  the  first  election,  they  should  be  turned  out  of 
office,  in  order  to  give  the  minority  a  chance,  and  let 
them  elect  the  next  time' — the  majority  one  year,  and 
the  minority  the  next  year?    Is  that  his  idea?  How 
does  he  propose  to  protect  minorities  against  the  capri- 
cious exercise  of  power?    Why  if  the  majority  can  ex- 
ercise capriciously  this  power  by  the  election  of  a  man 
who  is  already  in  office,  cannot  they  as  capriciously  ex 
ercise  the  power  of  electing  another  man,  of  the  same 
party,  identified  with  him  in  every  particular,  and  who 
will  pursue  precisely  the  same  course  ?    What  is  his 
meaning  ?  What  am  I  to  understand  from  the  gentleman 
by  protecting  minorities  against  the  capricious  exercise 
of  power  by  the  people  ?    The  people  do  sometimes  ex- 
ercise power  capriciously,  and  I  am  rather  inclined  to 
think  that  I  have  been  a  victim  of  its  capricious  exer- 
cise, myself.    [Laughter.]    But  I  have  too  much  confi- 
dence in  the  people  not  to  believe  that  when  they  see 
their  error  they  will  correct  it.    [Renewed  laughter.] 
Now  my  object  and  desire,  as  I  said  when  I  first  openel 
this  discussion  on  Friday,  is  to  take  power  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  politicians,  who  are  the  cause  in  ninety- 
nine  times  out  of  a  hundred  of  the  capricious  exercise 
of  power  on  the  part  of  the  people.    I  do  not  believe 
the  people  will  exercise  power  capriciously  as  the  gen- 
tleman says.    It  is  only  the  instrumentality  of  politi- 
cians, Who  are  not  laboring  for  the  public  good,  but  for 
their  own  advancement  in  public  life,  that  ever  induces 
the  people  to  exercise  power  capriciously.    The  gentle- 
man asks,  also,  if  there  was  ever  any  complaints  heard 
because  the  Governor  of  Virginia  could  not  be  re-elect- 
ed ?    Well,  I  will  answer  my  friend  by  saying  no;  I 
never  heard  any  complaint  that  the  Governor  was  not 
re-elected,  and  why  ?    Because  the  people  never  had  the 
power  of  electing  him  in  the  first  instance,  for  the  legis- 
lature of  the  State  exercised  that  power  for  them.  From 
the  formation  of  the  State  government  they  have  never 
been  indulged  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  selecting 
a  man  of  their  own  choice.    And  it  has  sometimes  hap- 
pened from  his  election  by  a  body  removed  from  the 
people,  to  some  extent,  that  they  have  scarcely  known 
who  your  Governor  was,  and  it  not  very  unfrequently 
happened,  that  when  they  did  know  who  he  was,  they 
had  no  particular  desire  to  continue  him  there  any  longer.. 
[Laughter.]    Does  it  therefore  follow  that  if  the  people 
have  the  power  of  electing  their  own  Governor,  and 
they  have  selected  the  man  of  their  own  choice,  and  not 
the  man  who  is  the  choice  of  the  politicians,  that  they 
may  desire  to  retain  him  in  office  ?    And  if  they  do  en- 
tertain that  desire,  why,  I  ask,  should  they  not  be  in- 
dulged in  it  ?    The  gentleman  further  asks,  suppose  the 
Governor  has  done  a  monstrous  wrong,  and  it  is  necessa- 
ry for  the  people  to  decide  upon  it,  could  it  be  done  if 
he  were  re-eligible  ?    I  must  confess  my  surprise  at  the 
question  put  by  the  gentleman  from  Goochland.    In  the 
name  of  Heaven,  how  else  can  you  have  this  question 
decided  ?    Suppose  you  make  him  ineligible,  and  he  has 
committed  a  monstrous  wrong,  upon  which  you  wish  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ior 


judgment  of  the  popular  voice,  have  you  not  said  by 
your  constitutional  provision  that  he  shall  not  be  pre- 
sented to  the  people  again,  and  that  the  people  shall 
have  no  opportunity  of  deciding  upon  his  qualifications, 
or  upon  the  enormity  of  this  great  wrong  ?  Then  how 
are  you  to  decide — how  are  you  ever  to  meet  the  question 
— how  are  you  even  to  bring  it  up  ?  Are  you  to  do  it 
while  it  has  no  possible  bearing,  when  it  has  no  affinity 
with  any  other  question  that  is  to  be  presented  to  the 
people  for  their  consideration  at  any  other  election  ? 
Why,  of  all  the  modes  on  earth  that  could  be  adopted 
of  affording  the  people  the  best  opportunity  of  deci- 
ding on  the  conduct  of  the  Governor,  it  is  to  permit  him 
to  come  before  them  again,  and  have  their  verdict  pro- 
nounced upon  him. — If  they  approve,  they  will  re-elect 
him ;  if  they  condemn,  they  will  send  him  to  the  shades 
of  retirement.  I  know  of  no  other  way  by  which  this 
question  can  be  settled  than  by  the  re- eligibility,  and 
that  is  the  kind  of  re-eligibility  I  desire,  to  provide  for 
every  public  officer.  This  is  pretty  much,  I  believe,  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Goochland. 

After  him  comes  another  of  my  colleagues,  (Mr.  Mer- 
edith,) and  I  must  be  permitted  to  express  my  regrets 
that  on  this,  the  first  question  which  has  presented  it- 
self to  our  consideration  here,  the  delegation  from  this 
district  should  be  divided.  We  cannot  all  be  represent- 
ing popular  sentiment  in  this  district.  It  may  be  that  I 
am  not,  but  I  am  induced  to  think  that  I  am.  If  I 
thought  I  was  not  representing  popular  sentiment  here, 
that  I  was  violating  popular  sentiment,  I  would  retire 
from  this  place.  It  may  be  that  our  constituents  enter- 
tain no  great  feeling  on  tins  subject,  either  one  way  or 
the  other  ;  and  that  they  may  not  have  made  up  their 
minds  in  regard  to  it,  which  I  rather  expect  to  be  the 
true  state  of  things — still  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  dele- 
gation should  be  so  divided  on  this  first  initiative  ques- 
tion.   I  hope  that  it  will  not  continue  long. 

The  gentleman  from  the  city  of  Richmond,  a  most 
worthy  and  estimable  gentleman,  set  out  by  stating  his 
hostility  to  the  proposition  of  electing  for  life.  Well,  I 
had  no  idea  that  the  gentleman  meant  to  misstate  any 
of  the  propositions  before  the  Convention,  but  I  could 
not  let  such  a  proposition  as  that  stated  by  him,  go  out 
to  the  country  without  correction  at  the  time.  It  might 
have  created  a  false  impression  not  only  in  regard  to 
the  effect  of  my  motion,  but  of  the  position  of  all  other 
gentlemen  who  sustained  it;  and  I  took  the  occasion  to 
correct  the  gentleman  in  his  statement,  and  to  say  that 
no  such  proposition  was  submitted  to  the  Convention  as 
to  elect  the  governor  for  life.  Yet,  when  the  question 
was  precisely  stated,  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say 
that  he  did  not  perceive  the  difference. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  said  that  he  might  be  elected 
for  life,  at  the  will  of  the  people,  as  fixed  at  frequent 
periods. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Certainly,  sir  ;  but  in  that  consists  the 
difference.  He  is  re-eligible  as  long  as  the  people  choose 
to  re-elect  him  ;  but  does  that  amount  to  an  election  for 
life  ?  And  is  it  true  that  the  gentleman  cannot  per- 
ceive the  difference  between  the  two  propositions  ?  Sup- 
pose I  had  submitted  a  proposition  to  this  Convention  to 
amend  this  report  by  substituting  for  the  words,  "four 
years,"  the  words  "for  life  ;"  would  it  be  identical  with 
the  proposition  which  I  did  submit  ?  And  yet  the  gen- 
tleman cannot  see  the  difference  between  an  election  for 
life  and  a  re-election  for  a  term  of  years  at  the  will  of 
the  people  ! — and  he  went  on  to  argue  the  question  as 
if  it  was  still  a  proposition  of  election  for  life. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
interrupt  him. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  said  that  the  fact  that  this  thing 
might  be  done — that  it  might  result  in  an  election  for 
life,  at  intervals  of  four  years — was  a  reason  why  I  was 
opposed  to  it.  The  gentleman  does  not  deny  that  by 
his  proposition  a  Governor  may  be  elected  for  successive 
terms  of  four  years,  and  continued  in  office  by  such  an 


election  for  life.  I  said  that  the  fact  that  this  might  be 
done  was  my  objection  to  the  proposition. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Well,  then,  the  gentleman  doubts  their 
power  to  make  a  judicious  selection  of  candidates,  but 
admits  that  they  will  be  very  judicious  in  the  exercise 
of  their  power  of  electing  a  candidate  !  The  gentleman 
says  the  one-term  principle  has  been  adopted  by  all 
parties.  Well,  I  have  spent  some  little  portion  of  my 
life  in  public  service,  and  I  must  confess  my  ignorance 
of  the  fact.  I  have  never  known  nor  heard  of  any  such 
principle  being  adopted,  either  by  the  people,  or  by 
parties.  What  party — what  portion  of  the  people — 
and  in  what  manner  have  parties  or  the  people  adopted 
this  one-term  principle  ?  Whose  name  stands  signed  to 
the  bond,  either  among  the  people  or  among  the  politi- 
cians? Who  is  responsible  for  it,  and  who  is  bound  by 
it  ?  I  forget  which  of  your  presidents  it  was — I  be- 
lieve, however,  it  was  Mr.  Van  Buren — who  said,  before 
he  was  beaten  in  his  attempt  at  re-election,  that  he  had 
been  induced  to  favor  the  one-term  principle,  but  he 
found  that  nobody  was  bound  by  it,  and  that  he  did  not 
mean  to  be  bound  by  it  either.  I  may  have  confounded 
Mr.  Van  Buren  with  Mr.  Tyler  ;  I  do  not  know  which  it 
was,  but  no  matter  who.  Be  he  who  he  may,  there  never 
was  a  man  in  the  Presidency  who,  in  my  opinion,  did  not 
wish  to  return  to  it. 

Mr.  COX.    There  was  one  who  did  not. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    Who  did  not? 

Mr.  COX.    Mr.  Polk. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Perhaps  he  did  not.  Perhaps  the 
grapes  were  sour — the  office  was  not  offered  to  him. 
Yes,  he  went  in  on  the  one-term  principle,  and  he  would 
have  served  on  the  two-term  principle  if  his  party  had 
offered  him  the  nomination,  I  do  not  mean  to  go  into 
the  discussion  of  that  question,  but  it  is  no  secret  among 
those  who  are  conversant  with  the  events  of  that  day, 
that  he  did  desire  it,  and  would  have  been  glad  to  have 
got  it.  I  will  not,  I  repeat,  go  into  the  discussion  of 
that  question.  I  only  mean  to  say  that  this  principle 
has  not  been  adopted,  to  my  knowledge,  by  any  party 
or  portion  of  the  people — that  they  are  clap-trap  words, 
meaning  nothing.  Among  the  advantages  of  the  ineli- 
gibility principle,  the  gentleman  says,  is,  that  if  you  once 
get  the  officer  out,  you  can  keep  him  out.  That  does 
not  follow,  because,  by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Appomattox,  (Mr.  Bocock,)  he  may  go  out,  and 
yet  not  be  kept  out.  But  the  question  is,  why  desire  to 
put  him  out — why  desire  to  keep  him  out,  if  he  is  a 
faithful  and  good  officer  ?  That  question  has  not  been 
answered,  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  perceive  the  advantage 
that  would  result  either  from  putting  out  a  good  officer, 
or  from  keeping  him  out  after  you  have  put  him  out. 
Do  you  believe,  says  the  gentleman,  that  if  he  is  re-eli- 
gible, that  his  conduct  will  be  governed  by  a  proper  re- 
gard for  the  public  interests  ?  I  have  already  under- 
taken to  answer  that  view  of  the  question,  by  stating 
that,  in  my  opinion,  the  only  possible  mode  of  holding 
him  to  his  good  behavior,  was  by  making  him  responsible 
directly  to  the  people  for  his  re-election  to  office,  and  I 
will  not  go  back  to  argue  that  question  over  again. 

The  gentleman  wants  to  know  how  the  nomination  is 
to  be  made  if  you  permit  the  Governor  to  be  re-eligible, 
and  he  seems  to  think  it  would  be  made  by  the  politi- 
cians. How  will  it  be  made  other  than  by  politicians  if 
you  restrict  him  to  one  the  term  ?  Will  not  the  nomination 
be  made  by  politicians  if  you  do,  or  do  not,  restrict  him 
to  one  term  ?  Why,  if  there  is  any  way  on  earth  that 
can  be  devised,  by  which  the  nomination  can  be  taken 
from  the  power  of*  politicians,  it  will  be  by  affording  the 
people  an  opportunity  of  nominating  for  themselves  a 
tried  man.  A  system  has  prevailed  in  some  of  the 
northern  States,  especially  in  the  State  of  New  York,  for 
very  many  years  past,  by  common  understanding  and 
acquiescence,  not  by  constitutional  regulation,  that  no 
man  has  a  right  to  fill  a  term  of  office,  or  be  elected 
more  than  once.  Will  that  example  set  us  by  New  York 
commend  itself  to  our  favor  ?  What  is  it  we  hear  daily, 
when  we  speak  on  political  subjects,  of  the  corruption 


108 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


of  New  York  politicians?  Why,  one  of  the  conse- 
quences resulting — for  it  is  not  confined  to  State,  but 
includes  Federal  officers,  if  members  of  Congress  can  be 
considered  such — is  that  it  is  an  exceedingly  rare  thing 
that  any  member  of  Congress  is  returned  twice  from  that 
State.  The  object  of  this  is  to  give  an  opportunity  to 
all  aspirants  to  get  there.  Well,  I  think  it  will  be  ad- 
mitted that  you  would  never  have  a  Congress,  if  this 
system  generally  prevailed,  remarkable  for  its  sagacity  ; 
and  especially  for  its  legislative  experience,  if  no  man 
was  permitted  to  remain  in  office  more  than  two  years. 
But  another  evil  which  results  from  it  is,  that  every  as- 
pirant is  electioneering  throughout  the  State  from  the 
time  of  the  election.  From  the  time  a  man  gets  into 
office,  every  aspirant  in  the  district,  if  it  is  a  district 
election,  every  aspirant  in  the  county,  if  it  is  a  county 
election,  and  every  aspirant  in  the  State,  if  it  is  a  State 
election,  is  working  and  manceuvring  the  wires  of  the 
magician — the  political  wires — in  order  to  secure  their 
own  nomination  for  the  next  term.  Is  this  a  desirable 
thing  for  us  ?  So  it  will  be  here.  Let  it  be  known  that 
your  Governor,  whose  election  is  to  take  place  by  the 
people,  can  only  remain  in  office  for  one  term,  and  every 
aspirant  for  the  office  in  the  State  will  be  working  the 
political  wires  in  order  to  secure  the  nomination  for  the 
next  term.  It  will  be  here  as  elsewhere,  nothing  but  a 
scramble  for  office  all  the  time. 

But  the  gentleman  would  strengthen  the  arm  of  the 
Executive,  in  order  that  he  might  resist  legislative  en- 
croachments. The  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment is  that  from  which  he  apprehends  the  most 
danger  !  It  is  the  most  encroaching  of  all  the  powers 
in  the  government,  and  he  will  strengthen  the  arm  of 
the  Executive  to  resist  the  Legislature  

Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me  to  explain,  for  I  have  no  desire  of  replying  to  him 
and  degenerate  this  discussion  into  one  merely  between 
him  and  myself. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Certainly ;  I  have  no  intention  of  mak- 
ing it  such  a  discussion,  and  I  am  now  answering  all 
who  have  spoken  on  that  side. 

_  Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  certainly  used  no  such  expres- 
sion as  strengthening  the  arm  of  the  executive,  and  ad- 
vanced no  such  argument.  I  said  I  would  take  away 
from  him  any  inducement  to  yield  to  the  legislature, 
and  that  if  he  was  made  re-eligible  he  might  be  induced 
to  court  the  legislature  in  order  to  get  the  support  of 
the  members  of  that  body  in  aiding  his-  nomination  and 
election — that  they  might  be  induced  in  their  respective 
counties  to  assist  him  in  that  way,  I  said,  also,  that  I 
would  make  him  wholly  independent,  and  thus  take 
away,  by  making  him  ineligible,  any  inducements  to 
yield  to  that  department.  I  did  not  say,  however,  that 
I  would  strengthen  the  exscutive  arm  to  resist  the  leg- 
islature. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  am  very  happy  to  have  the  explana- 
tion of  my  colleague,  yet  still  I  think  I  cannot  be  mis- 
taken, for  I  took  down  his  words  at  the  time ;  and  I 
find  in  my  notes  that  he  regarded  the  legislative  de- 
partment to  be  the  most  liable  to  encroach  on  the  de- 
partment of  the  executive,  and  that  he  would  strengthen 
the  power  of  the  Governor  in  order  to  resist  those  en- 
croachments. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  said  the  legislative  department 
was  the  most  liable  to  encroach  upon  him,  and  for  that 
reason  I  would  take  away  all  inducements  for  him  to 
yield  to  that  department. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Well  then  does  the  gentleman  contem- 
plate the  establishment  of  his  veto  power  ? 

Mr.  MEREDITH.    Not  at  all. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  What  then  is  the  Governor  to  do  if  he 
is  not  to  yield  to  the  legislative  power  of  the  country  ? 
The  legislature  are  the  representatives  of  the  people, 
acting  directly  for  them,  and  is  it  wrong  for  the  Gov- 
ernor to  yield  to  the  power  of  the  people.  What  is  it?— 
in  what  does  this  embarrassment  consist  ?  What  does 
the  gentleman  mean  by  not  having  the  governor  yield 
to  the  will  of  the  people,  as  expressed  through  the  leg- 


islative department  ?  I  inferred  from  the  remarks, 
which  I  am  happy  to  find  I  misunderstood  the  gentleman 
to  make,  that  he  was  in  favor  of  extending  to  the  Governor 
the  veto  power ;  and  not  in  the  modified  form  either  in 
which  my  friend  from  Accomac  presented  it,  and  to  which 
I  am  opposed,  although  it  strips  the  power  of  many  of 
its  obnoxious  features.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  matter  of 
any  very  great  importance  whether  you  give  the  Gov- 
ernor the  power  to  send  his  reasons  to  the  legislature — = 
that  is  to  say,  that  it  will  be  productive  of  any  great 
mischief — why  a  bill  should  not  become  a  law ;  because 
I  am  willing  to  take  those  reasons  from  any  private  cit- 
izens. The  proposition  is  to  allow  the  Governor  to 
assign  the  reasons  why  he  will  not  sign  a  law,  so  as  to 
induce  the  legislature  to  re-consider  their  judgment,  to 
review  their  own  decisions,  or  to  change  their  views 
upon  the  subject,  and,  if  possible,  to  undo  what  they 
have  done.  I  think  there  can  be  no  great  harm  result- 
ing from  the  power  in  the  modified  form  in  which  it  is 
thus  proposed,  it  still  being  in  the  power  of  a  majority 
of  the  legislature  to  enact  the  same  law,  yet  I  am  op- 
posed to  it.  I  want  to  strip  this  officer  of  all  power 
that  is  not  necessary  to  be  conferred  upon  him,  and  I 
look  upon  this  principle  of  ineligibility  as  stripping  the 
people  and  not  the  Governor  of  power.  And  here  let 
me  remark,  on  the  subject  of  these  restrictions,  that  I 
recognise  the  distinction  between  necessary  and  unne- 
cessary restrictions.  I  am  for  imposing  all  wholesome 
and  necessary  restrictions,  but  I  am  wholly  opposed  to 
imposing  any  unnecessary  and  unwholesome  restrictions, 
These  I  take  to  be  true  democratic  principles,  and  it 
only  serves  to  confirm,  in  my  mind,  the  truth  of  what 
I  have  long  since  said,  that  there  was  more  real,  genuine, 
pure  democracy  in  me  than  in  ninety -nine  hundreths  of 
the  democratic  party.  [Laughter.]  This  is  the  true 
principle  of  democracy — the  power  of  the  people  to 
govern,  not  the  modern  spurious  democracy  of  the  pre- 
sent day. 

It  was  said,  during  the  canvass  for  seats  in  this  Con- 
vention, that  politics  should  not  enter  into  the  consider- 
ation of  questions  here.  I  differed  with  those  gentle- 
men who  took  this  position.  I  say  here  is  the  place 
where  politics  should  enter  into  consideration.  Not  the 
politics  of  the  day,  which  divide  political  parties,  for  I 
maintain  there  is  nothing  democratic  or  anti-democratic, 
in  a  mere  question  of  policy.  There  is  nothing  demo- 
cratic or  anti-democratic  in  a  question  of  a  tariff  or  free 
trade,  in  a  question  of  currency,  or  in  any  of  those  ques- 
tions which  have  divided  parties,  nor  in  the  subject  of 
internal  improvements  and.  a  distribution  of  the  public 
lands — upon  which  last  subject  I  am  happy  to  find  that 
ti  e  Democratic  party,  if  it  is  a  principle  of  democracy, 
are  becoming  Whigs,  and  yielding  the  question.  But 
here  is  the  place  to  decide  political  questions — that  is, 
to  decide  upon  what  basis  government  shall  be  formed — 
whether  upon  the  power  of  the  many  or  the  power  of 
the  few — whether  upon  the  power  of  the  people  or  the 
power  of  the  politicians  ;  in  other  words,  whether  it 
shall  be  a  democratic  or  an  aristocratic  government.  I 
go  for  a  democratic  government,  and  not  for  an  aristo- 
cratic government.  I  am  for  lopping  off  every  remnant 
of  aristocracy  which  can  be  found  in  our  Constitution, 
whether  it  was  organized  in  1*776  or  1829.  There  are 
no  such  parties  in  this  Convention,  however ;  we  know 
nothing  here  of  Whigs  and  Democrats;  but  there  were 
two  other  parties  known  at  the  time  of  the  election, 
and  they  were  called  conservatives  and  radicals.  Well, 
gentlemen  may  put  their  different  interpretations  on 
these  two  tickets,  but  if  it  be  radicalism  to  maintain 
that  we  should  change,  reform  and  improve  upon  the 
republican  principles  of  "76  and  '29,  then  I  claim  to  be 
the  most  radical  among  the  radicals.  There  is  little  in 
the  old  Constitution  which  commends  itself  to  my  favor. 
The  men  who  made  that  constitution  were  wise  andgreat 
and  good  men,  and  their  work  suited  the  days  of  17*76, 
but  it  does  not  suit  the  days  of  1851.  Why,  we  must 
be  a  most  degenerate  race  of  people,  if,  in  75  years,  we 
have  learned  nothing  by  our  experience.    We  have  had 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


109 


the  benefit  of  all  that  was  taught  us  by  those  sagacious 
men  of  1*776,  and  we  have  lived  under  the  practical  opera- 
tion of  the  constitution  of  1829,  and  is  it  possible  that  we 
can  make  no  improvement  upon  it  ?  Gentlemen  are  in 
the  habit  of  quoting  the  opinions  of  great  and  distin- 
guished men,  whose  names,  on  certain  subjects,  have  a 
deserved  influence  in  the  community ;  but  I  will  not  do 
what  I  might,  appeal  to  Mr.  Jefferson  on  this  subject.  I 
will  not  do  it,  because  if  I  differed  from  him,  his  opinion 
would  have  no  weight  with  me.  I  look  at  the  present 
day,  and  at  the  present  people,  and  those  who  are  to 
come  after  us,  and  then  judge  what  is  required.  And  I 
say  that  the  government  which  suited  the  people  of  177 6, 
would  be  a  very  unsuitable  one  for  the  people  of  1851 ; 
as  I  think,  in  all  probability,  the  government  we  may 
establish  for  the  people  of  1851,  will  be  an  equally  un- 
suitable one  for  the  people  of  1880  or  1900.  The  true 
question  here,  as  I  conceive,  is,  are  the  people  to  be 
trusted  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  legitimate  rights  ? 
I  am  for  trusting  them,  and  I  hope  that  this  Convention 
will  be  in  favor  of  trusting  them  with  the  right  of  selec- 
tion, as  well  as  with  the  right  of  election. 

I  believe  I  have  answered  the  arguments  of  gentlemen; 
I  do  not  know  how  successfully,  but  I  hope  quite  success- 
fully. I  have  endeavored  to  answer  all  the  reasons  that 
have  been  assigned  by  the  five  gentlemen  who  have  occu- 
pied the  floor  on  this  subject,  why  this  power  should  be 
taken  from  the  people.  My  own  judgment  may  be  a  very 
biased  one  on  the  subject,  but  in  my  opinion  there  is  no- 
thing in  them.  Other  gentlemen  may  be  disposed  to 
present  other  and  still  more  forcible  reasons  ;  if  they  do, 
and  if  they  shall  convince  my  understanding  that  it  is 
right;  if  they  shall  succeed  in  removing  impressions  already 
made  upon  my  mind.  I  have  no  such  self-sufficiency  or 
self-pride  as  will  prevent  me  from  making  the  acknowl- 
edgment on  this  floor,  in  the  face  of  the  Convention  and 
the  country,  and  I  shall  vote  with  them.  But  if  other 
gentlemen  present  other  arguments  which  have  no  more 
force  in  them,  and  make  no  more  impression  on  my  mind 
than  those  which  have  already  been  presented,  it  may  be, 
that  on  some  future  occasion,  I  shall  claim  the  indulgence 
of  the  Convention  in  order  to  endeavor  to  remove  their 
objections,  and  still  to  stand  up  for  the  rights  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  1  should  not  ask  the  Convention  to  in- 
dulge me  for  a  short  time,  had  not  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts.)  in  the  notice  which  he  has  thought 
proper  to  take  of  the  remarks  submitted  by  me  the  other 
day  to  the  Convention,  attributed  to  me  a  sentiment 
which  I  did  not  utter,  and  which  I  think  is  not  fairly  de- 
ducible  from  anything  I  said.  The  whole  error  which 
has  been  committed  by  the  gentleman,  in  the  argument 
which  he  has  presented  to  the  Convention,  rests  on 
the  fact,  that  he  has  so  presented  that  argument  as  to 
represent  those  who  are  opposed  to  him  on  this  occasion, 
as  taking  power  from  the  people,  and  lodging  it  some- 
where else.  We  have  no  object  of  that  kind,  and  whilst 
the  gentleman  has  presented  his  argument  in  such  a  way 
as  to  lead  to  that  inference,  the  reverse  is  the  fact.  There 
is  no  such  disposition  on  the  part  of  any  gentleman  who 
has  advocated  this  restriction  on  the  privileges  of  who- 
soever shall  be  selected  as  your  Governor,  for  it  is  in  fact 
merely  a  restriction  upon  the  privileges  of  your  Gover- 
nor, and  not  a  restriction  upon  the  rights  of  the  people. 
There  has  been  no  manifestation  of  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  any  to  take  away  this  power  from  the  hands  of 
the  people  and  lodge  it  anywhere  else.  There  is  no 
disposition  to  increase  the  authority  and  power  of  those 
who  are  entrusted  with  the  people's  rights  and  with 
their  power,  as  their  representatives.  If  we  were  in  the 
attitude  of  taking  away  from  them  power  which  we 
wish  to  lodge  somewhere  else,  then  there  might  be 
something  in  the  hue  and  cry  raised  by  the  gentleman 
that  we  are  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  people,  and  in  favor  of  lodging  it  in  the  hands 
of  their  representatives  and  their  agents. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for 
a  motion  to  rise,  and  report  progress  ? 


Mr.  LEAKE.  There  seems  to  be  a  disposition  not  to 
continue  the  discussion  at  this  time,  and  I  will  give  way 
for  such  a  motion. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  I  move,  then,  that  the  committee 
rise,  and  report  progress. 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  motion 
should  be  made  to  report  progress.  I  have  had  a  con- 
versation with  the  President  on  the  subject,  and  he 
|  thinks  that  all  matters  referred  to  the  committee  are 
i  referred  as  a  matter  ot  course,  to  be  taken  up  as  the 
|  committee  may  desire,  and  that,  therefore,  a  motion  to 
rise  is  quite  sufficient. 

The  committee  then  rose  and  reported  to  the  Con- 
vention. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
at  12  o'clock,  M. 


TUESDAY,  February  4,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr„  Howell. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

REPORT  FROM  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  RIGHT  OF  SUFFRAGE,  <fcC, 

Mr.  JOHKSOK  The  committee  to  whom  was  refer- 
red so  much  of  the  present  constitution  as  relates  to  the 
right  of  suffrage  and  the  qualifications  of  members  to  b6 
elected  to  the  General  Assembly,  have  had  the  subject 
under  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  report. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  report,  as  follows : 
The  committee  appointed  "  to  take  into  consideration  so  much  of 
the  present  Constitution  as  relates  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  the 
qualification  of  persons  to  be  elected  to  the  General  Assembly, 
and  report  such  alterations  and  amendments  thereto,  as  they 
may  deem  necessary  and  proper,"  respectfully  report  the  fol- 

Article. — Qualifications  of  Electors. 

Sec.  1.  Every  white  male  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth,  being 
also  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years 
and  upwards,  who  shall  have  been  a  resident  of  ths  State  two  yea's, 
and  of  the  county,  city  or  town,  in  which  he  claims  his  vote,  twelve 
months  next  preceding  an  election,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  all 
officeis  that  may  be  elective  by  the  people  :  Provided,  that  no  per- 
son in  the  military,  naval,  or  marine  service  of  the  United  S  ates, 
shall  be  considered  a  resident  of  this  State,  by  being  stationed  in 
any  garrison,  barrack,  or  military  or  naval  place  or  station,  within 
this  State;  and  no  pauper,  idiot,  or  insane  person,  or  person  con- 
victed of  an  infamous  offence ;  or  who  shall  be  convicted  of  bribery 
in  elections,  or  of  voting  more  than  once  in  the  same  election,  shall 
enjoy  the  right  of  an  elector  ;  nor  any  naturalized  citizen,  until  he 
shall  have  taken  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  this  Commonwealth  ;  Pro- 
vided also,  That  no  person  shall  be  permitted  to  vote  in  any  town 
or  city,  the  population  of  which  exceeds  (by  the  next  preceding 
census)  thousand  inhabitants,  unless  he  shall  vote  in  the  ward 
in  which  he  resides.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Legislature, 
at  the  first  session  after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  to  pro- 
vide that  every  such  town  or  city  shall  be  laid  off  into  wards,  and 
a  separate  ov  ward  election  held  in  each. 

Sec  2.  No  elector  shall  be  compelled  to  perform  military  duty 
on  the  days  of  election,  except  in  time  of  war,  or  public  danger  ; 
nor  to  attend  anv  court  as  suitor,  juror  or  witness;  nor  to  work 
upon  the  public  or  county  roads  ;  nor  be  subjt-ct  to  arrest  under 
any  civil  process,  in  going  to,  remaining  at,  or  returning  from,  the 
place  of  election. 

Sec.  3.  In  all  elections  in  this  Commonwealth  to  any  office  or 
place  of  trust,  power,  or  profit,  the  votes  shall  be  given  openly,  or 
viva  voce,  and  not  by  ballot. 

Article  —  Qualifications  of  Senators  and  Delegates. 

Sec.  1.  Any  person  maybe  elected  a  Senator,  who  e  hall  have 
attained  to  the  age  of  twenty -five  years,  and  shall  be  actually  a  res- 
ident within  the  district,  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the  Gen* 
eral  Assembly,  according  to  this  Constitution.  And  any  person 
maybe  elected  a  member  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  who  shall 
have  attained  the  age  of  twenty  five  years,  and  shall  be  actually  a 
resident  within  the  county,  city,  town,  or  election  district,  qualified 
to  vote  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  this 
Constitution;  Provided,  That  all  persons  holding  lucrative  offices, 
and  mintsters  of  the  gospel,  and  priests  of  every  denomination,  shall 
be  incapable  of  being  elected  members  of  either  house  of  the  Geo- 


110 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


cr.il  Assembly.  And  the  removal  ol  any  person  elected  to  either 
branch  of  (he  General  Assembly,  from  the  county,  city,  town,  or 
election  dis  rict.  in  which  he  resided  a',  ihc  time  of  his  election, 
shall  be  deemed  a  vacation  of  the  office.  And  provided  moreover. 
Th.u  no  Senator  or  Delegate  shall,  during  the  time  lor  whi'  h  he 
was  elected,  be  eligible  to  any  office,  or  place  of  ti  nst  or  profit,  the 
appointment  of,  or  election  to  which,  is  vested  m  the  Executive  or 
the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  move  that  the  paper  be  refer- 
red to  the  committee  of  the  whole.  I  understand  from 
high  authority,  that  this  is  the  proper  course  for  it  to 

take.  v  i  •  i- 

Mr.  TRIGG.  I  am  not  particularly  versed  in  parlia- 
mentary usage,  nnd  do  not  know  what  is  the  proper  refer- 
ence   My  desire  is  to  have  the  proposition  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT  s  ggested  that  the  proper  course 
would  be  to  have  the  report  ordered  to  be  printed  and 
laid  on  the  table,  where  it  would  be  at  the  disposition 
of  the  mover. 

Mr.  TRIGG  assented  to  that  course. 
,  And  the  report  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

The  proposition  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Article.— Qualifications  of  Representatives. 
Every  white  male  citizen  of  the  Commonwealth,'!"  the  asrc  of 
twenty-one  years  or  upwards,  who  shall  have  resided  in  this  State 
one  year  next  preceding  an  e'ection,  and  the  last  six  monilis  within 
the  county,  city  or  town,  in  which  he  offers  to  vote,  shail  be  enti- 
tled to  vote  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly.,  and  all  other 
civil  officers  in  the  county,  city  or  town  in  which  he  resides :  Pro 
vided.  nevertheless.  That  the  risKtoi  suffrage  sh  til  not  be  exercised 
by  my  person  of  unsound  mind,  or  who  shall  be  a  pauper,  non-com- 
missioned offi-er,  soldier,  seaman,  or  marire,  in  the  service  of  the 
Unite  1  States,  or  by  any  person  convicted  of  an  infamous  offence  ; 
nor  shall  any  person  vote  except  whore  he  resides,  n>r  more  than 
once  in  the  same  election 

2  In  all  elections  in  this  Commonwealth,  to  anyofficeor  plac-of 
trust,  honor,  or  profit,  the  votes  shall  be  given  openly,  ox  viva  voce, 
and  not  by  ballot 

3  No  elector  shall  be  compelled  to  perforin  mili'ary  duty  on  the 
day  of  election,  except  in  time  of  war,  or  public  danger;  nor  to  at- 
tend any  court  as  suitor  or  witness;  nor  be  subject  to  arrest  under 
any  civil  process  in  coming  to,  remaining  at,  or  going  from  the  place 
of  elecion. 

Article.  — Qualifications  of  Representatives. 
Any  person  ma>  he  elected  a  Sma'or,  who  is  a  citizen  of  ihe 
Unifpd  Siates,  of  the  age  ol  tvver.ty-fi  ve  years,  and  shall  be  actually 
a  resident  within  the  district,  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  according  to  this  Constitu  i^n.  And  any  person 
may  be  elected  a  member  of  the  J'ouse  of  Delegates,  who  shall 
have  attained  die  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  shall  be  actually  a 
resident  of  the  county,  chy,  town,  or  election  district,  qualified  to 
vote  for  members  ol  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  this  Con- 
stitution :  Provided,  That  all  persons  holding  any  office  under  the 
United  States,  or  lucrative  offices  under  the  government  of  thi* 
State,  and  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  priests  of  every  denomina- 
tion, shall  be  incapable  of  being  elected  members  of  eithe1- house 
of  Assembly;  and  the  removal  of  anypeison  elected  to  either 
branch  of  the  General  Assembly  from  the  county,  city,  town,  or 
election  district  in  which  heiended  at  thetime  ofhiselect'on,  shall 
be  deemed  a  vacation  of  the  office:  Provided  moreover,  That  no 
Sena  or  or  Representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which  he  was 
elected,  be  eligible  to  any  office  or  place  of  trust,  the  app  ointment 
of  which  is  vested  in  the  Executive  or  General  Assembly:  Provided 
also,  That  no  person  shall  be  capable  of  being  elected  to  either 
hiiuse  who  shall  hereafter  fight  a  <kiel,  or  send  or  accept  a  challenge 
tofiihta  duel,  the  probible  issue  of  which  maybe  the  death  of 
the  challenger  or  the  chal  eng  d  ;  or  who  shall  be  a  second  to  either 
party,  or  shall  in  any  manner  aid  orassist  in  such  duel,  or  shall  be 
knowingly  the  bearer  of  such  challenge  or  acceptance  :  but  no  per- 
son bhall  be  so  disqualified  by  reasen  of  his  having  heretofore  fought 
a  du'd,  or  sent  or  accepted  such  challenge,  or  been  second  in  such 
duel,  or  bearer  of  such  challenge  or  acceptance. 

The  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

EXPENSES  OF  FITTING  UP  THE  CHURCH. 

Mi\  M.  G  ARNETT.  The  Committee  on  Accounts  have 


had  a  number  of  accounts  referred  to  them,  in  regard 
to  which  I  am  instructed  to  report.  I  would  say  that 
these  accounts  embrace  all,  I  believe,  that  relate  to  the 
expenses  incurred  in  fitting  up  this  house  for  the  use  of 
the  Convention,  save  the  account  of  the  upholdsterer, 
which  has  not  yet  been  received.  I  take  pleasure  in 
saying  to  the  Convention  that  the  whole  expense  in- 
curred in  fitting  up  the  building  will  not  exceed  $500 
at  furthest. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  cer- 
tify tor  payment  the  following  accounts  for  work  done 
and  for  furniture  and  other  articles  furnished  in  fitting 
up  the  Universalist  church  for  the  use  of  the  Conven- 
tion, viz : 

Charles  D.  Yale,  for  large  size  hot  air  furnace,  $180  00 
Christian  &  Lathrop,  for  carpeting,  (fee,  -  -  137  79 
A.  H.  Thornton,  for  coal,  (fee,  -  -  -  49  84 
Habbleston  &  Brother,  for  chairs  and  tables,  -  44  00 
Wm.  Booth,  for  chair  for  president,  table,  (fee,  47  00 
J.  F.  &  L.  S.  Barnes,  for  iron  railing,  -  -  10  00 
Wm.  Scott,  for  painting,  (fee,  -  5  00 


$471  67 

The  accounts  were  ordered  to  be  certified  to  the  Au- 
ditor for  payment. 

BOARD  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Mr.  TRIGG.  Some  days  ago  when  the  gentleman  from 
Rockbridge  (Mr.  Letcher)  presented  to  the  Convention 
certain  amendments  which  he  proposed  to  make  to  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department,  I* 
then  stated  to  the  Convention  that  there  were  other  pro- 
visions in  that  report,  not  embraced  by  these  amend- 
ments, to  which,  at  some  future  day,  I  should  myself  offer 
amendments.  One  of  those  provisions  to  which  I  have 
given  some  little  attention,  is  that  providing  for  the  or- 
ganization of  a  Board  of  Public  Works.  I  do  not  concur 
fully  with  the  committee  in  the  proposition  whhh  they 
have  submitted  to  the  Convention,  whilst  in  the  general 
purpose  which  the  committee  had  in  view  in  making  that 
recommendation,  I  fully  concur.  I  have  an  amendment 
which  I  propose  to  offer  as  a  substitute  for  the  provisions 
reported  by  the  committee,  and  I  hope  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  make  a  remark  or  two  previous  to  offering  it. 

This  subject  of  internal  improvement  is  one  of  great  and 
growing  importance  to  the  State,  and  in  my  judgment  it 
deserves  and  requires  the  fostering  care  of  the  Common- 
wealth. Old  Virginia,  after  having  slept  for  perhaps  fifty 
years  upon  the  subject  of  internal  improvements,  is  at 
last  begi  ningto  wake  up.  She  has  at  last  commenced 
the  work  of  devoting  her  energies  to  the  subject  of  internal 
improvements.  But  whilst  she  slept,  other  and  adjacent 
States  have  been  alive  to  their  own  interests.  Thej  have 
been  pushing  their  works  into  the  very  borders  of  the  old 
Commonwealth,  and  indeed,  to  some  extent,  have  been 
sapping  the  very  sources  of  her  prosperity.  The  works 
of  internal  improvement  now  existing  and  in  progress  of1 
construction,  have  been  attended  by  a  large  expenditure 
of  money  by  the  Commomvealth,  and  they,  together  with 
those  perhaps  of  equal  importance  which  are  already 
projecting,  seem  to  me  to  require,  or  rather  to  demand, 
that  this  Convention  shall  constitute  some  department  in 
the  government  which  shall  take  this  peculiar  interest 
under  its  care  or  guardianship.  These  improvements  I 
conceive  to  be  the  very  elements  of  the  prosperity  of 
the  State,  and  if  they  are  so,  I  can  see  no  objection  to 
and  indeed  I  can  see  great  reason  for  the  Convention 
constituting  a  department  which  shall  take  the  wdiole 
subject  under  its  peculiar  care.  I  know  from  expres- 
sions which  have  fallen  from  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, that  there  is  an  indisposition  on  the  part  of  many 
of  them  to  run  into  anything  like  detail  in  matters 
which  are  to  be  embraced  in  the  constitution  we  are 
about  to  form.  I,  too,  am  with  them,  and  would  hope 
that  matters  of  detail  may  be  avoided  as  far  as  practi- 
cable, but  I  would  not  admit  that  consideration  so  far  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Ill 


influence  my  judgment  as  that  I  should  pretermit  an 
especial  provision  for  any  peculiar  interest  which  I 
think  should  be  properly  and  especially  guarded  by  the 
Convention.  It  may  then  be  an  objection  of  the  plan 
which  I  propose  to  offer  for  a  Board  of  Public  Works, 
that  it  is  too  long  and  that  it  runs  too  much  into  detail, 
but  I  commend  it  to  the  Convention,  not  only  with  my 
own  approbation,  humble  as  I  am,  but  I  will  add  in  or- 
der that  they  may  take  it  fully  and  fairly  and  calmly 
into  their  consideration,  that  it  has  been  submitted  to 
gentlemen  of  the  very  first  intelligence  in  the  Com- 
monwealth, most  of  whom  have  had  experience  and  de- 
voted much  time  to  the  subject  of  the  public  works, 
and  it  has  in  every  instance  received  their  decided  ap- 
probation. I  therefore  hope  that  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  when  this  report  shall  come  to  be  exam- 
ined by  them,  will  give  it  that  consideration  which  to 
my  mind  the  subject  itself  deserves.  I  will  send  to  the 
Secretary  the  plan  which  I  propose  to  substitute  for 
that  of  the  committee,  and  ask  that  it  may  be  read  for 
the  information  of  the  Convention,  and  laid  on  the  table 
and  printed. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows; 

Strike  out  article 4th,  and  insert  the  following: 
The  Legislature,  at  its  first  session  after  the  adoption 
of  this  Constitution,  shall  organize  a  Board  of  Public 
Works,  to  be  composed  of  five  members,  to  be  appoint- 
ed as  follows,  that  is  to  say :  The  State  shall  be  divi- 
ded into  four  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be,  having 
reference  to  the  number  of  electors  qualified  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  ;  each  district  shall 
elect  one  member  of  the  Board,  and  one  member  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  voters  in  the  State  at  large. 
Two  of  the  members  elected  by  districts  shall  hold  their 
offices  for  two  years,  and  two  for  four  years.  The  mem- 
ber chosen  by  the  whole  State  shall  hold  his  office  for 
four  years,  and  shall  be  the  President  of  the  Board.  The 
district  members  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Board  after 
their  election  shall  determine  by  lot  which  of  them  shall 
hold  their  offices  for  two  years  and  which  for  four  years ; 
and  there  shall  be  elected  bienniali y  thereafter  two  of 
said  district  members  who  shall  hold  their  offices  for 
four  years.  In  case  a  vacancy  shall  occur  by  death,  re- 
signation or  otherwise,  the  same  may  be  filled  by  the  re- 
maining members  of  the  Board  until  a  general  election, 
next  thereafter,  when  anew  election  shall  be  held  in  that 
district  in  which  the  vacancy  occurred,  or  by  the  State 
at  large,  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  Board  of  Public  Works  shall  meet  annually  at  the 

seat  of  government  on  the  day  of   ,  and  may 

be  convened  by  the  president,  whenever,  in  his  opinion, 
the  public  interest  shall  require  it ;  and  during  the  time 
they  are  in  session  shall  receive  for  their  services  the 
compensation  allowed  to  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

The  said  Board  shall  have  and  exercise  a  general  su- 
pervision over  all  works  of  public  improvement  belong- 
ing to  the  State,  and  over  the  State's  interest  in  all 
other  such  works  as  the  State  is  or  may  become  interest- 
ed as  a  stockholder,  and  shall  appoint  all  such  directors, 
engineers  and  other  officers  connected  therewith,  as  are 
or  may  be  required  by  law,  or  which  may  be  necessary 
for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  duties  of  said  Board;  but 
the  Board  itself,  or  a  committee  thereof,  shall  in  all  ca- 
ses represent  the  stock  of  the  State  in  the  annual  or  oth- 
er meetings  of  the  stockholders.  They  shall  report  to 
the  General  Assembly  within  days  from  the  com- 
mencement of  each  session  thereof,  fully  and  generally, 


by  an  appropriation  of  money  is  directed  to  be  made  to 
any  work  of  internal  improvement,  or  whereby  any  char- 
ter is  granted  for  the  incorporation  of  any  internal  im- 
provement company,  in  which  the  State  is  to  become  a 
subscriber  for  any  part  of  the  stock  thereof,  shall  be 
passed  by  the  Legislature,  until  the  same  shall  have 
been  referred  to  the  Board  of  Public  Works  for  their 
consideration,  and  a  report  made  thereon  to  that  House 
in  which  such  bill  or  resolution  may  have  originated. 
If,  upon  full  consideration,  the  said  Board  shall  be  of 
opinion  that  such  appropriation  ought  to  be  made  or 
charter  granted,  and  shall  so  report  to  the  Legislature, 
and  a  majority  of  the  members  present  in  each  House 
shall  concur  with  the  said  Board,  the  same  shall  become 
a  law  ;  but  if,  upon  such  reference,  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  shall  report  adversely  to  the  proposed  bill  or 
resolution,  then  the  same  shall  not  become  a  law,  unless 
two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in  each  House  shall 
concur  in  passing  the  same.  And  in  either  case,  the 
Board  shall  set  forth  fully  in  their  report  the  reasons 
which  govern  their  decision. 

Mr.  BLLTE.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  paper  which  I  pro- 
pose to  substitute  for  the  report  of  the  committee,  when 
it  shall  come  up  for  consideration.  I  ask  that  it  be 
read,  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention,  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  MARTIN, 
resumed  the  consideration,  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
Mr.  Watts  of  Norfolk  in  the  chair,  of  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  report  and  the  amend- 
ments pending  thereto. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Having,  on  a  former  occasion,  in  a 
very  humble  way,  participated  in  the  discussion  of  the 
question  now  before  the  committee,  I  am  sorry  that 
circumstances  render  it  proper,  in  my  judgment,  that  I 
should  again  trespass  upon  its  attention.  I  favored  the 
call  of  this  Convention  because  I  was  in  favor  of  taking 
power  out  of  the  hands  of  the  agents  of  the  people,  and 
vesting  it,  by  constitutional  guaranties,  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  themselves.  And  I  do  not  mean,  by  any  vote 
which  I  may  be  called  upon  to  give  in  this  Convention,  to 
sanction  any  measure  by  which  power  may  be  strength- 
ened in  the  hands  of  the  agents  of  the  people,  at  the 
expense  of  popular  rights.  Whenever  a  proposition  is 
presented  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  have  a  tendency 
to  give  to  the  agents  elected  by  the  people  the  power 
of  using  the  privileges  with  which  they  are  clothed  for 
their  own  benefit,  regardless  of  the  great  rights  of  those 
to  whom  they  are  responsible,  I  shall  claim  the  privilege, 
no  matter  who  may  set  himself  up  as  the  true  exponent  of 
democratic  principles,  to  decide  for  myself  whether  suah  a 
claim  is  entitled  to  my  respect,  my  sanction,  and  my  vote. 
All  power,  as  exercised  by  the  agents  of  the  people,  is,  in 
its  tendency,  at  least,  an  infringement  upon  the  rights 
of  some  portion  of  the  people.  When  the  benefit  of  a 
majority  of  the  people  requires  that  this  power  should 
be  exercised  by  their  agents  under  their  control,  I  shall 
go  for  that  exercise.  But,  its  exercise  upon  any  other  occa- 
sion, will  be,  in  my  judgment,  more  productive  of  evil  than 
of  good.  I  humbly  conceive  that  it  i3  no  encroachment 
upon  the  proper  rights  of  the  majority  of  the  people,  to  re- 
strict the  exercise  of  that  power ;  because,  in  a  democratic 
government,  power  ought  to  be  exercised  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole,  and  any  other  principle  would  lead  to 
the  establishment  of  an  arbitrary  government,  which 


on  the  condition  of  the  public  works  of  the  State,  and  ^  indeed,  be  protective  to  the  interests  of  the  ma 
bring  to  their  notice  such  plans  of  improvement,  gene-  jority,  but  would  make  the  minority  serfs  and  slaves, 
ral  or  special,  as  to  them  may  seem  best  calculated  to  What' is  the  proposition  now  before  us  ?  I  am  in  favor 
promote  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth;  and  shall  0f  the  election  of  the  Governor  by  the  people  ;  and  I 
perform  all  the  duties  now  required  of  the  existing  for  his  election  by  the  people,  no  matter  what 

Board  of  Public  Works,  or  such  as  may  be  prescribed  by  may  \>e  the  term  of  his  office,  no  matter  what  may  be 

the  principle  which  may  be  engrafted  upon  the  Consti 
No  bill  or  resolution  of  the  General  Assembl v.  where- 'tution,  in  reference  to  re-eligibility.    I  arn  unlike  th§ 


law 


112 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


gentleman  from  Henrico,  who  sets  himself  up  as  a  pat- 
tern democrat,  of  modern  invention.  I  do  not  mean  to 
vote  against  this  great  right,  which  the  people  ought  to 
exercise.  The  distinguished  gentleman  from  Accomac 
promulgated  the  doctrine,  in  which  I  fully  concur,  that 
there  ought  to  be  no  officer  among  us,  who  should  feel 
himself  so  elevated  above  the  people,  so  dignified,  as 
not  to  come  down  into  the  dust  of  political  strife,  to  mix 
among  the  people.  I  heartily  subscribe  to  that  doctrine. 
But  the  gentleman  from  the  county  of  Henrico  told  you 
that  he  was  sorry  to  see  that  doctrine  introduced,  and 
that,  rather  than  "see  that  dignified  and  honorable  officer 
leave  the  gubernatorial  chair,  and  enter  into  the  dusty 
conflict — why  he  did  not  know  but  he  would  absolutely 
vote  to  elect  him  by  the  legislature !  That  shows  his 
attachment  to  democratic  principles,  and  to  the  rights 
of  the  people.  [Laughter.]  This  Governor  of  yours,  so 
ctignfied  and  elevated  above  the  people — aye,  it  would 
not  do  for  him  to  descend  and  mix  among  the  people  in 
electioneering !  That  shows  you,  gentlemen,  what  are 
the  principles  of  popular  rights,  for  which  the  gentleman 
from  Henricois  contending !  He  wishes  a  dignified  and 
elevated  officer  above  the  people  ;  and  he  is  for  placing 
him  in  a  situation,  by  your  Constitution,  where  he  may 
exercise  his  power  still  more  to  elevate  himself  above 
the  people.  And  he  must  have  friends  and  agents  too, 
to  electioneer  for  him.  He  must  not  come  in  contact 
with  them,  least  he  will  get  dusty  by  rubbing  against 
the  hard-fisted  democracy  of  the  country.  [Laughter.] 
Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  am  in  favor  of  your  Governor 
coming  down  from  any  elevated  position  which  he  may 
occupy.  I  am  for  his  mixing  in  the  arena  of  political 
strife.  I  would  have  him  to  know  something  of  the  feel- 
ings and  sentiments  of  the  people,  to  understand  their 
feelings,  to  be  their  representative  in  the  Executive 
branch  of  the  government,  and  to  reflect  their  will,  so 
far  as  he  can,  with  a  proper  regard  to  the  constitution. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  have  no  disposition  to  interrupt  the  gen- 
tleman, in  his  harangue  to  his  "  fellow-citizens,"  [Laugh- 
ter,] but  will  he  allow  me  to  inquire  of  him  whether  he 
is  in  favor  of  the  election  of  Judges  by  the  people? 
and  if  he  is,  if  he  expects  the  Judge  that  is  to  be  elect- 
ed by  the  people,  to  descend  into  the  dust  of  the  politi- 
cal arena  and  electioneer  for  the  office? 

Mr.  WISE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac  has  an- 
swered the  question.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  did  not  ask  the  question  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac.  I  desire  an  answer  from  the 
gentleman  himself. 

Mi*.  LEAKE.  When  questions  of  this  kind  come  up  be- 
tween the  gentleman  from  Accomac  and  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  having  more  confidence  in  the  democracy  of 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  I  shall  be  very  apt  to  follow 
his  example  in  preference  to  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico.  [Laughter.]  I  will  say,  however,  that,  what- 
ever may  be  the  principle  upon  "which  the  Judges  are 
to  act,  if  they  shall  be  elected  by  the  people,  there  are 
stronger  reasons  why  the  Governor  of  the  people  should 
not  feel  himself  entirely  above  the  people,  or  consider 
himself  as  occupying  a  position  in  which  he  cannot  feel 
it  his  duty  to  mix  among  them.  There  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  condition  of  a  man  who  is  a  candi- 
date to  fill  the  office  of  Governor  and  the  man  who  is  a 
candidate  to  fill  an  office  connected  with  your  Judiciary ; 
because  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judicial  officer  to  decide 
upon  abstract  rights  between  parties,  and  it  is  not  his  duty 
to  reflect  the  public  feeling  and  public  wishes.  It  is 
his  duty  to  execute  the  law.  It  is  not  his  duty  to  find 
out  the  sense  of  the  people  of  the  State  or  district,  be- 
fore deciding  any  legal  question  which  may  come  before 
him  for  his  decision.  But  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Governor 
to  reflect  the  wishes  and  feelings  of  the  people  who 
elected  him.  The  cases  are  not  parallel.  But  I  am 
willing  to  say  that  any  man  who  is  to  be  elected  by  the 
people  ought  to  go  and  mix  among  the  people. 

I  am  for  engrafting  upon  your  Constitution  a  principle 
which  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  people  ef  Virginia ; 


and  which  is  at  this  time  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  the 
people  of  these  United  States.    I  am  for  engrafting 
upon  your  Constitution  a  principle  which  has  been 
sanctioned  by  the  conduct  of  your  Washington.  What 
is  the  purpose  that  is  advocated  by  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  ?    It  is  this,  that  your  Governor,  your  chief 
executive  officer,  should  be  elected  continually,  term 
after  term,  during  his  whole  life.    There  is  the  differ- 
ence between  us.    I  am  in  favor  of  your  Governor  going 
out  of  office  for  a  term,  at  least,  before  he  is  re-eligible. 
The  gentleman  is  in  favor  of  that  principle  by  which 
he  may  be  elected,  term  after  term,  during  his  whole 
life ;   and  he    called   upon   us    the   other   day  for 
some  proof  that  the  people  were  in  favor  of  this 
principle  for  which  we  were  contending.    He  undertook 
to  tell  us  that  it  had  its  origin  among  the  politicians  of 
the  State — that  it  was  not  a  principle  which  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  great  majority  of  the  people — that  it  was 
an  infringement  upon  their  rights — and  that  it  was  in 
violation  of  fundamental  principles.    For  my  life  I 
could  not  find  the  evidence  of  the  gentleman's  declara- 
tion.   On  the  contrary,  the  history  of  our  federal  gov- 
ernment and  of  our  State  government,  in  connection 
with  this  question,  shows  that  the  American  people 
have  consecrated  the  principle  that  after  your  chief  ex- 
ecutive has  been  in  office  for  a  time,  he  should  retire, 
and  not  again  occupy  that  position.    Am  I  proclaiming 
a  principle  that  is  adverse  to  the  wishes  and  feelings  of 
the  people  ?    I  understand  that  we  are  here  in  Conven- 
tion representing  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  impro- 
ving their  fundamental  law ;  and  it  is  to  be  taken  for 
granted  that  every  man  is  giving  expression  to  the 
wishes  and  feelings  and  views  of  the  constituents  he 
represents,  so  far  as  he  knows  them.    I  ask  you  if  there 
is  any  evidence  that  this  principle  which  has  been  sanc- 
tioned by  your  State  Government,  which  has  been 
sanctioned  by  the  vote  of  the  people,  and  against 
which  no  complaint  has  been  ever  raised,  is  now  adverse 
to  their  feelings,  their  sentiments,  and  their  wishes  upon 
this  subject?    What  are  the  provisions  of  your  State 
constitutions  in  reference  to  this  re-eligibility  ?  Every 
solitary  one  of  the  slaveholding  States,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Georgia,  has  this  principle  engrafted  upon  its 
constitution.    There  are  now,  including  California,  thir- 
ty-one States  in  this  Union.    Nineteen  of  these  States 
sanction  this  principle  for  which  we  are  contending. 
Nearly  two-thirds  of  them  sanction  it — and  among  them 
every  solitary  State  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  ex- 
cepting only  Georgia.    I  do  not  know  what  the  provis- 
ion is  in  the  constitution  of  California,  but  leaving  her 
out,  there  are  nineteen  constitutions  which  contain  the 
provision  that  your  chief  executive  shall  go  out  of  office 
after  he  has  served  a  term  of  years.    And  where  is  the 
opposite  principle  adopted?    It  is  in  your  northern 
States.    It  is  in  those  States  which  have  been  in  a  great 
measure  settled  by  foreign  emigration.    Owing  to  the 
peculiar  institutions  of  the  south,  most  of  the  foreign 
emigration  has  settled  in  the  non-slaveholding  States. 
And  these  settlers  coming  over  from  the  despotical  gov- 
ernments of  Europe,  and  knowing  but  little  of  demo- 
cratic principles,  becoming  sudden  converts  to  democracy 
— like  my  friend  from  the  county  of  Henrico, — have  at- 
tempted to  engraft  and  have  engrafted,  a  principle  upon 
their  constitutions,  allowing  their  Governor  to  be  re- 
elected.   It  is  a  principle  which  none  of  the  southern 
States,  with  the  exception  of  Georgia — following  the 
example  set  them  by  those  who  had  framed  our  institu- 
tions in  the  beginning — have  incorporated  in  their  insti- 
tutions.   In  the  southern  States,  made  up  of  a  people 
who  have  grown  up  with  your  institutions,  and  have 
been  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  our  republican 
freedom,  with  all  their  devotion  to  those  principles, 
the  people  are  unwilling  to  give  rein  to  any  wild,  un- 
governable spirit,  by  which  the  majority  are  to  control 
without  any  limits  or  any  checks  whatsoever ;  and  the 
consequence  is,  that  now,  so  far  from  the  principle  for 
which  we  are  contending  being  a  new  principle,  origi- 
nating among  politicians,  it  is  one  which  has  been 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


113 


consecrated  by  the  patriots  of  this  and  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  States.  And  the  opposition,  I  think,  to  this 
principle,  may  b-3  traced  to  politicians,  the  consecration 
of  it  certainly  cannot  be.  The  gentleman  must  pardon 
me,  if  when  I  look  at  the  facts,  if  when  I  look  at  the 
southern  States,  and  find  that  all  of  them  with  the  ex- 
ception of  one,  have  retained  the  provision  in  their  con- 
stitutions, and  when  too  I  look  at  the  character  of  ihese 
States  and  the  complexion  of  their  population,  and  then 
look  at  the  character  of  tho>e  States  which  have  aJopt- 
ed  opposite  principles — when  I  remember  that  fa- 
naticism rages  amnng  this  population,  that  you  there 
have  every  species  of  fanaticism,  which  urges  their  popu- 
lation on  to  aggression  upon  the  rights  of  other  po  tions 
of  the  country — the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  I  say. 
must  par  Ion  me  if  I  prefer  to  follow  the  example  set  us 
by  the  patriots  of  Virginia,  and  the  great  majority  of  the 
southern  States,  in  preference  to  following  him,  and 
those  northern  States,  in  the  attempt  to  establish  a  spe- 
cies of  democracy  which  has  never  been  recognized  by 
the  fathers  of  the  church, 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  told  us  that  the  federal 
constitution  contained  no  prohibition  against  the  re-eii- 
gibility  of  your  chief  executive.  It  is  true  ;  and  Wash- 
ington voted  for  that  constitution,  and  assisted  in  its 
formation.  But  what  did  Washington  do  ?  Alter  an 
election  for  two  terms,  he  became  satisfied  that  the  in- 
terest and  welfare  of  his  country  required  that  no  man 
should  serve  longer  than  two  terms,  and  that  he  should 
retire.  Notwithstanding,  there  was  no  prohibition,  his 
conduct  demonstrated  the  fact  that  he  was  satisfied  that 
the  welfare  and  interests  of  the  public  demanded  that  no 
executive  officer  should  be  elected  after  two  terms.  And 
remember  that  the  matter  in  discussion  now  is  as  to  any 
prohibition  of  re-eligibility,  at  all ,  for  any  length  of  time ; 
and  that  the  proposition  is  to  allow  your  Governor  to  be 
re-elected  term  after  term,  as  long  as  he  lives.  I  say 
that  the  example  of  Washington  is  directly  in  opposition 
to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman.  And  has  not  that 
example  been  sanctioned  and  consecrated  by  all  our  best 
and  wisest  statesmen  ?  Who  would  dare  to  be  a  candidate 
for  the  chief  executive  office  of  the  United  States  for  a 
third  term  ?  The  people  at  once  would  regard  it  as  an 
attempt  to  break  down  principles  which  have  been  held 
sacred  and  absolutely  necessary  for  their  welfare.  Be- 
sides, we  have  had  but  one  Washington,  and  it  is  not 
likely  that  we  shall  ever  have  another.  And  the  people, 
notwithstanding  their  admiration  and  devotion  to  him, 
so  far  believed  the  principle  upon  which  he  acted  was  a 
wise,  proper,  and  right  one,  ~as  to  sanction  his  course, 
and  not  to  call  him  again  into  public  service.  Although 
he  was  regarded  by  them  as  the  father  of  his  country, 
and  better  entitled  to  their  support  and  admiration  than 
any  other  man  in  it — yet,  satisfied  that  the  principle  upon 
which  he  was  acting  was  a  wise  and  patriotic  one,  they 
sanctioned  it.  And  wh  it  has  been  the  conduct  of  your 
State  governments  since?  It  has  been  to  make  a  con- 
stitutional provision  of  that  very  principle  upon  which 
Washington  acted.  The  very  men  from  Virginia  who 
participated  in  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the  fed- 
eral constitution,  sanctioned  by  their  adoption  of  it  in 
our  State  constitution,  this  principle  of  ineligibility. 
It  has  been  consecrated  and  sanctioned  by  our  wisest 
aud  best  men,  and  yet  the  gentleman  from  Henrico 
imagines  that  nobody  is  in  favor  of  it  except  the  poli- 
ticians ! 

But  what  is  the  argument,  and  the  only  argument  in- 
troduced by  the  gentleman  from  Heurico,  to  sustain  the 
position  which  he  assumes  on  this  question?  Why  he 
told  us  that  it  was  not  right  and  proper  that  the  hands 
of  the  majority  should  be  tied  to  prevent  the  minority 
from  doing  what  they  please.  Is  that  so  ?  The  hands 
of  the  people  ought  not  to  be  tied,  because  they  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  do  as  they  please!  Is  that  the  true 
principle  of  republicanism"?  Search  the  history  of  re- 
publicanism from  its  origin  down  to  the  present  time, 
and  if  all  its  principles  have  not  been  in  direct  conflict 
with  such  a  doctrine  as  that,  then  I  must  subscribe  to 


the  idea  that  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  has  within 
his  mortal  frame  ninety-nine  times  more  democracy 
than  all  >  f  the  democracy  put  together.  Is  it  a  fact 
that  there  ought  to  be  no  restraint  upon  the  majority  of 
the  people  to  prevent  them  from  doing  injustice  to  the 
minority  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  pardon  me. 
I  am  sure  the  gentleman  does  not  mean  to  misrepresent 
my  position.  I  said,  and  in  order  that  it  may  be  under- 
stood more  clearly.  I  will,  with  his  permission,  re-state 
the  proposition.  The  platform  on  which  I  planted  my- 
self was,  that  this  was  a  popular  government — that  all 
power  belonged  to  the  people,  except  that  which  they 
chose  to  divest  themselves  of,  and  transfer  to  their 
agents — and  that,  unless  some  good  reason  be  shown 
why  they  should  be  stripped  of  a  particular  power,  that 
it  was  safer  to  be  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  people, 
than  in  the  hands  of  their  agents;  and  that,  in  the  origi- 
nal formation  of  our  government,  it  was  an  unsolved 
problem  whether  man  was  capable  of  self-government 
or  not ;  and,  therefore,  many  of  the  powers  they  may 
rightfully  exercise,  w7ere  transferred  to  their  agents. 
But  that  is  now  a  solved  problem.  Now  we  have  the 
experience  of  seventy-five  years  to  prove  that  fact,  and 
we  ought  not  to  strip  them  of  any  power  unless  there 
is  some  absolute  necessity  for  it. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  gentleman  has  got  off  the  question 
as  he  has  in  the  whole  of  his  argument,  whenever  he 
has  attempted  to  enforce  his  position.  It  was  necessary 
for  him  to  force  into  his  argument  a  question  which 
does  not  belong  to  it,  or  else  abandon  his  ground.  The 
argument  is  not  about  the  propriety  of  taking  power 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  transferring  it  to 
their  agents.  That  is  not  the  question.  It  is  whether 
there  shall  be  any  limitation  upon  the  exercise  of 
power  at  all.  The  question  is  not  whether  it  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  or  their  agents.  I  am  in  fa- 
vor of  taking  all  power,  so  far  as  the  election  and  con- 
trol of  the  agents  of  the  people  is  concerned,  and  vest- 
ing it  permanently  in  the  people.  The  gentleman  begs 
the  question  then  when  he  tells  this  committee  that  the 
question  is  as  to  taking  power  from  the  people,  and 
placing  it  in  the  hands  of  their  agents.  There  is  no  dif- 
ference between  us  in  that  respect,  except  that  the  gen- 
tleman said,  if  the  Governor  was  to  electioneer,  he 
would  then  be  for  stripping  the  people  of  this  power 
which  they  should  have,  whether  he  electioneer  or  not. 
The  gentleman  said  in  a  speech,  the  report  of  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand : 

"  W e  have  come  here,  as  I  understand,  for  the  purpose 
"of  enlarging  the  power  of  the  people ;  and  yet  the  very 
"  first  proposition  made  here  is,  that  the  hands  of  the  peo- 
'  pie  shall  be  so  tied,  and  they  be  prevented  from  doing 
"  that  which  they  may  choose  to  do." 

That  is  the  sentiment  which  I  ascribed  to  him.  He  was 
opposed  to  the  people's  hands  being  tied,  and  desired  that 
they  should  be  left  to  do  what  they  chose  to  do.  I  say 
there  is  no  democracy  in  a  sentiment  of  that  sort.  It  is 
going  for  arbitrary  government.  Such  a  principle  is  di- 
rectly at  variance  with  all  just  notions  of  our  govern- 
ment. The  great  object  of  a  Constitution  is  to  prevent 
the  majority  of  the  people  from  doing  what  they  please, 
when  it  may  be  adverse  to  the  interests  of  another  por- 
tion of  the  people.  Why  are  you  to  have  constitutional 
restrictions  and  guaranties  at  all?  It  is  that  the  people 
may  not  do  that  which  is  unjust  and  improper.  It  is 
that  all  our  feelings  which  may  become  excited — our 
feelings  and*  interests  which  may  be  biased — shall  be 
controlled  by  great  fundamental  principles,  so  that  the 
rights  of  all  may  be  secured;  and  that,  while  the  major- 
ity shall  exercise  all  proper  and  legitimate  power,  yet 
that  there  shall  exist  some  control  over  their  power  to 
prevent  an  improper  exercise  of  it.  Ask  the  people  of 
this  State  if  they  desire  to  have  unlimited  power  in 
their  hands,  what  will  be  their  reply  ?  Why,  that  they 
desire  to  have  under  their  control  all  of  the  power  wdiich 
is  necessary  for  the  proper  management  of  the  govern- 


114 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ment  by  their  agents.  They  desire  to  have  under  their 
entire  control  all  of  the  power  which  is  necessary  for 
the  management  of  the  public  agents.  They  desire  that 
these  agents  should  be  directly  responsible  to  them,  and 
at  all  times  under  their  control,  and  that  they  should  be 
placed  in  power  by  their  votes.  They  desire  no  unlimi- 
ted power  over  the  rights  of  others,  and  they  are  wil- 
ling that  there  shall  be  a  limitation  in  the  Constitution 
by  which  the  minority  may  feel  that  they  are  protected 
and  secured  from  outrage.  Why,  if  you  act  upon  the 
principle  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  in  the  forma- 
tion of  this  whole  Constitution,  from  the  chief  executive 
down  to  the  lowest  office,  you  would  have  in  a  short 
time  a  perfect  display  of  the  principles  of  French  de- 
mocracy. You  certainly  would  have  none  of  that  de- 
mocracy which  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  blood  of  our 
revolutionary  fathers.  I  venture  to  predict  that  if  the 
question  was  propounded  to  the  people  of  these  United 
States,  whether  there  ought  or  ought  not  to  be  any  limi- 
tation upon  power,  the  universal  response  of  the  demo- 
cratic republican  people  would  be,  that  there  ought  to 
be  limitations  upon  it.  And  the  only  other  response 
which  it  seems  to  me  could  be  made  would  be  that  which 
would  come  from  a  class  of  politicians  who  exist  at  the 
North,  who  think  that  they  ought  to  have  the  entire  con- 
trol over  the  rights  of  others.  There  is  a  class  of  poli- 
ticians North  of  Mason  &  Dixon's  line  who  have  been 
acting  upon  the  principle  that  there  ought  to  be  no  con- 
trol upon  the  wishes  and  whims  of  the  majority ;  and,  in 
consequence  of  this  very  principle,  assaults  have  been 
made  upon  the  rights  of  the  South,  from  time  to  time. 
Do  you  not  think  there  ought  to  be  some  limitation  upon 
the  power  of  the  majority  ?  Suppose  there  had  been  no 
constitutional  provision  in  your  federal  constitution  to 
prevent  these  Northern  aggressions,  where  would  have 
been  the  rights  of  the  South  at  this  moment  ?  Suppose 
there  had  been  no  check  upon  the  pleasure  of  the  ma- 
jority, I  ask  you,  what  would  Southern  rights  have 
been  at  this  moment  ?  The  only  thing  that  has  saved 
us,  has  been  these  constitutional  guaranties.  Men  have 
been  brought  back  to  their  reason,  and  these  constitu- 
tional guaranties  have  risen  as  bulwarks  to  protect 
the  interests  of  the  minority.  And  a  republican  people, 
so  far  from  being  anxious  to  have  unlimited  control 
over  the  rights  of  the  minority,  would  desire  that  minor- 
ity to  feel  safe  and  secure  under  the  belief  that  their 
own  rights  will  be  protected  by  constitutional  guaranties. 

But  the  gentleman  says,  I  said  the  people  were  ca- 
pricious ;  and  immediately  he  turned  around  and  admit- 
ted the  fact  that  they  were.  [Laughter.]  And  he  said 
that  the  substance  of  my  argument  was,  that  the  peo- 
ple were  not  capable  of  self  government.  The  gentle- 
man is  much  more  nearly  allied  to  the  school  of  politi- 
cians who  promulgate  such  doctrines  as  that  than  I  am. 
Whenever  the  gentleman  finds  me  advocating  the  views 
of  the  old  time  federalists,  who  were  denounced  by  his 
colleague  as  black  cockade  federalists,  then  he  will  have 
some  reason  to  suspect  that  I  am  more  in  favor  of  the 
principle  which  denies  to  the  people  the  right  of 
self-government.  I  believe  that  the  people  ought  to 
exercise  unlimited  control  in  the  appointment  of  all 
their  officers,  executive,  legislative  and  judicial.  I  be- 
lieve that  no  more  power  ought  to  be  vested  in  the  gov- 
ernment than  is  absolutely  necessary  for  carrying  into 
execution  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  func- 
tions. I  am  opposed  to  a  strong  government,  because 
such  a  government  is  directly  in  conflict  with  the 
rights  of  the  people.  Can  the  gentleman  from  Henrico 
say  the  same  ?  His  devotion  to  federal  principles  is  too 
well  known  for  him  now  to  set  himself  up  as  a  pattern 
of  modern  democracy.  I  believe  that  power  can  be  ex- 
ercised better  by  the  people  than  it  can  be  by  their 
agents.  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  any  of  the  departments 
of  the  government  exercising  any  more  power  than  is 
not  absolutely  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the  people. 
I  would  strip  them  of  all  power,  and  leave  the  pen- 
pie  free  and  independent,  to  act  as  they  will,  provided 
their  action  does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  mi- 


nority. That  I  understand  to  be  the  doctrines  of  de- 
mocracy. I  am  not  in  favor  of  any  splendid  scheme  of 
government  by  which  the  people  are  to  be  coerced  to  do 
anything  which  gentlemen  may  suppose  to  be  for  their 
interest.  When  you  find  me  advocating  any  scheme  by 
which  the  people  will  be  made  to  invest  their  capital  in 
a  particular  way  in  order  to  promote  and  patronize  a 
particular  interest,  then  you  may  doubt  my  belief  in  the 
capability  of  the  people  for  self-government.  Gentlemen 
who  think  it  necessary  that  a  government  should  have 
a  high  tariff  in  order  to  coerce  the  people  into  particular 
pursuits,  as  if  they  were  not  capable  of  taking  care  of 
their  interests  themselves,  are  little  prepared  to  give  us 
lectures  on  democracy,  no  matter  how  full  they  may 
feel  to  be  of  it. 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  there  will  be  as 
little  allusion  as  possible  to  federal  politics,  otherwise 
we  shall  be  likely  to  have  a  long  discussion  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  will  not  do  it,  I  should  not  have 
done  so  at  all,  had  not  the  gentleman  from  Henrico* 
thought  proper  to  resort  to  such  remarks  as  he  has  in 
this  connexion,  and  I  designed  to  say  nothing  more  than 
was  barely  necessary  to  reply  to  what  he  said.  I  only 
desired  to  show  that  I  never  had  been  the  advocate  of  a 
strong  government,  and  that  I  never  was  the  advocate  of 
any  principle  by  which  the  people  were  to  be  coerced 
to  do  that  which  they  themselves  do  not  seek  to  do  ;  and 
if  they  do  not  understand  their  own  business  sufficiently 
to  appreciate  their  own  interests,  I  am  not  for  compel- 
ling them,  by  legislative  coercion,  to  take  care  of  those 
interests.  I  go  for  leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they 
please,  provided  they  do  not  intefere  with  the  rights 
of  others.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  to  say  that  the 
people  at  times  do  not  act  capriciously  ?  Does  he  mean 
to  say  that  there  may  not  at  times  exist  a  disposition 
on  the  part  of  the  majority  of  the  people  to  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  others  ?  There  has  been  a  great  strug- 
gle between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  why  was  this 
struggle  ?  Was  there  nothing  in  it  ?  The  gentleman 
seemed  to  think  that  I  was  slandering  the  people  when 
I  said  that  they  might  act  from  prejudice  and  from  ex- 
citement, and  I  would  ask  him  if  the  majority  do  not 
act  in  this  way  sometimes  ?  What  has  been  the  result 
of  the  contest  out  of  which  we  have  just  come,  and  to 
which  I  have  before  referred  ?  Why  the  people  of  the 
South  have  been  indulging  in  hallelujahs — not  because 
they  achieved  any  great  victory  in  that  contest — but 
because  they  came  out  second  best !  There  was  a  vio- 
lent and  a  mighty  effort  made  by  a  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple, through  their  representatives  in  Congress,  to  in- 
fringe upon  the  rights  of  the  South.  With  these  facts 
before  me,  I  should  not  be  candid,  I  should  not  pay  that 
regard  to  the  facts,  which  it  is  necessary  every  man 
should  regard,  who  means  to  vote  properly  upon  such 
a  question  as  this,  if  I  did  not  govern  my  conduct  ac- 
cordingly. But  because  the  people  may  act  from  ex- 
citement and  from  prejudice,  that  does  not  require 
me  to  doubt  their  capacity  for  self  government  ;  on 
the  contrary,  I  say  unless  they  had  that  power,  things 
would  be  a  great  deal  worse.  I  say  it  is  better  that 
all  power  should  be  lodged  with  the  people  than  with 
their  agents,  and  that  if  we  have  the  proper  constitu- 
tional guaranties,  they  will,  as  they  have  done  hereto- 
fore, remain  as  barriers  to  prevent  evil  and  mischief. 
But  if  you  strike  out  this  constitutional  prohibition,  then 
there  is  no  means  by  which  the  minority  may  be  pro- 
tected. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  stated  that  the  powers 
of  the  Executive  would  be  so  few  and  so  limited,  that 
it  would  not  be  necessary  that  there  should  be  any 
provision  incorporated  in  the  Constitution  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  his  re-eligibility — that  no  evil  can 
grow  out  of  his  re-eligibility,  his  powers  were  to  be  so 
small — and  that  as  he  was  not  to  be  entrusted  with  the 
exercise  of  much  executive  power,  that  therefore  it  was 
not  important  that  he  should  be  excluded  from  a  re- 
election.  Now,  no  one  can  tell  what,  in  the  course  of 


VIRGINIA  REFORM 


time,  may  be  the  power  vested  in  your  governor.  Al- 
though he  has  not  very  great  power,  he  still  has  some 
power,  which  he  may  exercise  for  the  benefit  of  one 
portion  of  the  people,  regardless  of  the  rights  of  oth- 
ers. The  principles  which  govern  his  re-election  are 
different  from  those  which  apply  to  the  case  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature.  Your  chief  Executive  is  one 
man,  your  executive  power  is  all  to  be  concentrated  in 
one  man ;  but  in  the  case  of  your  legislature,  the  power 
is  divided,  the  responsibility  is  divided,  and  there  does 
not  exist  the  same  necessity  for  those  checks  upon 
the  members  of  that  department  of  the  government 
that  should  exist  in  the  case  of  your  chief  executive. 
But,  says  the  gentleman,  all  power  is  in  the  people,  and 
there  should  be  no  infringement  on  popular  rights.  The 
members  of  your  General  Assembly  are  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they  know 
what  are  the  wishes  and  desires  of  the  people.  They  re- 
present the  whole  people,  and  according  to  the  theory 
of  the  gentleman,  the  decision  of  the  majority  of  tiiis 
legislature  ought  to  be  taken  as  the  will  and  wish  of 
the  people  and  there  ought  to  be  no  check  upon  it. 
Why  and  for  what  purpose,  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine 
be  true,  was  your  Senate  established  ?  Was  it  not  to 
be  a  check  upon  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  people  ? 
I  have  always  understood  that  to  be  the  object  of  a 
Senate.  Elected  for  longer  periods,  not  so  directly  re- 
sponsible to  the  people  as  the  other  branch  of  the  General 
Assembly  are,  the  Senate  was  constituted  for  the  purpose 
of  operating  as  a  check  upon  the  sudden  excitement  of 
the  people.  Well,  no  evil  has  resulted  from  this,  and  the 
people  have  never  complained  that  there  is  a  power 
in  the  legislative  department  by  which  they  are  thus 
checked  and  trammeled.  They  know  that  it  is  for  their 
good,  that  in  the  end  it  is  the  advancement  of  the  in- 
terests of  all,  and  that  so  far  from  evil  resulting  from  it, 
it  i*  for  the  security  of  the  rights  of  every  portion  of 
the  people. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  advanced  one  argument 
which  seemed  to  me  to  be  fatal  to  the  cause  which  he 
espoused  on  this  occasion.  It  was  stated  by  the  gentle- 
from  the  city  of  Richmond,  (Mr.  Meredith,)  that  if  the 
governor  was  to  be  re-eligible,  being  at  the  seat  of 
government  where  the  legislature  assembled,  the  legis- 
lature might  attempt  to  control  him  and  that  he  might 
become  their  creature  in  order  to  secure  his  re-election. 
What  was  the  reply  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico? 
Why,  that  he  ought  to  be  influenced  by  the  people's 
representatives  !  The  gentleman  stated  that  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia  ought  to  listen  to  the  wishes,  and  to  be 
under  the  influence,  if  I  understood  him,  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

Mr.  BOTTS,  (in  his  seat.)  He  should  submit  to  the 
will  of  the  people. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  gentleman  says  that  the  Governor 
should  submit  to  the  will  of  the  people.  What  did  his 
argument  mean,  if  it  meant  anything — and  the  gentle- 
man is  not  apt  to  make  speeches  that  mean  nothing  ? 
His  argument  was,  that  the  Governor  might  become  the 
creature  of  the  Legislature,  and  the  gentleman  in  his 
reply  says  he  ought  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the  people. 
What  is  his  meaning?  Is  it  not  that  he  ought  to  sub- 
mit to  that  will  as  thus  expressed?  If  that  is  not  his 
meaning,  why  make  the  reply  at  all  ?  He  is  to  be  the 
representative  of  the  people  in  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment of  the  government,  elected  by  them,  and  respon- 
sible to  them.  The  gentleman  says  that  he  ought  to 
submit  to  the  will  of  the  people,  and  according  to  his 
argument,  if  there  is  any  meaning  to  be  attached  to  it, 
it  means  that  he  should  listen  to  the  Legislature,  and 
become  its  creature.  I  had  thought  we  desired  to  take 
the  election  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Legislature,  and  to 
place  the  candidate  in  a  position  beyond  their  control ; 
but  the  gentleman's  great  attachment  to  the  rights  of 
the  people  seems  only  to  go  so  far  as  a  re-election  is 
concerned.  And  really  then  after  his  all-great  display 
in  &vox  of  popular  rights,  the  only  thing  -which  I  can 


CONVENTION.  115 


discover  that  entitles  him  to  be  called  the  defender  of 
the  people's  privileges,  is  that  of  advocating  that  the 
Governor  should  be  re-elected  during  his  whole  life  ! 

It  does  seem  to  me  that  his  argument  is  of  itself  a 
most  conclusive  reason  against  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
Governor.  If  there  is  a  probability  of  his  intriguing 
with  the  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  securing  his 
own  ends  and  promoting  his  own  designs,  and  by  thus 
becoming  a  creature  of  the  Legislature,  ensuring  his 
own  advancement,  then  I  say  the  Governor  ought  not  to 
be  re-elected.  Checks  and  restrictions  are  absolutely 
necessary  to  be  placed  upon  his  rights  and  privileges 
for  the  security  and  advancement  of  the  rights  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  it 
is  the  politicians  who  make  the  people  do  wrong. 
That  certainly  is  very  complimentary  to  the  people. 
Now,  as  the  place  where  all  the  politicians  of  the  State 
assemble  is  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  my  friend 
from  Henrico,  I  admit  his  superior  knowledge  of  their 
practices.  But  will  not  your  Governor  himself  be  a 
politician  ?  I  admit  that  politicians  are  apt  to  do 
wrong  themselves,  for  their  own  interest,  and  if  they 
are  very  popular  among  the  people,  they  may  for  a  time 
influence  them  in  a  wrong  cause.  But  I  have  faith  in 
the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  the  people,  and  believe 
that  they  will  finally  control  the  politicians  and  make 
them  submit  to  what  is  right.  The  most  conclusive  ar- 
gument that  the  gentleman  advanced  in  favor  of  the 
propriety  of  his  side  of  the  question  was,  that  he  had 
more  democracy  in  his  frame  than  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths of  those  who  styled  themselves  democrats. 
That  seemed  to  me  the  most  conclusive  argument 
w.hich  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  advanced  during  the 
whole  of  his  speech  yesterday,  in  favor  of  the  continued 
re-eligibility  of  the  Governor  to  office.  Upon  that 
point  we  are  disposed  to  dispute  with  him.  I  recollect 
that  the  gentleman  sometime  ago  was  very  severe  upon 
his  party  friends  because  they  so  far  abandoned  the  po- 
sition which  they  had  formerly  occupied,  as  to  call 
themselves  no  party  men.  I  suppose  he  means  to  be 
ahead  of  them  this  time,  by  taking  the  name  of  demo- 
crat, and  thus  be  prepared  for  any  contingency. 

Mr.  BOTTS,  (in  his  seat.)  Was  not  my  doctrine  dem- 
ocratic ? 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Not  at  all.  Your  democracy  was  the 
old  federal  democracy.  I  have  never  uttered,  I  have 
never  entertained,  the  sentiment  that  the  people  are  not 
capable  of  self-government.  I  believe  they  are.  I  be- 
lieve that  power  can  better  be  exercised  by  them  than 
it  can  by  any  other  form  of  government  that  may  be 
devised.  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  the  concentration  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  government.  I  am  utterly  op- 
posed to  the  insertion  of  any  provision  in  your  Consti- 
tution by  which  the  power  and  privileges  of  the  agents 
of  the  government  are  to  be  increased.  I  am  for  whole- 
some restraints  and  checks  upon  the  rights  of  the  major- 
ity. Would  the  gentleman  strike  out  from  the  Federal 
Constitution  that  provision  made  for  the  benefit  of  the 
minority  as  well  as  the  majority,  which  says  "  that  a 
republican  form  of  government  shall  be  guaranteed  to 
every  state  in  the  Union?"  According  to  the  gentle- 
man's doctrine,  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  state 
ought  to  be  left  to  do  as  they  please.  And  what  is  this 
provision  in  your  Federal  Constitution  which  says  that 
a  republican  form  of  government  shall  be  guarantied  to 
each  state  ?  Why  it  must  be  a  monstrous  outrage  upon 
the  rights  of  the  majority.  I  wonder  the  gentleman 
does  not  get  up  a  crusade,  so  great  is  his  admiration,  so 
great  is  his  zeal  for  the  rights  of  the  majority,  with  a  view- 
to  have  that  provision  stricken  out  of  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution. 1  believe  that  the  people  are  capable  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  at  the  same  time  I  believe  that  men  are  frail 
and  liable  to  be  led  away  by  their  passions  and  prejudices. 
He  is  the  true  friend  of  the  people  who  does  not  flatter 
them,  who  points  out  the  frailties  to  which  they  are 
liable,  and  makes  the  necessary  provision  in  order  to  avoid 
their  evil  consequences.  There  is  a  class  of  politicians 
at  the  north  who  are  for  throwing  away  all  re- 


116 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


6traints,  for  breaking  down  all  constitutional  checks, 
and  for  having  the  majority  governed  by  no  lim-  j 
itations  upon  their  power  by  the  restraints  of  Con- 
gress. They  are  for  nothing  but  the  "higher  law" 
and  none  of  them  respect  that.  It  will  always  be  found 
that  these  parties  have  no  respect  for  any  law  at  all. 
They  are  for  giving  entire  control  to  their  passions,  feel- 
ings and  prejudices.  They  pretend  to  be  in  favor  of 
liberty ;  bu!  their  doctrine  carried  out,  next  comes  an- 
archy, and  finally  licentiousness.  The  only  way  to  se- 
cure our  rights  is  to  preserve  every  check  we  can  upon 
the  evil  passions  of  human  nature.  The  only  way  to 
elevate  man  is  to  teach  him  his  frailty  and  his  defects. 
Tell  him  he  is  perfect  and  not  liable  to  fall  into  temp- 
tation, and  you  at  once  let  loose  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment, are  thrown  from  the  back  of  power,  and  nothing 
but  evil  can  possibly  result.  But  teach  the  people  that 
they  are  frail  and  liable  to  commit  errors,  that  it  is 
proper  and  right  that  they  should  respect  the  rights  of 
others,  and  check  their  passions,  their  feelings,  their 
predjudices,  their  actions,  and  their  caprices  if  you 
choose,  and  the  people,  if  they  listen  to  your  teachings, 
will  ever  be  prepared  to  respect  the  rights  of  others, 
and  preserve  their  own  independence  and  freedom. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  The  amendment  now  before  the  com- 
mittee, is  one  which  I  indicated  some  days  since  my  pur- 
pose to  offer  as  an  amendment  to  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  Executive  Department  of  theGovernment,when 
that  report  should  be  under  consideration.  Being  ab- 
sent, however,  when  it  was  taken  up,  I  return  my  thanks 
to  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  for  having 
proposed  it,  as  well  as  my  thanks  for  the  able  argument 
which  he  addressed  to  us  in  favor  of  the  proposition.  It 
is  not  my  purpose  to  detain  the  committee  long  in  giving 
the  reasons  that  not  only  induced  me  to  indicate  a  purpose 
of  offering  this  amendment,  but  also  induced  me  to  sustain 
it  by  my  vote  in  committee,  and  in  Convention.  Before  I 
do  so,  however,  I  trust  that  the  members  of  this  com- 
mittee will  pardon  me  for  expressing  the  hope  that  they 
will  not  follow  to  any  very  considerable  extent,  the  ex- 
ample set  them  by  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat ;  but  will  refrain  in  future  discussions  from  any  allu- 
sion to  the  Northern  and  Southern  controversy,  as 
it  is  familiarly  termed.  I  trust  that  that  subject,  which 
it  is  to  be  hoped  has  been  settled  forever,  and  in  the 
settlement  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Goochland 
(Mr.  Leake)  also,  I  doubt  not,  acquiesces,  will  be  per- 
mitted to  rest,  at  least  so  far  as  gentlemen  this  side  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  are  concerned.  I  trust  it  will 
not  be  brought  into  our  discussions  here. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ex- 
plain ?  I  did  not  refer  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  inviting 
that  discussion  here,  but  to  show  the  fact  that  there  was 
a  disposition  among  a  majority  sometimes  to  override 
and  forget  the  rights  of  the  minority. 

Mr.  CARLILE.    Well,  I  do  not  know  that  the  pro- 
osition,  which  the  gentleman  urges  as  a  correct  one, 
as  been  enforced  upon  the  minds  of  the  committee  to 
any  greater  degree  by  his  allusion  to  that  subject,  than 
if  he  had  left  the  allusion  alone.    So  much  for  that. 

I  design  but  very  briefly,  to  notice  some  of  the  re- 
marks made  by  the  gentleman  from  Goochland.  He  says 
he  has  never  uttered  the  sentiment,  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve the  people  were  incapable  of  self-government.  I 
believe  every  word  the  gentleman  has  said.  He  would 
not  utter  the  sentiment,  but  what  I  would  rather  see,  what 
the  people  would  rather  see,  and  what  would  be  a  bet- 
ter test  of  his  democracy,  would  be  for  him  to  act  by  his 
votes  in  carrying  out  the  contrary  sentiment  which  he  says 
he  has  ever  uttered.  If  he  has  never  given  utterance 
to  that  sentiment,  I  fear  by  the  position  he  has  assumed 
in  this  house,  he  shows  that  if  he  does  not  utter  the 
want  of  confidence  in  the  people  to  govern  themselves, 
he  still  entertains  opinions  which  are  directly  contrary 
to  the  sentiment  which  he  does  utter.  I  do  not  believe, 
as  a  practical  question,  that  so  far  as  the  election  and 
re-election  of  gentlemen  who  shall  fill  this  distinguished 
office  is  concerned,  it  makes  much  difference  whether  the 


amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
(Mr.  Botts,)  or  the  one  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredway:)  should  be  engrafted  into 
our  Constitution.  I  believe  that  so  far  as  practical  re- 
sults are  to  be  attained,  by  the  adoption  of  either  of  the 
propositions,  that  it  will  matter  very  little ;  but  I  look 
upon  it  not  only  as  involving  a  question  of  principle, 
but  as  being  the  predecessor  of  principles  that  are 
to  be  hereafter  determined  by  this  Convention. 
The  settlement  of  this  proposition,  in  all  probabili- 
ty, will  determine  the  settlement  of  other  propositions 
in  which  the  interests  of  the  people  are  more  di- 
rectly involved,  than  in  the  question  whether  a  gentle- 
man once  elected  Governor  shall  be  re-elected  if  the 
people  desire  to  re-elect  him.  I  maintain  that  gentle- 
men have  not  drawn  a  distinction  between  the  qualifica- 
tions that  a  wise  people  shall  require  of  any  one  who 
shall  fill  the  office  of  Governor — the  limitations  that  are 
to  be  imposed  upon  that  department  of  the  Government — 
and  the  amendment  which  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land advocates.  It  is  said  by  the  gentlemen  who  advo- 
cate his  side  of  the  question,  that  you  require  the  Gov- 
ernor shall  be  of  a  certain  age,  that  it  is  required  by  the 
report  of  this  committee  that  he  shall  be  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  a  citizen  of  Virginia  at  least  five 
years  previous  to  his  election.  These  are  deemed  by 
that  committee  as  wise  and  wholesome  qualifications  to 
be  possessed  by  the  individual  before  he  can  fill  that 
office  and  discharge  its  duties.  These  I  repeat  are  quali- 
fications which  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee  who 
made  this  report,  a  wise  people  ought  to  require  in  a 
candidate  who  proposes  to  fill  an  important  position  in 
the  State.  The  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredway,)  and  favored  by  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland,  (Mr.  Leake,)  is  not  a  quali- 
fication which  is  thought  necessary  to  be  possessed  by  a 
Governor,  as  essential  to  enable  him  to  discharge  his  du- 
ties, but  is  a  restriction  upon  the  right  of  the  people  to 
select  as  their  agent,  one  who  is  admitted  to  be  of  ma- 
ture age  and  whose  qualifications  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  the  office,  have  been  endorsed  by  an  election  to  the 
very  position  which  he  again  aspires  to  fill.  A  qualifi- 
cation operates  alike  upon  every  citizen  of  the  State. 
The  restriction  advocated  by  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land excludes  a  class  of  meritorious  citizens  from  being 
called  into  the  service  of  the  State  and  placed  in  a  posi- 
tion which  experience  has  doubly  qualified  them  to  fill. 
I  ask  gentlemen  if  they  do  not  see  the  distinction  ;  the 
one  is  a  qualification,  the  other  is  a  limitation 
and  restriction  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  It  is 
this  distinction  I  desire  gentlemen  to  draw.  It  is 
not  a  qualification  at  all — it  is  not  a  restriction,  as  gen- 
tlemen suppose,  upon  the  office  of  Governor,  but  a  re- 
striction upon  the  rights  of  the  people  in  whom  the 
gentleman  has  so  much  confidence,  which  he  desires  to' 
impose  by  the  amendment  he  advocates.  And  he 
invokes  the  great  name  of  Washington,  the  father  of 
his  country,  and  cites  us  the  example  which  he  set  by 
retiring  from  an  office  that  he  had  filled  for  two  presi- 
dential terms.  Let  me  commend  that  example  to  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland,  (Mr.  Leake.)  That  great 
man,  when  he  was  making  a  constitution  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  country  and  for  the  people,  did  not 
vote  for  any  such  provision  as  the  gentleman  from 
Goochland  here  desires  to  vote  for.  He  was  for  leav- 
ing with  the  people  the  right  to  determine  for  them- 
selves whether  they  would  re-elect  any  gentleman  to 
the  office  of  president,  either  for  one  or  two  terms,  or 
for  life,  as  the  gentleman  from  Goochland  choses  to 
term  it.  I  commend  that  example  to  him  in  his  votes 
here,  in  organizing  a  form  of  government  for  that  people 
which  he  professes  to  love  so  dearly,  and  who,  as  a 
democrat,  I  take  it  for  granted,  he  thinks  he  does  love. 
But,  while  I  entertain  great  respect  for  the  gentleman. 
I  have  no  very  high  respect  for  his  democracy.  I  am 
fast  coming  to  the  opinion  that  this  eastern  democracy 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  which  is  entertained 
in  my  section  of  the  State.    It  is  a  democracy  which 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


117 


gives  utterance  to  sentiments  in  favor  of  the  capacity 
of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  but  takes  very 
good  care  to  restrict  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers  that 
belong  to  freemen.  I  commend,  therefore,  the  example 
set  by  the  father  of  his  country  to  be  acted  upon,  and 
followed  by  the  gentleman  from  Goochland,  if  he  has 
that  respect  for  that  example  which  he  would  induce 
us  to  believe,  in  the  argument  submitted  to  us  this 
morning.  Let  the  gentleman,  when  the  election  for 
Governor  is  to  come  before  the  people — if  one  who  has 
filled  that  office  is  a  candidate  for  re-election — let 
him  come  before  the  people  and  urge  his  reasons  why 
he  shall  not  be  re-elected,  and  let  the  people  have  the 
privilege  he  claims  for  himself,  of  determining  whether 
they  will  re-eleet  him  or  not.  But  the  democracy  of 
the  gentleman  from  Goochland  leads  him  to  think  that  the 
people  ought  to  exercise  all  che  powers,  which  in  his 
opinion,  he  is  willing  that  they  should  exercise,  and  none 
other. 

Mr.  LEAKE.    I  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  No,  I  know  the  gentleman  did  not 
say  so,  but  that  is  the  effect  of  the  proposition  which 
the  gentleman  advocates.  I  trust  to  find  him  voting 
with  us  before  this  question  is  decided. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  No,  your  democracy  is  too  much  of 
northern  origin. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  The  gentleman  says  my  democracy 
19  of  northern  origin.  He  knows  much  more  about  the 
Northern  States  than  I  do,  I  have  no  doubt ;  for  he  has 
been  in  them  much  more  than  I  have.  I  am  a  Virginian 
by  birth,  and  I  claim  to  be  a  Southern  man.  I  do  not 
think  that  in  this  discussion  there  is  any  necessity  of  re- 
ferring to  Northern  States  or  to  Northern  sentiments. 
There  are  many  things  which  we  might  copy  that  have 
been  engrafted  by  the  Northern  people  in  their  organic 
laws,  and  I  recommend  them  to  the  very  careful  consid- 
eration of  the  gentleman  from  Goochland.  And  if  Vir- 
ginia should  copy  a  little  more  from  that  which  has  im- 
proved that  section  of  country,  she  might  be  more  pros- 
perous than  she  is  to  day.  Now  the  difference  between 
the  gentleman  from  Goochland  and  myself  is  this:  while 
I  would  not  re-elect  a  Governor  for  life,  and  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  my  rights  as  a  freeman  at  the  polls,  I  might 
not  be  disposed  to  elect  any  man  for  more  than  one 
term,  yet  I  am  willing  the  people  of  the  State  should 
have  the  same  liberty  that  I  claim  for  myself,  and  I 
would  permit  them  to  determine  for  themselves  wheth- 
er one  elected  by  them  should  be  retained  in  office  in 
preference  to  those  who  might  be  his  competitors.  I 
am  for  following  the  example  cited  by  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland.  I  commend  it  again  to  him,  and  hope 
he  will  walk  in  the  path  of  that  precedent  which  has 
been  set  him,  and  if  he  should  be  elected  Governor, 
that  instead  of  running  a  third  race,  like  Washington, 
that  he  will  retire. 

Now,  what  is  the  business  of  this  Convention  ?  It  is 
to  organize  a  government,  and  in  organizing  a  repiesen- 
tative  government,  certain  restrictions  and  limitations 
are  necessary  to  be  placed  upon  the  powers  of  differ- 
ent departments  of  the  government  to  secure  the  peo- 
ple from  any  infraction  of  their  rights.  These  restric- 
tions are  required  to  be  imposed  for  the  protection  of 
the  people  against  an  abuse  of  power  by  their  agents. 
They  demand  that  limitations  shall  be  placed  upon 
their  agents ;  and  whenever  the  gentleman  can  satisfy 
me  that  the  amendment  which  he  supports  is  a  limita- 
tion upon  any  one  of  the  departments  ef  the  govern- 
ment— upon  the  manner  in  which  the  representatives 
of  the  people  in  this  department  of  the  government 
shall  exercise  their  functions  and  discharge  their  du- 
ties— then  he  will  show  some  plausible  argument  in 
favor  of  his  position.  But  until  he  can  convince  me 
that  such  is  the  fact,  I  am  bound  to  believe  that  he  is 
opposed  to  the  privileges  of  the  people  themselves,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  select  who  shall  fill  the  chief  offi- 
ces in  the  State,  who  shall  preside  over  them,  and  who 
shall  be  commander  of  the  army  and  of  the  navy.  Now 
we  can  very  well  see  that  there  might  be  the  very  best  i 


of  reasons,  even  a  necessity  for  the  re-election  of  Gover- 
nor, and  that  great  detriment  might  result  to  the  public 
weal,  to  put  in  one  inexperienced  in  that  office,  and  that 
much  of  the  gentleman's  argument  offered  against  the 
propriety  or  impropriety  of  his  election  would  not  be 
considered  by  the  people  themselves  when  they  come 
to  fill  the  office. 

The  provision  in  the  present  Constitution  is  a  limita- 
tion imposed  upon  one  department  of  the  government, 
whose  creature  the  Governor  is.  The  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia has  never  been  selected  by  the  people.  Hereto- 
fore he  has  been  elected  by  the  legislative  department 
of  the  government ;  and  the  people  in  view  of  this  fact, 
not  exercising  that  power  themselves,  have  imposed 
this  limitation  upon  the  power  of  that  department  of 
the  government,  and  have  said  heretofore  that  he  should 
not  be  re-elected  until  after  one  gubernatorial  term.  But 
now  the  question  is  presented  to  us  in  a  very  different 
aspect.  It  is  a  question  of  permitting  the  people  them- 
selves to  elect — not  permit  either,  that  is  not  the  proper 
word  to  be  used  in  this  Convention,  for  I  maintain  that 
the  people  have  all  power — that  all  power  is  vested  in 
and  derivable  from  them.  Then  it  is  not  a  question  of 
permitting  the  people,  but  on  the  contrary,  a  question  of 
taking  away  from  the  people  a  power  which  naturally 
belongs  to  them — a  power  which  I  maintain  should  be  ex- 
ercised by  them.  The  proposition  advocated  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Goochland  abridges  that  power  by  taking 
away  from  the  people  the  right  of  selecting  one  whom 
they  have  heretofore  passed  upon,  who  has  acquired  ex- 
perience in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  and  who  may  be 
better  qualified  to  discharge  those  duties  than  any  other 
man  in  the  Commonwealth.  I  have  always  thought  that 
this  one  term  principle  was  a  principle  gotten  up  by  cer- 
tain aspirants  for  the  Presidency  who  had  lived  to  a  very 
good  old  age,  and  who  felfc  that  if  eight  years  were  al- 
lowed to  any  one  of  them  to  fill  that  distinguished  office, 
they  might  possibly  drop  into  their  graves  before  an  op- 
portunity could  be  afforded  to  all  of  them  of  arriving  at 
that  point  of  distinction.  The  people  never  advocated 
that  doctrine.  It  has  never  been  incorporated  into  the 
principles  of  any  party  in  tins  country  ;  it  has  merely 
been  resorted  to  in  the  Presidential  canvass  for  the  pur- 
pose of  allaying  the  fears  and  obtaining  the  support  of 
those  gentlemen  who  desired  to  fill  that  office.  Now  I 
put  it  to  the  gentleman  from  Goochland  if  it  would  not 
be  better  for  him,  if  he  believes  the  people  to  be  capable 
of  self  government,  if  he  desires  that  they  shall  exercise 
those  rights  which  belong  to  them,  to  let  the  people  de- 
termine for  themselves  whether  they  shall  re-elect  a  man 
to  the  office  of  Governor,  than  for  him  to  say  they  shall 
not  have  the  right  and  the  privilege  of  doing  so.  I  ask 
him  now  whether  it  would  not  be  more  consistent 
with  his  democratic  professions,  and  more  consistent 
with  the  whole  theory  of  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment to  allow  the  people,  who  he  admits  are  capable  of 
governing  themselves,  the  right  to  determine  this  ques- 
tion for  themselves,  and  to  pass  upon  the  propriety  or 
impropriety  of  re-electing  any  man  to  the  office  of  Gover- 
nor ?  What  is  the  argument  offered  against  re-election  ? 
Pardon  me  for  saying  so,  but  I  have  not  heard  a  single 
argument  used  against  the  policy  of  adopting  the  amend- 
ment, offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  and  not  an 
argument  in  favor  of  the  restrictions  sought  to  be  im- 
posed by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Pitt- 
sylvania (Mr.  Tredway)  to  the  report  of  the  Executive 
Committee.  The  only  argument  that  I  can  possiblv  con- 
ceive that  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  such  a  proposition  is, 
that  there  are  a  great  number  of  my  democratic  friends,  in 
all  human  probability,  who  would  like  to  fill  that  office, 
and  who  the  people  might  continue  to  overlook,  but 
whom  they  might  be  forced  to  take  in  the  event  of  a  con- 
stitutional limitation  preventing  them  from  electing  the 
man  they  may  prefer.  That  is  the  only  argument,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  to  be  used  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 

What  is  the  advantage  of  adopting  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  ?    To  whom  is  the  Gov- 
i  ernor  responsible  for  the  manner  in  which  he  shall  dis- 


118 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


charge  the  duties  of  his  office,  if  you  do  not  permit  him 
to  be  re-elected?  How  are  the  people  to  pass  upon  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  his  duties,  if  ha  is 
to  be  speedily  removed  from  that  office,  and  has  no  in- 
centive to  action,  and  knows  that  by  your  organic  law 
he  never  can  be  voted  for  again,  or  in  any  reasonable 
time,  and  that  judgement  upon  his  conduct  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  shall  have  discharged  his  duties,  can 
never  be  pronounced  by  the  people.  All  the  responsi- 
bility, which  he  would  otherwise  owe  to  the  people, 
when  he  comes  to  canvass  for  a  re-election,  is  complete- 
ly removed ;  and  the  object  which  the  gentleman  from 
Goochland  seems  to  have  in  view,  that  of  securing  the 
responsibility  of  the  agents  of  the  people,  is  wholly  de- 
stroyed by  the  amendment  which  he  advocates.  1  do 
not  profess  to  be  a  politician  ;  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land, I  have  no  doubt  is,  because  he  has  given  us  his 
experience  upon  this  subject.  He  tells  us  that  the  pol- 
iticians do  wrong,  and  that  they  make  the  people  do 
wrong.  I  have  more  confidence  in  the  people,  than  to 
assume  any  such  position  in  this  committee  or  elsewhere. 
Politicians  may  do  wrong,  and  in  my  humble  opinion, 
this  amendment  which  the  gentleman  advocates  is  one 
by  which  the  politicians  will  be  benefitted  at  the 
expense  of  the  people.  Politicians  I  say  again,  may 
do  wrong,  but  I  have  confidence  in  the  people  of  this 
State,  and  of  every  other  State  in  this  glorious  confed- 
eracy. I  believe  that  they  are  capable  of  governing 
themselves,  that  they  will  do  it  properly,  if  the  politi- 
cians will  only  permit  them.  But  it  is  said  that  the 
Governor  will  be  the  creature  of  the  Legislature.  The 
gentleman  from  Goochland  says  that  that  argument  has 
never  been  answered.  It  can  be  answered  in  a  very 
few  words,  and  by  as  humble  individual  as  myself.  The 
Governor  is  now  the  creature  of  the  Legislature,  be- 
cause the  legislature  is  the  creator,  and  he  is  indebted 
to  them  for  the  position  which  he  holds  in  the  State,  but 
once  let  him  be  indebted  to  the  people  for  his  re-elec- 
tion as  it  is  proposed  he  shall  be,  and  as  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland  himself  proposes  to  do,  then  he  be- 
comes the  creature  of  the  people,  created  by  and  re- 
sponsible to  the  people,  and  to  no  particular  depart- 
ment of  the  Government.  To  the  people  he  will  look 
for  the  approval  or  disproval  of  his  conduct.  But  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland  says  that  the  people  at  times 
act  improperly.  Well,  who  is  the  judge  of  the  proprie- 
ty or  impropriety  of  the  conduct  of  the  people  ?  It  may 
be  that  the  people,  at  times,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland,  act  improperly,  but  it  might 
be  that  the  people  themselves  differ  with  the  gentleman 
as  to  whether  a  certain  act  of  theirs  was  proper  or  im- 
proper ;  and  I  would  greatly  prefer  to  leave  the  determi- 
nation to  the  people  of  this  State,  than  to  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland,  or  to  those  who  advocate  his  side  of  the 
question  in  this  committee.  I  do  think  that  it  is  assum- 
ming  a  great  deal  to  ourselves,  for  one  hundred  and 
thirty- five  gentlemen  to  say  that  eight  hundred  thous- 
and people,  or  one  hundred  thousand  voters  are 
not  capable  of  determining  upon  the  propriety  or 
impropriety  of  re-electing  their  Governor ;  that  it  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  public  weal  that  we  should 
provide  against  the  re-election  of  a  Governor  in  the  Con- 
stitution. If  it  be  improper  to  exercise  the  power  which 
will  be  in  the  people,  if  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico  be  adopted,  do  gentlemen  believe  the 
people  will  exercise  it  ?  Have  they  not  confidence 
enough  in  the  people  to  permit  this  naked  power  to  re- 
side with  them  and  to  be  exercised  or  not  by  them  as 
they  may  determine  for  themselves  ?  Would  it  not  be 
more  respectful  to  the  people,  and  would  we  not  be  car- 
rying out  our  professions  of  belief  in  their  capacity  for 
self-government  better  by  rejecting  this  restriction  upon 
their  rights  and  wait  until  a  Governor  shall  present  him- 
self for  re-election,  and  then  if  gentlemen  see  danger  in 
his  re-election  let  them  address  their  arguments  to  the 
people,  and  if  they  shall  think  with  them  they  will  cer- 
tainly reject  him?  If  there  be  that  danger  which  gen- 
tlemen seem  to  see  in  this  power — if  the  people  are  un- 


accustomed in  Virginia  to  the  exercise  of  power — if  the 
democracy  of  this  noble  old  State  which  has  been  called 
the  "Flag  Ship"  of  the  Union,  are  not  capable  of  deter- 
mining for  themselves  whether  a  gentleman  who  has 
once  filled  the  office  of  governor  shall  be  re-elected  or 
not,  I  hardly  conceive  that  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land is  capable  of  judging  for  them.  And  I  think  it  im- 
plies no  want  of  repsect  for  him  to  express  that  opinion. 
You  who  deny  to  the  people  this  right  of  determining 
for  themselves  whether  a  faithful  public  officer  shall  be 
re-elected  or  not,  and  who  believe  that  the  people  would 
so  exercise  it,  as  to  be  injurious  to  the  State  and  public 
weal,  are  those  who  set  themselves  up  as  judges  upon  the 
capacity  of  the  people  for  self-government.  Such  is  the 
only  legitimate  inference  that  can  be  drawn  from  such 
a  limitation  as  is  sought  to  be  imposed.  It  is  no  limita- 
tion whatever  upon  the  executive  office,  its  powers  or 
its  duties,  but  a  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  people 
to  select  aud  nominate  from  the  class  frem  which  a  re- 
election is  to  be  made. 

It  is  not  a  question  whether  he  who  has  been  elected 
Governor  is  to  be  elected  for  life  or  not ;  because  I  un- 
derstand the  longest  term  which  lias  been  proposed  by 
any  one  is  four  years.  The  question  then  is  only  wheth- 
er the  people  shall  have  the  right  of  determining  for 
themselves  and  passing  upon  the  conduct  of  him  who 
has  discharged  the  duties  of  this  important  office,  or 
whether  they  shall  be  restrained  from  exercising  that 
power,  and  the  right  be  denied  to  them  by  the  organic  law. 
That  is  the  simple  question  before  this  committee,  and 
I  beg  gentlemen  not  to  be  committed  here  by  arguments 
such  as  have  been  used  upon  this  principle  in  reference 
to  this  question.  A  more  important  question  involving 
the  same  principle  will  shortly  come  from  a  very  impor- 
tant committee  of  the  Convention,  and  this  body  will 
have  to  act  upon  it.  There  are  members  of  this  body,  it 
is  known,  who  come  here  as  radicals,  professing,  like  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland,  all  confidence  in  the  capaci- 
ty of  the  people  for  self-government,  but  who  believe 
that  any  man  who  might  happen  to  be  elected  a  nisi 
prius  judge,  ought  not  to  come  before  the  people  for  re- 
election. I  am  for  the  re-eligibility  of  all  officers,  and 
for  allowing  the  people  to  select,  for  every  office  it  is 
necessary  for  them  to  fill,  the  very  best  material  the 
State  ha3  in  it.  That  is  the  doctrine  I  advocate.  That 
is  my  democracy,  and  I  trust  such  will  yet  be  the  de- 
mocracy of  my  friend  from  Goochland.  If  the  judge  of 
my  circuit  who  has  discharged  his  duties  for  seven  or 
ten  years,  is  more  capable  of  discharging  those  duties 
and  rendering  good  service  to  the  people  over  whom  he 
presides,  than  any  other  gentleman  in  the  district,  I  de- 
sire that  the  people  of  that  district  may  have  the  power 
of  retaining  him  in  his  station  as  judge  over  them.  I 
also  desire  the  people  to  have  the  power  in  this  instance, 
of  retaining  in  office  their  governor,  if  they  please,  no 
matter  whether  the  necessities  of  the  State,  or  his  supe- 
rior qualifications  shall  seem  to  require  it  or  not.  I  de- 
sire that  they  shall  have  the  naked  power  of  retaining 
him  in  that  position,  and  that  is  the  only  question  before 
us.  It  is  not  whether  A.  or  B.  shall  or  shall  not  be  re- 
elected. It  is  only  whether  the  people  shall  have  the 
naked  power  of  re-electing  him  if  they  choose ;  and  that 
naked  power  is  sought  to  be  denied  the  people  of  this 
democratic  state,  by  democratic  gentlemen,  who  pro- 
fess to  believe  that  all  power  is  in  the  people,  and  that 
the  people  should  not  be  deprived  of  any  power  which 
is  not  necessary  for  the  public  good.  But  when  allusion 
was  made  to  the  mixing  in  the  political  strife,  and  en- 
gaging in  the  active  canvass  for  office,  the  gentleman  from 
Goochland,  in  response  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  whether  he  would  apply  the 
same  principle  to  the  judges,  says  that  is  a  different  thing. 
The  Judges  he  says  are  to  execute  the  law.  Now  what 
are  the  duties  of  the  Governor  ?  Why  the  very  report 
under  consideration  says  that  the  duty  of  the  Governor 
is  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed.  That  is 
the  most  important  part  of  the  Governor's  duty.  And 
it  is  just  as  important,  if  any  importance  is  to  be  at- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


119 


tached  to  it  at  all,  that  the  Judges  should  mix  iu  the 
canvass  for  their  office,  as  that  the  G-overnor  should. 
But  whether  the  Governor  shall  electioneer  or  not,  or 
whether  the  Judges  shall  electioneer  or  not,  is  a  ques- 
tion wholly  outside  of  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
now  before  the  committee.  We  show  by  our  acts  in 
giving  to  the  people  the  right  of  selecting  a  Governor 
and  of  exercising  a  power  that  has  heretofore  been 
denied  to  them  in  the  selection  of  their  agents,  that  we 
have  confidence  in  the  capacity  of  the  people  for  self- 
government  ;  and  it  is  for  the  people  to  determine  for 
themselves  whether  their  candidate  shall  electioneer  or 
not.  And  it  is  a  question  to  which  I  am  wholly  indiffer- 
ent— I  care  not  whether  they  do  or  do  not  electioneer. 
I  have  too  much  confidence  in  the  people,  at  least  in  my 
portion  of  the  State,  to  believe  that  any  electioneering 
for  these  offices  is  going  to  make  the  people  do  wrong. 
Whenever  I  shall  be  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  such 
is  the  effect,  then  I  shall  doubt  their  capacity  for  self- 
government,  reject  all  the  democracy  I  have  heretofore 
professed,  and  come  alongside  of  my  friend  from  Gooch- 
land in  the  position  he  has  assumed. 

Fow,  I  again  desire,  in  conclusion,  to  commend  to  the 
gentleman  from  Goochland,  and  to  those  who  think  with 
him,  the  example  to  which  he  has  referred.  I  beg  all — 
both  the  gentleman  and  those  who  think  with  him — to 
transfer  this  argument  upon  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Gov- 
ernor from  this  Convention  to  the  hustings,  whenever  one 
shall  come  before  the  people  for  re-election.  There  is  the 
proper  place  for  it.  It  is  to  the  sound  judgment 
of  the  voters  of  the  State  to  whom  this  argument 
should  be  addressed,  when  the  occasion  shall  arise 
that  makes  it  necessary  for  them  to  vote  for  or  against 
an  individual  who  has  once  been  elevated  by  their 
sum-ages  to  the  gubernatorial  chair.  That  is  the 
principle  upon  which  you  must  proceed.  You  can 
only  advocate  this  proposition, — you  can  only  ad- 
vocate this  restriction  of  the  right  of  the  people  to 
select  their  own  Governor — by  assuming,  that  if  they 
have  that  right,  they  will  exercise  it  improperly.  I  do 
not  attribute  to  the  gentlemen  the  argument  that  this 
power,  if  left  with  the  people,  will  be  abused,  because 
though  they  may  entertain  it,  they  are  not  likely  to 
make  such  an  argument.  But  the  necessary  inference  to 
be  drawn  from  the  effect  of  this  proposition  is,  that  the 
people  should  not  have  the  naked  right  to  determine  for 
themselves  as  to  the  policy  of  re-electing  any  im- 
portant officer.  And  again  I  desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  what  I  conceived  to  be  a  misappre- 
hension on  the  part  of  gentlemen  who  say  that  this 
question  of  re-eligibility  is  a  question  of  qualifi- 
cation. It  is  no  such  thing.  Any  man,  I  care  not  wheth- 
er he  be  idiot  or  sane,  or  talented  and  able,  is  liable 
to  the  ban  if  you  impose  this  restriction  upon  the  pow- 
er of  the  people.  The  requisition  of  qualification — a 
different  question — is  that  which  all  wise  and  prudent 
people  desire  and  require  in  those  who  are  to  fill  im- 
portant offices  in  the  State.  For  prudential  and  wise 
considerations  they  require  that  the  officer  upon  whom 
they  impose  a  trust  shall  be  of  a  certain  age,  shall  have 
attained  the  age  of  twenty-five,  thirty,  or  forty;  and  this 
qualification  is  required  at  the  hands  of  those  who  propose 
to  discharge  the  duties,  because  they  are  more  likely  to 
possess  at  that  age  the  necessary  experience  and  capaci- 
ty. That  he  shall  be  a  native  born  citizen  of  the  United 
States  is  another  question  of  qualification.  But  the 
question  whether  he  shall  be  eligible,  or  re-eligible,  is 
not  a  question  of  qualification,  but  is  merely  the  ques- 
tion of  depriving  the  people  of  that  power  which  natu- 
rally belongs  to  them,  the  right  of  saying  whether  the 
public  servants  have  properly  discharged  the  duties 
which  have  been  assigned  to  them. 

It  was  not  my  purpose  to  detain  this  committee  as  long 
as  I  have.  Indeed,  the  field  had  been  so  well  reaped  that 
there  was  nothing  left  for  me  to  say.  The  argument  of 
those,  who  with  the  gentleman  from  Goochland,  are  oppos- 
ed to  re-eligibility,was  successfully  answered,  in  my  hum- 
ble opinion,  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts.) 


I  will  conclude  by  saying,  that  it  is  a  question  not  so 
much  of  qualification  as  of  restriction  upon  the  power 
of  the  people  ;  that  this  naked  power  should  not  be  de- 
nied to  the  people,  particularly  by  those  who  profess 
to  believe  in  their  capacity  for  self-government ;  that  all 
the  responsibility  of  the  officer  is  wholly  destroyed  if 
you  refuse  the  people  the  right  to  pass  upon  the 
manner  in  which  he  discharged  his  duties,  by  de- 
ciding upon  his  election  or  rejection  ;  and  that  such 
limitations  are  not  properly  imposed  in  republican  gov- 
ernments, but  are  the  works  of  those  who  deny  to  the 
people  those  rights  which  properly  belong  to  them,  and 
and  who  have  no  confidence  in  the  capacity  of  the  peo- 
ple to  govern  themselves. 

Mr.  RIVES.  The  very  first  debate,  the  very  first  ques- 
tion of  real  importance  that  has  been  introduced  in  the 
Convention,  has  led  to  the  protracted  and  exciting  dis- 
cussion which  the  last  few  days  has  exhibited  before 
you.  I  rise  simply  with  a  view  of  calling  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  what  I  consider  the  prominent  one 
at  issue  here.  Before  doing  so  I  cannot  help  adverting 
to  the  singular  position  in  which  this  discussion  has 
thrown  the  gentlemen  who  have  participated  in  it.  Gen- 
tlemen who  have  heretofore  operated  and  co-operated 
together  with  a  cordiality  which  would  do  credit  to  any 
family  in  Virginia — even  of  politicians — are  now  direct- 
ly the  opposite  of  each  other,  while  those  who  have  been 
as  wide  asunder  as  the  poles  are  found  in  close  union. 
For  instance,  we  have  just  seen  the  gentleman  from  Bar- 
bour (Mr.  Carlile)  denounee  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land, (Mr.  Leake,)  his  brother  democrat,  and  excommu- 
nicate him  from  the  old  school  of  democracy,  while  he 
himself,  in  the  same  breath,  throws  himself  into  the  em- 
braces of  my  worthy  and  distinguished  friend  from  Hen- 
rico, (Mr.  Botts,)  who  himself  claims  to  be  the  greatest 
democrat  of  them  all.  R-eaHy,  there  must  be  something 
"rotten  in  Denmark,"  or  among  the  politicians.  [Laugh- 
ter.] I  have  not  risen  to  dip  into  the  muddy  pool  of 
party  politics,  or  to  attempt  to  decide  who  are  real  dem- 
ocrats and  who  are  not.  No,  that  is  not  my  business. 
We  have  come  here  as  I  hope  and  trust,  to  deliberate 
upon  an  instrument,  a  work  put  into  our  hands  by  those 
who  in  point  of  wisdom  and  patriotism  and  far  reaching 
ability  were  far  above,  I  fear,  those  who  occupy  seats 
in  this  hall.  We  have  come  here  to  review  a  work,  which 
however  imperfect  it  may  be,  has  passed  through  the 
hands  and  been  the  subject  oi  the  action  of  men  whose 
names  will  live  long  after  ours  have  been  forgotten. 
Our  poor  names  will  be  recorded  not  upon  stone,  but  up- 
on that  which  will  cause  them  to  be  soon  washed  away 
in  memory's  brief  progress,  while  theirs  will  live  bright — 
yes,  bright  as  a  green  spot  in  a  mountain  desert.  [Laugh- 
ter.] And  in  the  prosecution  of  this  labor  upon  which 
we  have  entered,  we  should  decide  with  caution  and 
with  deliberation  upon  what  shall  be  considered  defects 
in  that  instrument,  ere  we  proceed  to  correct  them. 

The  question  now  pending  is,  whether  the  people  shall 
have  the  powe"  to  elect  their  chief  magistrate  or  not. 
A  proposition  has  been  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania,  as  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Appo- 
mattox, that  the  executive  officer  shall  not  be  re-eligible 
for  the  term  next  succeeding  that  for  which  he  was  elect- 
ed, and  a  proposition  has  also  been  submitted  by  the 
gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  to  strike  out  all 
restraints  on  the  ineligibility  of  the  Governor.  Upon  these 
questions  this  debate  has  arisen.  There  seems  to  be  no  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  chief  magis- 
trate being  elected  by  the  people — none  at  all.  All 
agree  as  to  by  whom  the  power  shall  be  exercised,  and 
the  disagreement  is  merely  as  to  whether  the  power 
shall  be  wholly  unlimited  or  partially  restricted.  The 
error  which  it  seems  to  me  gentlemen  commit,  is  in  ar- 
guing the  question  as  if  it  were  a  proposition  to  encroach 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  In  that  light,  however, 
I  do  not  regard  it.  What  were  the  questions  which, 
were  discussed  in  the  canvass  for  members  to  this  Con- 
vention ?  In  this  connection  1  beg  leave  to  remark  to 
my  friend  from  Henrico,  who  yesterday  proposed  the 


i20 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


inquiry,  whether  there  was  any  man  in  the  Convention 
who  dared  to  say  that  it  was  not  the  province  of  the 
people  to  select  as  well  as  to  elect  their  can  ii dates  and 
whether  there  was  any  man  who  denied  that  right  to 
the  people. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  did  not  say  that  no  gentleman  dared 
to  do  whatever  he  thought  proper  to  do.  I  only  put 
the  question  to  my  colleague,  who  was  asking  the  ques- 
tion of  me  if  I  had  heard  certain  things  on  the  hustings 
— whether  he  heard  any  gentleman  "take  the  opposite 
ground.  That  was  all.  I  do  not  know  what  were  the 
positions  of  gentlemen. 

Mr.  RIVES.  Very  well.  I  understood  the  gentle- 
man to  lay  down  the  doctrine  that  the  people  had  a 
right  to  select  as  well  as  to  elect,  and  in  that  connection 
he  asked  whether  any  gentleman  had  denied  these  two 
propositions  before  the  people.  Well,  I  was  happy  to 
hear  him  call  attention  to  that  point,  because  I  can 
meet  him  with  an  express  declaration  on  the  subject. 
The  gentleman  has  thrown  me  back  upon  the  address 
which  I  published  to  my  constituents  before  I  came  be- 
fore them  for  an  election.  In  that  address  I  used  these 
very  words  : — "that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  people  to 
select  as  well  as  to  elect  such  men  as  they  thought 
proper."  Weil,  in  determining  the  question  that  the 
people  have  a  right  to  elect,  we  determine  the  whole 
question.  That  was  the  question  presented  to  the  peo- 
ple during  the  canvass,  and  if  there  was  any  question 
decided  in  that  canvass,  it  was  that  the  power  of  elect- 
ing their  chief  magistrate  should  be  taken  from  their 
agents,  the  Legislative  department  of  the  government, 
and  restored  to  the  people.  The  question  was  fully 
and  fairly  presented  throughout  the  State,  and  so  far 
as  I  have  heard  any  expression  of  opinion,  it  was  that 
the  legislature,  the  popular  agents,  should  not  longer  be 
entrusted  with  this  power.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  say  why  they  should  not  longer  exercise  that  power, 
The  history  of  the  State  for  the  last  eight  or  ten 
years  is  such  as  to  make  any  man  blush  at  the  course 
of  the  Legislature  on  this  subject,  and  at  once  decide 
that  they  ought  not  to  be  entrusted  with  the  election 
of  any  officer  of  this  government.  Yes,  the  people  have 
said  that  their  agents  should  no  longer  exercise  that 
power,  and  the  causes  which  have  induced  them  to  say 
so  are  such  as  would  condemn  any  legislature  and  stamp 
them  with  disgrace,  and  cause  any  people  who  had  the 
least  respect  for  their  own  rights,  to  take  the  powev 
from  the  hands  of  such  agents.  What  have  they  done  ? 
They  have  made  a  miserable  party  political  question  of 
the  election  of  a  judge,  and  when  they  have  finish- 
ed that,  have  entered  upon  a  splendid  log-rolling  scheme, 
whose  only  result  was  an  effort  to  revive  the  down- 
trodden fortunes  of  the  Marshall  Theatre.  [Laughter.] 

It  is  from  such  agents  that  the  people  have  desired  to 
take  the  power,  and  having  decided  that  the  people  them- 
selves shall  exercise  it ;  the  question  now  comes  up  how 
and  in  what  manner  shall  they  exercise  it. 

Now  the  gentleman  from  Barbour  Mr.  Carlile) 
seems  to  think  that  no  reason  has  yet  been  given  why 
this  limitation  or  restriction  that  is  proposed  should 
be  imposed  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  He  cannot 
he  says  see  any  reason,  propriety  or  policy  in  it.  Let 
us  examine  that  question.  He  is  bound  to  admit  that 
the  page  of  history  headed  and  started  by  a  George 
Washington  shows  that  this  restriction  of  an  election  to 
two  terms  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  father  of  his  coun- 
try. Not  only  that,  but  the  principle  of  a  restriction  of  ser 
vice  has  been  sanctioned  in  Virginia  from  the  formation  of 
her  Constitution  of  1776  down  to  the  present  day.  There 
is  therefore  an  unbroken,  uninterrupted  expresssion  of 
opinion  in  its  favor,  so  far  as  acquiescence  in  its  practice 
can  give  that  expression.  The  people  have  thus  decided 
that  in  their  opinion,  after  a  service  of  two  or  three  terms 
the  agent  whom  they  have  entrusted  with  power  should 
no  longer  be  brought  into  the  political  arena  to  be  jos- 
tled in  the  crowd  and  covered  with  its  dust.  That  I  say 
has  been  the  practice,  and  I  ask  any  man  here  in  this 
Convention  how  he  has  been  brought  to  the  conclusion  ' 


that  it  is  necessary  and  proper  to  change  this  practice? 
How  has  he  obtained  that  knowledge  of  the  desires  of 
the  people  in  reference  to  this  matter,  that  will  enable 
or  justify  him  in  marching  up  to  this  question?  Arc 
you  not  to  look  back  upon  the  experience  of  the  past, 
and  if  you  find  anything  in  the  machinery  or  working 
of  the  government  that  has  stood  the  test  of  time  and 
has  been  concurred  in  by  an  unbroken  acquiescence,  are 
you  not  to  preserve  it?  Will  you  not  profit  by  the 
experience  of  the  past  and  the  example  set  you  by  a 
Washington  and  the  other  great  and  good  and  pure  men 
of  his  day — ah  !  as  pure  and  honest  and  good  as  ever  yet 
lived  upon  this  earth  ?  Gentlemen  have  argued  this  ques- 
tion here,  as  a  political  one,  and  I  will  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Barbour,  (Mr.  Carlile,)  if  his  democracy  teaches  him 
to  throw  off  the  long  tried  practice  of  the  past  and  to  aban- 
don customs  which  stand  thus  time-honored  ?  Ah,  no, 
there  is  not  a  member  in  this  Convention,  I  hope  and 
trust,  who  would  do  it,  for  I  believe  every  one  of  them 
has  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  old  Commonwealth  at 
heart. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  Does  the  gentleman  wish  me  to  an- 
swei  his  question  now  ? 

Mr.  RIVES.  No  sir,  no — you  can  do  it  after  I  have 
finished  my  speech.  [Laughter.]  I  wish  to  remind 
gentlemen  of  another  fact.  All  the  speeches  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention  will  be  of  very  little 
avail  when  they  get  home.  And  I  call  upon  the  members 
of  the  Convention  now  to  recollect  one  thing — and  my 
friend  from  Henrico,  if  he  has  done  nothing  else  to  con- 
tribute to  the  welfare  and  glory  of  Virginia,  is  enti- 
tled to  the  credit  of  suggesting  to  me  an  idea  that  came 
across  my  mind  when  his  remark  was  made,  which  I  be- 
lieve now  to  be  the  most  wholesome  one  that  could  be 
adopted  by  this  body — he  called  to  my  recollection  the 
address  which  I  had  written.  [Laughter.]  And  I  say  to 
every  member,  let  every  one  of  you  take  your  way  bill 
in  your  hands— take  your  return  ticket  in  your  hands — 
and  be  certain  that  when  any  question  comes  up  here, 
that  you  do  not  go  contrary  to  wThat  you  told  your  con- 
stituency you  would  do.  Beware  of  this  and  see  that 
your  return  ticket  is  not  cut  too  much  at  the  stopping 
places  along  the  line.  [Laughter.]  Think  of  this,  and 
when  the  gentleman  talks  about  answers,  let  him  remem- 
ber the  answers  he  has  to  make  to  those  to  whom  he  is 
accountable.  For  myself,  I  look  with  a  fear  upon  the  re- 
sponsibility that  weighs  upon  me,  that  always  causes  me 
to  shudder  to  think  I  shall  have  to  go  home  to  a  con- 
stituency who  have  confided  to  my  rude,  uncouth,  and  I 
may  say,  radical  hands,  the  alteration — the  attempt  at 
alteration  of  an  instrument  upon  which  I  know  two  ma- 
ny will  lay  rash  hands.  But  I  have  a  way  bill  and 
a  ticket,  and  yo-a  all  have  it,  in  my  written  address  to  my 
constituents.  Let  your  actions  square  with  that,  and 
when  you  go  home,  so  far  from  receiving  the  censure  of 
an  honest  constituency,  if  you  have  carried  out  what  you 
told  them  you  would,  however  much  they  may  differ 
from  you,  they  will  not  condemn  you.  For  my  part  I  in- 
tend to  return  to  those  who  sent  me  here  with  my  ac- 
count written  on  the  back  of  my  address.  [Laughter.] 
And  it  will  not  hurt  you  to  refer  to  your  addrest-es — it 
will  keep  you  posted  up.  Ah,  I  know  what  eloquence 
can  do.  It  is  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of  any  man 
and  on  the  side  of  any  cause.  It  runs  a  man  mad  and 
worse  than  mad.  Aye,  it  will  lead  him,  I  had  almost 
said,  worse  than  a  woman.  [Laughter.]  The  eloquence  of 
man  will  lead  even  the  wisest  and  coolest  of  men  almost 
anywhere.  And  what  will  become  of  the  inexperienced 
and  the  uninstructed  when  they  hear  the  eloquent  voice 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac — the  stubborn  and  dash- 
ing appeals  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico — the  splendid 
oratory  of  the  venerable  gentleman  from  Loudoun — and 
the  fervent  appeals  and  dashing  eloquence  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha?  Where,  I  ask,  will  the  inexpe- 
rienced and  the  young  men  take  shelter  except  upon  the 
platform  laid  down  when  they  were  elected  by  their  con- 
stituents ?  [Laughter.]  That'is  my  purpose  at  all  events. 
Travel  the  road  which  they  expected  you  to  travel  ac- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


121 


cording  to  the  way  bill  which  they  furnished  you,  and  you 
wid  be  safe  before  an  honest  constituency.  1  am  happ) 
that  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  has  be  en  the  means  ot 
calling  attention  to  this  fact.  The  West  and  the  East 
differ  on  an  important  question.  I  say  then,  let  Western 
gentlemen  stand  firm  and  united  in  their  views,  and  let 
Eastern  gentlemen  stand  as  equally  firm  and  united  on 
the  grouud  they  occupy,  and  however  they  may  differ 
when  they  go  home,  they  can  say  it  is  a  drawn  battle, 
and  any  man  can  easily  go  his  five  on  the  little  red,  no 
matter  on  which  side.  [Great  laughter.]  That  is  all  that 
can  be  said. 

Gentlemen  say  that  they  can  see  no  propriety  in  the 
proposed  restriction.  Let  me  refer  to  what  1  consider 
very  good  reasons  for  it.  Gentlemen  say  that  they  fa 
vor  the  election  of  judges  by  the  people,  and  as  long  as 
the  people  think  proper  to  elect  them,  whether  for  two, 
three,  or  six  terms  without  restriction  ;  and  they  say  ii 
you  prevent  that,  it  is  an  encroachment  upon  popular 
rights,  but  they  admit  in  the  same  breath  that  there  must 
be  some  regulations  in  regard  to  age  and  other  questions 
inserted  in  the  Constitution.  Yet  they  tell  us  if  we  do  the 
same  thing  in  regard  to  the  eligibility  of  the  Governor, 
why  it  is  au  encroachment  upon  popular  rights  !  Now  the 
proposition  to  continue  the  same  individual  in  office  foi 
life,  or  to  make  him  re- eligible  without  restriction  what- 
ever, is  one  which  the  people  have  not  considered  or  de- 
cided They  have  not  said  to  us  whether  it  is  their 
pleasure  that  this  shall  be  so  or  not.  My  friends  from 
Henrico  and  Accomac  will  thus  see  that  we  do  not  differ 
about  all  power  being  vested  in  the  people — we  differ 
merely  as  to  what  has  been  the  expression  of  sentiment 
on  the  part  of  the  people. 

But  what  has  been  the  course  of  experience  in  regard 
to  this  question.  I  ask  my  friends  from  Henrico  and  Ac- 
comac to  review  their  political  lives.  I  ask  them  if  the 
politicians  of  the  country  are  not,  through  the  tricks 
and  schemes  and  wire-workings  to  which  they  have  and 
are  resorting,  in  the  promotion  of  their  own  selfish  pur 
poses,  the  curse  of  the  age  ?  Tell  me  ye  who  are  bet- 
ter experienced  than  myself  in  the  ways  of  the  politi- 
cian, if  this  is  not  so  ?  And  I  ask  you  also  if  they  do 
not  rely  most  for  success  and  profit  upon  their  ability 
to  induce  the  people  to  a  capricious  exercise  of  their 
power.  They  are  ever  to  be  found  at  the  foot  of  power  in 
office,  and  to  the  successful  candidates  they  cling  like  long 
lean,  hungry  dogs.  [Laughter.]  What  is  the  custom  of 
our  countr  y  in  all  elections  of  public  officers  by  the  people? 
Is  it  not  well  understood  that  the  moment  the  candi- 
date is  started  for  the  race,  be  it  for  Governor  or  any 
other  office,  his  political  friends  and  those  who  entered 
him,  rally  at  once  around  him.  Why  he  got  his  about 
him  at  once  a  set  of  trainers  who  are  for  their  skill  and 
tact  worthy  of  Johnson's  best  trainers  in  Virginia's  best 
days.  Well,  here  is  a  Governor  who  is  eligible  to  a  re- 
.  election,  and  what  is  the  course  of  the  politicians  ? 
Why  they  get  him  ready  for  a  nomination  and  for  a  Con- 
vention ;  he  goes  in  there,  and  will  any  man  at  all  ac 
quainted  with  the  practice  of  politicians,  say  that  the 
cards  were  not  stocked  before  he  entered  upon  the 
game  ?    [Laughter.]    No  sir,  it  is  a  politician's  Conven- 


tion and  the  arrangements  have  been  made  and  the  bar 
gain  concluded  out  of  doors.  This  is  the  nomination 
made.  Such  is  the  mode  I  say  in  which  a  Governor 
will  be  nominated  in  Virginia.  And  I  ask  those  gentle- 
men here  who  are  more  experienced  than  I,  if  they  ever 
knew  a  politician  to  drop  from  a  friend  so  long  as  he 
was  in  power  ?  Mark  you,  the  Governor  has  been  nomi- 
nated and  put  in  office  by  his  political  friends,  and  will 
they  not  stand  around  him  to  guard  his  interests,  when 
he  is  seeking  a  re-election  ?  And  when  the  nomination 
for  the  next  term  is  to  take  place,  will  they  not  band 
together,  like  cohorts  if  you  please,  to  rally  and  rush  to 
the  charge  and  spread  at  a  single  dash  any  opposition 
which  may  be  made  to  their  favorite?  What  else  can 
we  hope  for.  I  ask  the  question  again  whether  any  of 
you  have  ever  known  a  politician  to  drop  off  from  a 
friend  while  he  was  in  power  ?  Well,  suppose  you  have 


a  Governor  in  power — he  was  put  there  by  his  political 
friends,  and  when  he  has  served  out  his  four  years  and 
seeks  a  re-election,  will  any  body  quit  him.  No,  and  if  a 
case  can  be  shown  where  politicians  have  quit  their  friends 
when  in  power,  I  ask  that  it  may  be  pointed  out  to  me. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Will  the  gentleman  let  me  name  an  in- 
stance. 

Mr.  RIVES.    Certainly  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  As  he  calls  for  an  instance  of  the  kind, 
there  is  one  which  just  occurs  to  my  mind.  It  is  in  re- 
lation to  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  who,  at  the  re- 
cent election  there,  after  having  been  re-elected  for 
some  eight  or  nine  times,  with  all  the  power  he  had 
accumulated  in  that  time,  was  not  able  to  resist  the 
combined  power  of  the  democracy  and  the  free-soil 
party. 

Mr.  RIVES.  I  thank  my  friend  very  kindly  for  his 
allusion  to  the  democracy,  and  I  will  give  him  an  allu- 
sion in  return.  I  have  heard  of  one  or  two  men  myself, 
who  did  drop  a  man  whom  they  had  aided  in  placing 
in  power.  I  suppose  it  is  not  improper,  of  course,  to  refer 
to  the  fact  that  1  think  I  once  heard  of  a  man  who  quit 
John  Tyler  while  he  was  President  of  the  United  States. 
[Laughter.]  When  he  came  into  that  office  and  refused 
to  carry  out  what  my  friend  considered  to  be  the  true 
principles  on  which  to  adminir.ter  the  government,  what 
happened?  Although  my  friend  had  supported  the  log- 
cabin-and--hard~cider-no-declaration--for-the-public-eye 
candidates,  still  he  himself,  with  his  characteristic  bold- 
ness and  manliness  had  fought  with  the  principles  for 
which  he  contended,  inscribed  on  his  banner.  He  de- 
spised all  concealment,  and  when  he  found  that  John 
Tyler  was  not  inclined  to  favor  those  principles,  friend 
to  him  though  he  had  been,  with  that  bold  and  dashing 
front  of  his  which  always  marks  him,  he  at  once  de- 
nounced and  abandoned  the  man  he  had  aided  in  putting 
in  power.  What  was  the  spertacle  then  presented? 
My  friend  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  clung  to  him,  and 
there  they  were  dashing  across  the  course,  while  my 
friend  from  Henrico  stood  by — 

"Come  one,  come  all,  this  rock  shall  fly, 
From  its  firm  base  as  soon  as  I." 
Let  others  gaze  and  reason  why 
Though  running  alone  I'll  head  him  or  die. 

What  was  the  result  of  all  this  ?  There  stood  one 
who  had  battled  in  the  cause  of  this  President,  and  who, 
although  he  had  battled  under  the  standard  of  all  opin- 
ions concealed  from  the  public  eye,  had  denounced  the 
principle  as  wrong,  and  stood  and  boldly  proclaimed  his 
own  principles.  And  when  the  time  came  when  he  ex- 
pected those  principles  to  be  carried  out  by  the  Vice 
President,  and  he  was  disappointed  in  that,  why  he 
rejected  him  at  once,  as  he  ought  to  have  done,  entertain- 
ing the  views  which  he  did.  But  what  was  his  fate  ? — what 
was  his  fate,  what  was  his  fate,  1  say  ?  [Laught  er.]  The 
people  of  the  congressional  district  which  the  gentleman 
has  represented,  had  always  concurred  in  opinion  with 
him  in  the  principles  which  he  laid  down,  but  when  he 
came  before  them  for  a  re-election,  he  failed.  Who  was  it 
that  beat  him  ?  Why  the  po  iticians.  Freed  from  their 
opposing  influence,  with  his  opinions  spread  out  before 
them  with  his  usual  manliness  and  boldness,  he  never 
could  be  beaten  before  the  people  of  any  whig  congres- 
sional district  in  Virginia.  Therefore,  so  far  as  the 
gentleman's  own  experience  is  concerned,  I  think  he 
will  confess  that  the  political  leeches  who  hang  to 
those  in  power,  struck  him  down  on  that  occasion. 
Suppose  he  had  been  freed  from  these  political  leeches, 
these  political  suckers,  and  had  been  free  to  spread 


himself  before  the  people,  the  bold  and  unflinching  ad- 
vocate of  the  principles  which  he  espouses,  think  you 
that  he  would  have  been  beaten?  What  does  he  lack 
to  place  himself  properly  before  the  people  ?  Had  he 
not  the  nerve  to  meet  any  man  on  any  question,  and 
the  talent  to  make  known  clearly  his  views  ?  What, 
then,  did  he  want  to  secure  success  ?  It  was  the  sup- 
port of  the  politicians — and  it  was  their  influence  and 


122 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


machinations  which  struck  him  down.  I  beg  pardon  of 
the  gentleman  for  having  alluded  thus  personally  to 
him,  but  his  reference  to  the  Massachusetts  coalition, 
which  I  am  as  ready  to  denounce  as  he  is,  was  such  an  in- 
stance of  the  power  of  politicians,  that  I  could  not  for- 
bear to  carry  the  thing  further  and  make  the  moral  on 
him. 

My  friend  from  Accomac,  I  suppose,  will  consider 
himself  slighted  unless  I  refer  to  him,  and  the  part  he 
took  on  that  occasion.  What  was  the  course  he  took, 
and  who  was  it  that  sought  to  sacrifice  the  member 
from  Accomac,  Henry  A.  Wise,  whose  name  stands 
like  a  flag — 

The  CHAIR.  The  gentleman  is  reminded  that  it  is 
not  in  order  to  refer  personally  to  a  member. 

Mr.  RIVES.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  not  in  order  to 
allude  to  a  gentleman  by  name,  as  a  member  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  You  were  speaking  of  him  as  a  member 
of  Congress,  and  not  as  a  member  of  the  Convention  ? 

Mr.  RIVES.  Yes,  sir.  [Great  laughter.]  I  was 
seeking  for  information,  and  I  was  but  putting  the 
question  to  gentlemen  of  experience  whether  they  had 
met  with,  or  known  of  an  instance  in  the  history  of  the 
government  where  the  politicians  had  dropped  their 
friends  while  they  were  in  power.  And  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  by  interrupting  me,  suggested  to  me  one 
of  the  most  striking  instances  of  the  power  of  the  poli- 
ticians, and  their  ability  to  thwart  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple, as  exemplified  in  his  own  history  and  experience, 
and  I  was  but  going  on  to  refer  to  the  case  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac  as  affording  another  instance  of 
the  same  kind.  At  that  awful  period,  when  that  change 
took  place — whether  for  weal  or  woe,  it  is  not  for  me 
to  say,  because  I  happen  to  occupy  the  position  of  hav- 
ing been  myself  an  advocate  and  a  supporter  of  Mr. 
Tyler,  and  a  Tyler  man — when,  with  the  nerve  that 
God  has  given  him,  to  meet  any  and  every  emergency, 
he  came  out  and  avowed  himself  an  advocate  of  the 
administration  of  John  Tyler,  what  was  his  fate? 
When  that  man,  with  the  noble  and  generous  feeling 
which  belongs,  and  peculiarly  so  to  the  true  Virginian, 
thought  proper  to  nominate  him  to  the  office  of  minis- 
ter to  France,  Avhat  was  the  course  of  the  politicians  ? 
Ah  !  they  struck  him  down  as  they  did  my  friend  from 
Henrico  !  But  when  ho  appealed  to  his  own  district, 
and  came  home  to  that  district,  1400  against  him,  then 
he  could  shake  off  the  politicians.  He  could  say  to 
them,  I  stand  before  the  unbought  freemen  of  Acco- 
mac and  of  Northampton,  and  I  defy  you  and  your 
machinations.  He  did  defy  them,  and  I  ask  you  if  that 
was  not  a  glorious  and  a  triumphant  result  of  an  ap- 
peal to  the  popular  expression  ?  The  politicians  could 
not  touch  lira  when  he  had  a  fair  field  before  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  decision  of  the  people  in  that  instance, 
in  my  opinion,  placed  a  stigma  on  those  politicians 
which  will  last  longer  than  my  life,  at  least.  These  are 
matters  which  had  not  crossed  my  mind,  and  which 
would  not  have  been  alluded  to  by  me,  had  not  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  re-called  to 
mind  all  the  history  of  the  exceptions  to  the  rule  that 
gentlemen  will  follow  their  friends  so  long  as  they  are 
in  power.  And  suppose  in  the  instance  to  which  I 
have  last  referred,  these  politicians  had  had  it  in  their 
power  to  have  come  down  to  old  Accomac,  and  follow- 
ed my  friend  there.  I  know  that  he  would  have  done 
every  thing  in  his  power  to  have  sustained  himself  be- 
fore an  honest  people — I  know  that  his  sword  would 
have  jumped  from  its  scabbard,  and  that  every  lick 
would  have  been  a  blazing  stream  of  glory,  and  have 
brought  to  the  ground  all  who  dared  to  stand  in  his 
front — yet  still  he  would  have  found  it  no  easy  affair  to 
have  overcome  his  adversaries. 

I  have  been  a  sort  of  democrat  myself.  I  did  not  in 
tend  to  speak  of  these  things — but  I  know  this,  that 
whether  he  be  democrat  or  whig,  no  man  need  set  himself 
up  in  this  State,  or  in  the  United  States  now,  as  being  a 
leader  of  the  democratic  party  or  of  the  whig  party,  un- 


less he  can  tell  the  run  of  things,  and  is  possessed  of  the 
influence  through  friends,  by  which  men  of  either  of  the 
great  parties,  are  induced  to  follow.  What  is  the  conse- 
quence ?  Have  not  these  nominations  heretofore  been 
the  work  of  politicians,  and  will  they  not  continue  to  be 
if  you  elect  the  Governor  by  the  people  ?  I  ask  gentle- 
men if  this  is  not  so,  and  if  it  will  not  be  so,  and  certainly  so, 
if  the  Governor  is  to  be  re-eligible  to  be  a  candidate  again  ? 
But  gentlemen  say  that  instead  of  the  Governor  taking  the 
stump  himself,  instead  of  his  going  over  the  one  hundred 
and  thirty-five  counties  of  Virginia,  he  will  be  defended  by 
friends  who  will  put  down  his  assailants.  And  they  say 
further,  that  even  if  charges  were  made  against  him  be- 
fore the  people,  it  would  be  improper  for  him  to  go  be- 
fore them  himself  and  meet  them.  Do  I  understand  from 
that,  that  we  are  to  have  organized  party  clubs  in  every 
county  whose  business  it  is  to  be  to  meet  all  charges  made 
against  A  or  B  who  may  be  Governor.  Are  we  also  to 
have  a  great  executive  corresponding  committee  at 
Richmond  like  we  have  at  Washington  ?  And  are  we  to 
have  the  country  flooded  over  with  tract  no.  1 — tract 
no.  2 — tract  no.  3 — and  tract  no.  4 — and  similar  docu- 
ments? Answer  the  question — what  do  you  mean? 
[Laughter.]  I  know  that  such  an  organization  of  parties 
prior  to  the  election  of  a  Governor  exists  in  other  States, 
as  well  as  in  the  Federal  Government  prior  to  the  elec- 
tion of  a  President ;  and  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Hen- 
rico if  he  expects  there  is  to  exist  in  Virginia  such  bands 
of  organized  defenders  of  the  party,  and  of  the  man  who 
happens  to  be  in  power  when  he  comes  forward  for  a 
re-election?  I  hope  not;  but  such  will  inevitably  be  the 
result  if  he  is  made  re-eligible.  And  I  cordially  agree 
with  those  who  say  that  this  restriction,  so  far  from  be- 
ing an  encroachment  on  the  people's  rights,  will  be  but 
a  restriction  on  the  power  of  politicians.  I  think  it  will 
prevent  this  organization  of  a  grand  central  committee, 
and  of  the  host  of  county  committees,  and  sub-com- 
mittees, and  even  what  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  re- 
ferred to,  the  danger  of  the  Governor  being  brought  in 
contact  with  one  of  those  little  county-court  lawyers.  I 
do  not  know  how  it  is  in  regard  to  those  county-court 
lawyers  whom  the  gentleman  says  the  people  will  re- 
gard as  having  beat  the  candidate,  but  I  have  never 
heard  they  were  very  popular  with  the  people,  certainly 
not  in  the  county  in  which  I  live.  1  say  then  let  the 
Executive  be  denied  this  power  of  serving  a  second 
term,  for  no  man  can  deny  that  if  the  contrary  princi- 
ple is  carried  out,  the  practice  to  which  I  have  referred 
will  actually  follow.  He  will  be  electioneering  in  office, 
and  you  will  have  all  this  army  of  politicians  in  the  way 
of  corresponding  committees  enlisted  in  his  behalf,  and 
perhaps  an  empire  club,  a  bully  club,  and  the  "killers" 
of  Philadelphia.  Do  not  then  permit  him  to  be  re-eli- 
gible. No  body  can  contend  that  it  is  an  infringement 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  We  all  assert  in  the 
most  unqualified  terms  that  the  people  themselves  shall 
elect  their  Governor,  and  under  the  experience  of  the 
age,  and  the  practice  which  presents  itself  every  day, 
to  which  I  have  referred,  is  it  not  right  and  proper  that 
this  restriction  should  be  inserted  in  the  organic  law — if 
for  nothing  else — to  guard  against  the  pernicious  influ- 
ences and  practices  that  are  growing  up  among  us  ?  It 
was  this  practice  of  politicians  that  bi  ought  about  the 
call  for  this  Convention,  for  the  people  would  never 
have  complained  of  the  exercise  of  power  conferred  on 
their  agents,  if  they  had  performed  their  duties  and  ful- 
filled the  trust  imposed  in  them  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  them.  No,  it  was  because  their  agents  abused  the 
power  confided  to  them.  They  have  conducted  them- 
selves in  such  a  way,  with  their  log-rolling  systems,  and 
their  elections  to  office,  as  would  have  broken  down  any 
man  or  set  of  men,  however  eminent  er  distinguished 
for  talent  and  ability. 

I  do  not  believe  this  question  of  ineligibility  to  be 
quite  as  novel  a  one  as  some  gentlemen  would  seem  to 
think.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fifth  article  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  what  does  it  say  upon  this  very 
question  of  ineligibility.    I  will  read  it : 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


"That  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  the 
State  should  be  seperate  and  distinct  from  the  judiciary  ; 
and  that  the  members  of  the  two  first  may  be  restrained 
from  oppression,  by  feeling  and  participating  in  the  .bur- 
thens of  the  people,  they  should,  at  fixed  periods,  be 
reduced  to  a  private  station,  return  to  that  body_  from 
which  they  were  originally  taken,  and  the  vacancies  be 
supplied  by  frequent,  certain,  and  regular  elections,  in 
which  all,  or  any  part  of  the  former  members,  to  be 
again  eligible,  or  ineligible  as  the  laws  shall  direct.'* 

"As  the  laws  shall  direct."  Here,  in  1776,  the  decla- 
ration was  made  that  all  the  ag<  nts  of  the  people  wheth- 
er in  the  executive,  legislative,  or  judicial  department 
of  the  government  should  come  before  the  people  for 
frqeuent  election,  and  the  incumbents  were  "to  be  eli- 
gible or  re-eligible  as  the  laws  shall  direct,"  Did  not 
the  framers  of  that  constitution  recognize  the  idea  of 
ineligibility  after  a  term  of  se-vice?  Did  they  not 
indeed  foreclose  the  question  as  to  whether  they  intend- 
ed there  should  be  a  re-eligibility  to  office  by  requiring 
it  to  be  regulated  by  law  ?  I  think  it  cannot  be  doubted. 
And  what" is  the  question  here?  It  is  this :  We  are 
about  to  institute  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  and  shall 
we  in  this  particular  adhere  to  the  precedent  establish- 
ed by  our  forefathers  of  1776,  and  particularly  when 
not  a  complaint  or  an  objection  has  been  raised  against 
it?  That  is  the  question,  the  only  question  here,  and  I 
cannot  see  why  gentlemen  should  hesitate  as  to  the 
course  to  adopt. 

The  question  has  also  been  raised  here,  whether  it  is 
proper  for  the  Governor  to  electioneer  or  canvass 
before  the  people  ?  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  meet 
such  a  question.  I  have  but  to  allude  to  what  is  the 
practice,  not  only  in  this  State,  but  in  other  States,  to 
show  that  so  far  from  a  man  being  dishonored  by  coming 
down  face  to  face  to  the  people  and  discussing 
questions  before  them,  it  is  his  duty  to  do  so.  Dishon- 
or a  Governor  to  mix  with  and  come  down  among  the  peo- 
ple !  Did  it  dishonor  the  talented  and  distinguished 
Jones  of  Tennessee,  who  has  been  as  a  cloud  by  day  and 
a  pillar  of  fire  by  night  to  his  party  in  that  State,  be- 
cause he  took  the  stump  in  the  advocacy  of  his  princi- 
ples ?  Did  it  dishonor  the  lamented  Polk,  and  should 
he  be  read  out  the  pale  of  democracy,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Barbour,  with  his  new-fangled  western  democracy, 
proposes  to  read  out  of  the  democratic  party  all  who 
think  with  the  gentleman  from  Goochland  on  the  sub- 
ject of  this  restriction.  How  was  it  with  your  Brown 
of  Tennessee,  and  your  Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  were 
they  dishonored  by  descending  to  the  stump  ?  Go  to 
the  old  North  State,  and  I  ask  you  if  Gaston  and  More- 
head,  and  others  of  that  stamp,  were  dishonored  by  a 
resort  to  such  a  practice?  No,  these  men  had  an  hon- 
est conviction  that  the  course  they  were  pursuing,  and 
the  cause  they  were  advocating,  was  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people,  and  they  had  the  nerve,  fearless  of  conse- 
quences, to  come  before  their  constituents  and  render  an 
account  of  their  stewardship. 

I  have  been  brought  into  this  debate  without  any  ex- 
pectation on  my  part  of  participating  in  it.  I  believe 
that  this  question  has  not  been  presented  in  the  shape 
in  which  it  should  have  been.  I  believe  there  is  no  dif- 
fer epce  of  opinion  among  us,  as  to  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  that  this  proposition  is  intended  not  to  deprive 
them  of  any  rights,  but  for  their  protection  in  the  exer- 
cise of  their  rights.  And  the  insertion  of  such  a  provis- 
ion in  the  Constitution  will,  it  seems  to  me,  most  certainly 
have  that  effect.  I  have,  in  conclusion,  to  say  only  this, 
that  however  desultory  may  have  been  my  remarks,  they 
have  been  made  with  this  single  view,  and  nothing  else, 
and  that  is,  not  to  encroach  on  popular  rights  in  the 
slightest  degree,  but  to  secure  such  safeguards  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  power  as  the  people  themselves  have  and 
will  sanction.  I  wish  to  guard  against  any  system  by 
which  the  system  of  electioneering  which  exists  at  the 
present  day  as  adopted  in  some  quarters  of  the 
Union,  will  b"  introduced  into  this  State.  The 
same  question  will  be  presented  when  the  proposi- 


tion for  the  election  of  judges  shall  come  up,  and  at 
that  time,  if  necessary,  i  shall  be  prepared  to  argue  the 
question,  and  to  show  that  he  who  represents  a  political 
party  as  the  Executive  of  the  State,  stands  in  a  differ- 
ent position  before  the  people  from  he  who,  seated  on 
the  bench  of  a  court,  is  to  dispense  justice  without  fear 
or  favor,  to  ail  m<-n  of  all  parties.  The  character  of  a 
man  in  such  a  position  would  be  degraded  beyond  ex- 
pression if  he  dared  to  prostitute  his  position  and  soil 
the  snowy  ermine  for  the  miserable  purpose  of  self  pro- 
motion. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  I  must,  in  conclusion, 
again  hope  that  gentlemen  will  not  argue  this  question 
as  one  proposing  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. If  I  believed  it  was  a  restriction  on  their  rights  I 
would  not  for  one  moment  sustain  it.  And  let  gentle- 
men convince  me  that  it  is,  and  I  will  go  with  them. 

On  motion  of  Mi*.  TURNBULL  the  commmittee 
then  rose, 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
at  12,  M. 


WEDNESDA  Y,  February  5,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly,  of  the  Baptist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 
I 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BLUE,  resumed 
the  consideration,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  Watts 
of  Norfolk  in  the  Chair,  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  the  executive  department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  before  the  committee 
to  be  the  report  of  the  executive  committee  with  the 
pending  amendments: 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  It  was  my  misfortune  to  vote 
with  the  minority  of  the  Executive  committee,  who 
brought  in  the  report,  now  under  consideration.  I  de- 
sire, in  a  very  brief  manner,  not  with  the  formality  of 
a  regular  speech,  in  political  parlance,  to  "define  my 
position."  I  am  opposed  to  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henrico  county,  makiDg  the  Governor  re- 
eligible.  I  was  elected  to  this  Convention  as  a  '  re- 
former," or  rather  as  a  "  radical "  as  it  is  termed.  I 
stated,  in  the  speeches  which  1  made  during  the  canvass, 
that  I  had  many  objections  to  our  present  Constitution, 
one  of  the  strongest  of  which  was,  that  too  much 
power  was  transferred  to  the  hands  of  the  agents  of  the 
people,  and  too  little  left  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
themselves.  I  believe  fully  and  entirely  in  the  capacity  of 
the  people  for  self-government.  I  de&ire  to  place  all 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  with  wholesome  and 
necessary  restrictions  and  1  mitations.  In  a  represents 
tive  government  like  ours,  1  think  the  people  should  elect 
all  the  officers  of  the  government,  which  they  can  do 
with  convenience  and  utility,  and  leave  as  little  as  may 
be  to  their  agents.  I  am  in  favor  of  taking  the  power 
from  office-holders,  and  transferring  it  to  the  people. 
And  that  I  think  can  be  better  done,  so  far  as  the  Gov- 
ernor is  concerned,  by  making  him  ineligible,  than  by 
making  him  re-eligible.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  no  other 
way  by  which  the  power  can  be  taken  from  the  office- 
holders and  given  to  the  people  so  well  as  by  making 
the  Governor  ineligible.  Let  us  look  at  it ;  for  I  think 
it  can  be  done  in  this  mode.  I  am  desirous,  with  the 
gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  to  take  the 
power  from  politicians,  and  give  it  to  the  people. 
But  I  differ  with  him  very  materially  as  to  how  that 
rhing  can  best  be  done ;  as  to  how  that  cherished  plan  of 
ours  can  be  carried  into  practical  operation.  Now,  my 
friend  from  Henrico  thinks  that  the  power  can  be  best 
taken  from  the  hands  of  politicians  and  transferred 
to  the  hands  of  the  people  by  making  this  officer,  the 
Governor,  re-eligible.    In  my  opinion  it  can  be  better 


124 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


done  by  making  him  ineligible.  Let  us  see  for  a  mo- 
ment how  each  of  these  plans  will  work.  Let  us  carry 
them  into  practical  operation.  The  people  are  the 
source  from  which  all  power  emanates.  All  admit  that 
all  power  is  vested  in  and  derived  from  the  people. 
Well,  now  the  people  elect  an  individual  to  the  guber- 
natorial chair,  they  transfer  from  themselves  certain  of 
their  powers,  which  would  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the 
ends  for  which  the  office  was  created  Now  if  they 
transfer  that  power  from  their  hands  to  the  officer  for  that 
purpose, — let  us  suppose  they  have  elected  a  Governor ; 
let  us  suppose  he  shall  be  ineligible  according  to  my 
plan — and  let  us  see  how  it  will  operate.  The  Govern- 
or's term  of  service  is  about  to  expire,  or  shall  have  ex- 
pired. What  is  the  consequence  under  my  plan  ?  He 
retires  with  dignity  from  the  office,  and  returns  to  the 
people  the  office,  with  all  its  powers,  which  they  had  con- 
ferred upon  him ;  and  he  resolves  himself  again  into  the 
body  of  the  people  from  whence  he  had  come.  And  by 
that  principle  only  the  power  would  be  taken  from  the 
hands  of  the  office-holder  aud  politician,  and  given  back 
to  the  pe  pie.  But  let  us  carry  out  the  plan  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico;  and  let  us  suppose  the 
people  have  elected  this  Governor  for  a  term  of  years, 
and  that  he  is  re-eligible.  Let  us  suppose  his  term  of 
service  to  have  expired.  What  then  \  He  is  eligible  to 
the  same  office,  and  unwilling  to  give  up  the  powers 
which  have  been  conferred  upon  him,  and  desires,  like 
all  politicians  of  the  present  day,  to  hold  on  to  the  office  to 
which  he  is  re-eligible.  He  enters  the  political  arena,  a 
great  struggle  ensues,  and  this  office-holder  uses  the 
very  power  and  patronage  which  the  people  have  given 
him,  as  a  great  lever  to  thwart  the  views  and  desires  of 
the  people,  and  to  promote  his  own  ends,  and  thus  the 
office-holder  is  elected;  and  thus  the  power  is  trans- 
ferred from  the  hands  of  the  people  to  the  office-holder. 

Now,  in  this  debate  the  other  day,  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Henrico,  and  the  very  distinguished  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac  seemed  to  me  to  vie  with  each 
other  as  to  who  should  go  furthest  in  declarations  of 
love  for  the  dear  people ;  as  to  who  should  be  the  tallest 
and  ablest  defender  of  the  cherished  rights  of  the  dear 
people.  [Laughter.]  I  love  the  dear  people  some,  too. 
I,  like  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  have  electioneered 
among  the  people ;  and  whenever  I  have  done  so,  like 
him  I  have  felt  that  I  had  become  a  wiser,  a  better  man. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  rise  to  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  means 
to  say  that  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  ever  whined  on 
this  floor  or  elsewhere,  and  acted  the  demagogue  for 
the  dear  people  ? 

Mr.  TURNBULL.    No  sir,  I  did  not  mean  that. 
Mr.  WISE.    Well,  what  did  the  gentleman  mean? 
Is  he  aware  of  the  Shaksperian  origin  of  the  expression 
"  dear  people  ?" 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  I  did  not  mean  it  in  that  sense. 
I  did  not  mean  to  insinuate  that  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac did  anything  improper,  on  this  floor  or  in  any 
other  place.  In  using  the  expression  "  dear  people,"  I 
did  not  mean  anything  disrespectful,  I  am  sure.  I  was 
sayiug  that  I,  like  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  have 
electioneered  among  the  people,  and  that  whenever  I 
have  done  so,  I  have  felt  that  I  have  become  a  wiser 
and  better  man.  But  I  am  candid  in  saying  that 
until  this  distinguished  gentleman  announced  the 
fact  the  other  day,  I  did  not  know  that,  in  advocating 
the  ineligibility  of  the  Governor,  when  I  had  endeavored 
to  throw  proper  safeguards  around  the  executive  chair, 
to  prevent  the  abuse  of  patronage — I  never  dreamed, 
until  the  distinguished  gentleman  announced  the  fact — 
that,  when  I  advocated  the  ineligibility  of  the  Governor, 
I  was  for  encroaching  upon  the  rights  of  the  people. 
If  I  had  thought  so,  I  never  should  have  pursued  the 
course  which  I  did,  in  the  canvass  for  a  seat  on  this 
floor.  _  In  all  the  addresses  that  I  made  to  the  people  of 
my  district,  at  their  county  court  houses,  at  their  mus- 
ters, and  at  their  barbecues,  I  told  them  that  I  was  in 
favor  of  the  election  of  the  Governor  by  the  people  for 
a  term  of  four  years,  and  that  he  should  be  ineligible 


after  that  time.  I  never  came  across  the  first  man, 
however  exalted  his  intellect,  or  however  humble  his 
capacity,  who  thought  that  this  doctrine  was  an  en- 
croachment upon  popular  rights.  On  the  contrary, 
in  my  humble  opinion,  this  doctrine  of  ineligibility, 
so  far  from  being  viewed  as  an  encroachment  upon  pop- 
ular rights,  the  rights  of  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
was  viewed  as  an  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  the 
office-holder  and  politician ;  and  that  is  exactly  the 
position  in  which  I  want  to  place  him.  When  a  gentle- 
man has  put  on  the  gubernatorial  robes ;  when  he  has 
enjoyed  the  honors  and  received  the  emoluments  of  the 
office  for  four  years,  I  think  he  should  retire;  and  when 
the  people  come  forward  to  make  their  selection  they 
have  the  entire  body  of  the  people  to  choose  from,  ex- 
cept the  one  who  has  just  retired  fiom  the  office.  He 
alone  is  disfranchised,  and  not  one  of  the  rights  of  the 
people  is  encroached  upon. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  alluded  the  other  day,  in 
the  remarks  which  he  made,  to  the  fact  that  no  argu- 
ments had  been  offered  to  show  that  the  Governor  ought 
not  to  be  re  eligible,  and  asked  for  reasons  why  he 
should  not  be.  A  great  many  good  and  sufficient  rea- 
sons have  already  been  offered  by  the  gentlemen  who 
have  preceded  me  in  this  debate;  and  i  shall  not  jade 
this  committee  by  repeating  them.  I  desire  to  see 
such  a  change  as  will  put  it  out  of  the  power  of 
the  Governor  to  use  his  official  patronage,  whatever 
it  be,  whether  great  or  small,  improperly,  for  the 
purpose  of  a  re-election.  I  do  not  say  that  every  Go- 
vernor of  Virginia,  if  re-eligible,  would  use  his  official 
patronage  improperly  ;  but  I  mean  to  prevent  him,  if  ke 
would.  I  am  desirous  of  taking  from  him  all  tempta- 
tion to  use  his  office  improperly.  And  I  not  only  desire 
to  prevent  the  Governor  from  using  his  official  patron- 
age improperly,  but  I  desire  to  shield  him  from  the  im- 
proper imputations  which  may  be  cast  upon  him  by  his 
opponents  in  the  canvass  for  re-election,  that  he  had  used 
the  office  improperly,  that  he  had  abused  the  power 
which  had  been  conferred  upon  him.  I  desire  that  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  should  not  have  this  imputation 
cast  upon  him.  It  would  detract  from  the  dignity 
of  his  office.  I  wish  the  Governor  of  Virginia  to  be 
like  Caesar's  wife,  not  only  chaste  but  unsuspected. 

The  gentleman  from  the  county  of  Henrico,  the  other 
day,  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  contained  no  prohibition  against  the  re- 
election of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
the  example  which  had  been  set  by  the  father  of  his 
country,  in  retiring  from  office  at  the  end  of  the  second 
term.  The  gentleman  also  alluded  to  the  fact  that  his, 
illustrious  successors  had  followed  in  his  footsteps. 
This  is  true,  and  the  example  set  by  that  wisest  and  best 
of  men  has  been  follewed  by  the  patriots  of  the  revolu- 
tion and  all  who  came  after  them,  and  indeed  has  had 
all  the  force  and  effect  of  a  constitutional  provision  to 
prevent  the  election  of  a  President  for  a  third  term. 
But  suppose  that  some  individual  other  than  the  immor- 
tal Washington  had  been  the  first  President  of  these 
United  States  ;  and  let  us  infer  that  that  individual  had 
been  one  of  those  distinguished  gentlemen  of  the  revo- 
lution, who  believed  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  ought  to  be  elected  for  life ;  and  let  us  suppose 
also,  that  he  had  not  been  formed  of  the  priceless  mate- 
rials of  which  the  father  of  his  country  was  made ;  and 
finally,  let  us  suppose  that  there  had  been  at  that  day 
the  same  over- weaning  desire  for  office  as  at  the  present, 
what,  I  ask,  would  have  been  the  situation  of  our  coun- 
try, there  being  no  constitutional  prohibition  ?  Why, 
you  would  have  seen  a  struggle  in  the  government  that 
would  have  shaken  the  infant  republic  from  its  centre  to 
its  circumference.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac  says, 
take  away  this  principle  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Gov- 
ernor and  you  at  once  destroy  all  his  responsibility;  and 
that  idea  was  also  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico,  who  stated  that  the  only  way  to  put  the  Gov- 
ernor upon  his  good  behavior,  was  to  bring  him  again 
before  the  people.    Well,  can  it  be  that  we  have  so  de 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


125 


generated, — can  it  be  that,  in  this  renowned  old  Com- 
monwealth,— trip  mother  of  states  and  statesmen,  that 
the  only  inducement  to  the  faithful  discharge  of  office, 
and  alfthe  responsibilities  of  office,  depend  upon  the 
fact  of  his  coming  before  the  people  for  re-election  ?  I 
had  supposed,  that  in  a  representative  republican  gov- 
ernment like  ours — in  a  government  which  is  controlled 
by  intelligent  and  virtuous  freemen, — that  patriotism, 
love  of  country,  the  good  opinion  of  our  fellow-men,  and 
of  our  own  conscience,  were  the  inducements  to  the 
faithful  discharge  of  the  duties  of  office,  and  not  in  the 
consideration  of  a  re-election.  The  gentleman  from 
Accomac  stated  that,  in  his  experience,  all  or  nearly  all 
the  bad  measures  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States 
had  been  recommended  in  their  second  term.  I  have  but 
little  political  experience ;  but  my  memory  tells  me  dif- 
ferently. According  to  my  recollection,  at  least  two 
Presidents  of  these  United  States  did  in  their  first  terms, 
when  looking  forward  to  a  re-election,  as  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  candidates  for  re-election, — recom- 
mend measures  so  very  obnoxious  to  the  people  that 
they  were  discarded  from  service  and  not  permitted  to 
hold  the  office  a  second  term.  I  allude  to  the  elder  and 
younger  Adams.  There  are  some  individuals  who  seem 
to  think  that  the  time  may  come  in  Virginia,  when  no 
person  can  be  found  who  can  discharge  the  duties  of 
Governor  so  well  as  the  then  incumbent.  Gentlemen 
need  give  themselves  no  fear  upon  this  subject.  The 
time  will  never  come  in  Virginia  when  one  can  be  found 
among  her  distinguished  patriots,  who  will  not  only  bs 
willing  but  competent  to  enter  the  gubernatorial  chair, 
and  discharge  its  duties. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  stated  that  he  had  never 
known  a  President  who  entered  in  upon  the  one  term 
principle,  who  was  not  desirous  of  remaining  in  upon 
the  two  term  principle;  and  that  Mr.  Polk,  who  had 
gone  in  upon  the  one  term  principle,  was  desirous  of 
obtaining  a  nomination  from  his  party  that  he  might 
hold  the  second  term. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  beg  the  gentleman's  pardon.  The 
gentleman  from  Chesterfield  is  accountable  for  the  intro 
Suction  of  Mr.  Polk's  name.  I  had  asked  the  question 
who  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  that  went  in 
on  the  one  term  principle,  had  declined  to  serve  on  the 
two  term  principle,  when  that  gentleman  answered  me 
by  saying  that  Mr.  Polk  was  one — to  which  opinion  I 
dissented,  but  expressly  forbore  from  entering  into  any 
argument  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  I  recollect  the  statement  was  made 
as  the  gentleman  states  it.  But  he  went  on  to  say  the 
facts  showed  that  after  he  came  into  tho  Presidency  he 
used  all  his  efforts  to  obtain  a  nomination  from  his  party 
for  the  second  term.    Did  he  not  say  that  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  No  sir.  I  said  he  would  have  been 
happy  to  receive  the  nomination,  and  that  no  doubt  had 
it  been  tendered  to  him,  he  would  have  accepted  it  at 
any  time. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  Even  with  that  explanation,  it 
seems  to  me  that  gentleman  has  done  great  injustice 
to  Mr.  Polk.  When  that  gentleman  received  and  ac- 
cepted the  nomination  for  the  Presidency  from  his 
party,  he  expressly  declared  that  he  would  not  be  a 
candidate  for  re-election.  I  have  yet  to  learn  of  one 
single  act  of  his  administration  that  will  go  to  prove 
that  he  sought  to  obtain  a  nomination  for  the  second 
term.  I  have  always  looked  upon  his  administration 
as  one  of  the  purest  administrations  ;  and  I  have  at- 
tributed it  mainly  to  the  fact  that  he  was  not  desirous 
of  a  re-election,  and  that  he  had  recommended  meas- 
ures for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  a  re-election. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico,  in  his  reply  to  his  col- 
league, the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Meridith,) 
who  last  addressed  the  committee,  asked,  with  a  good 
deal  of  triumph,  why  should  not  the  executive  be  de- 
pendent upon  the  legislative  department  ?  That  is  to 
say  that  he,  the  executive,  ought  to  be  dependent  on  the 
legislative  department,  because  the  numbers  of  the  le- 


gislature are  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  indirectly  the  people  themselves  !  Now,  I  was 
very  much  surprised  at  that  remark  of  the  gentleman, 
particularly  euming  as  it  did  upon  the  heels  of  his  mem- 
orable declaration  that  he  had  more  democracy  in  his 
system  than  nitaety  nine-hundredths  of  the  democratic 
party.  I  had  always  believed  that  the  democratic  par- 
ty desired  that  the  executive  and  legislative  departments 
of  the  government  should  be  seperate  and  independent 
of  each  other.  I  had  supposed  that  they  were  desirous 
that  the  governor  should  be  elected  by  the  people,  the 
same  identical  people  who  elected  the  members  of  the 
legislature.  They  both  then  would  be  immediately 
elected  by  the  same  individuals,  responsible  to  the 
same  individuals,  and  being  co-ordinate  branches  of  the 
government,  should  be  seperate  and  independent  of  each 
other. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  do  not  wish  to  have  my  arguments 
misrepresented,  and  I  am  very  well  satisfied  that  it  is 
not  the  object  of  the  gentleman  to  misrepresent  me,  but 
I  think  he  misunderstands  my  position.  I  had  under- 
stood the  gentleman  from  the  city  of  Richmond,  (Mr. 
Meredith,)  to  whom  he  refers,  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks, as  having  taken  the  position  that  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government  was  the  one  most  likely 
to  make  encroachments  upon  the  other  departments  ; 
and  that  for  his  own  part  he  was  anxious  to  strengthen 
the  arm  of  the  executive,  in  order  to  resist  legisla- 
tive encroachment.  It  was  to  that  branch  of  the  gen- 
tleman's argument  that  I  was  about  to  reply,  when  I 
was  relieved  from  the  necessity  by  the  disavowal  of  the 
gentleman  of  the  ground  which  I  supposed  he  had  assum- 
ed. I  remained  still  of  the  opinion  that  he  had  taken 
that  position,  but  I  was  happily  relieved  of  the  necessi- 
ty of  replying  to  it,  and  still  more  happy  to  relieve  him 
of  the  situation  in  which  I  thought  his  arguments  had 
placed  him  ;  and,  I  therefore  abandoned  the  reply  I  was 
about  to  make  to  that  argument.  The  governor  of  Vir- 
ginia gentlemen  will  continually  confound  with 
the  President  of  the  United  States — the  one  clothed  with 
all  power  and  the  other  stripped  of  all  power.  I  went 
on  then  to  say,  in  reference  to  this  Governor  of  Virginia, 
that  so  far  from  strengthening  his  arm  to  resist  legisla- 
tive will,  that  it  was  his  duty  to  submit  to  the  legisla- 
tive will,  that  he  was  clothed  by  the  people  with  no  veto 
power,  and  that  the  legislative  power  might  be  regard- 
ed as  the  true  exponent  of  the  popular  will;  and  that 
therefore  the  governor  ought  to  submit  to  the  legislative 
will.  I  stand  by  that  position,  and  let  gentlemen  make 
the  most  of  it. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  I  am  happy  that  the  gentleman 
has  made  the  explanation  ;  for  really,  with  the  construc- 
tion I  had  put  upon  his  remarks,  I  had  supposed  that  in 
'he  heat  of  argument,  the  other  day,  he  had  forgotten  a 
good  deal  of  his  democracy.  I  leave  that  branch  of  the 
subject ;  and  I  am  sorry  that  the  gentleman  did  not  wait 
a  few  moments,  until  I  had  finished,  and  then  he  could 
have  gone  on  with  a  regular  speech  if  he  had  chosen  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    I  had  no  wish  to  do  so. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  The  gentleman  from  Henrico  sta- 
ted the  other  day,  that  he  was  as  utterly  opposed  as  any 
other  man  in  this  Convention  to  any  man's  holding  pow- 
er for  long  periods  of  time.  Well,  after  that  declaration 
of  the  gentleman,  I  have  been  a  little  surprised  that  he 
was  unwilling  to  adopt  the  principle  which  I  maintain. 
If  he  will  make  the  Governor  ineligible,  so  far  as  that 
office  is  concerned,  it  will  be  impossible  for  the  power 
to  remain  long  in  the  hands  of  one  individual ;  but  carry 
out  his  principle  of  re-eligibility  without  limitation,  and 
I  ask  you  if  power  is  not  likely  to  remain  a  long  time  in 
the  hands  of  the  Governor?  And  I  think  the  allusion 
which  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  the 
other  day,  with  regard  to  the  Governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, instead  of  going  to  prove  his  position,  on  the  con- 
trary, goes  indirectly  to  prove  the  position  that  1  main- 
tain ;  and  that  was  this  :  The  gentleman  stated  that  Go- 
vernor Briggs  had  held  the  office  for  nine  consecutive 


126 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


terms.  Well,  it  is,  according  to  my  recollection,  this 
Governor,  who  held  his  office  for  nine  consecutive 
terms,  that  it  had  been  attempted  to  torn  him  out, 
by  both  the  whigs  and  democrats  of  Massachusetts  ; 
but  he  had  entwined  his  arms  so  strongly  around  the 
gubernatorial  chair,  that  they  could  not  be  severed, 
except  by  those  unholy  coalitions  to  which  the  gentle- 
man alludes. 

I  am  sorry  that  the  gentleman  from  Accoraac  has 
misunderstood  the  remarks  that  I  intended  to  make 
with  regard  to  his  love  for  the  dear  people.  1  assure 
that  gentleman  I  never  fo>-  one  moment  was  desirous  of 
casting  any  imputation  upon  him,  nor  upon  any  other 
gentleman  in  this  house.  I  do  nothing  indirectly.  And 
if  I  had  been  disposed  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  any 
member  of  this  Convention,  I  would  have  done  it  direct- 
ly. I  stated  that  the  distinguished  gentlei.  an  from  the 
county  of  Henrico,  and  the  very  distinguished  gentleman 
from  Accomac,  had  vied  with  each  other  in  love  for  the 
dear  people. 

Mr.  WISE.    The  gentleman  whined  when  he  said  it. 

Mr.  TURNBULL.  The  gentleman  says  I  whined. 
Well,  now,  if  I  did,  it  was  my  manner,  with  no  intention 
of  any  disrespect  to  that  gentleman. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  no  doubt  the  gentleman  meant  no 
disrespect  to  me,  yet  when  he  indulged  in  language 
which  I  did  not  use,  which  language  conveys  a  meaning 
which  my  own  language  did  not  convey,  I  could  not  pre- 
sume anything  else  than  that  the  gentleman  meant  to 
give  the  meaning  of  his  interpretation,  and  not  the 
meaning  of  my  language.  It  was  a  matter  of  interpe- 
tration,  that  i  was  addressing  popular  feeling,  popular 
passiou,  by  saying  that  I  had  used  language  that  appeal- 
ed to  the  d-e-a-r  people.  The  gentleman  will  recollect 
the  classical  source  whence  that  "  dear  people  "  comes. 
It  implies,  I  believe,  a  very  strong  Shakspearian  sense. 
The  sense  is  the  exact  extreme,  the  opposite  extreme  of 
the  Carolainus  who  "hates  the  stinking  breath  of  the 
crowd,  "  the  demagogue,  who  addresses  himself  to  the 
passions  and  prejudices  of  the  crow  d.  Now,  the  people 
are  dear  to  me,  because  I  can  proudly  say,  I  have  most 
undeservedly  been  dear,  thrice  dear,  as  I  feel  it,  to  the 
people.  An  incident  was  alluded  to  by  a  gentleman  yes- 
terday, (Mr.  Rives,)  which  should  be  to  every  man  an 
attestation  to  the  world,  that  if  I  am  a  man,  the  people 
should  be  dear,  thrice  dear  to  me.  As  was  said  by  that 
gentleman  yesterday,  when  I  was  once  black-balled  and 
ostracised,  not  for  any  demerit  of  my  own,  as  I  am  proud 
to  say  was  said  in  debate,  and  not  gained  in  debate,  in 
the  high  place  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  but 
for  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  demerits  of  others.  I 
did  go  down  from  the  capitol  at  Washington,  and  appeal 
to  a  district  which  had  not  only  fourteen  hundred,  as  was 
said  yesterday,  but  sixteen  hundred  odd  majority  en- 
rolled in  the  register  of  party  against  me;  and  notwith- 
standing that,  I  was  sustained,  and  triumphantly  sus- 
tained, in  the  face  of  the  press,  and  in  the  face  of  the 
power  of  party.  Should  I  not  love  this  people  ?  I  do ; 
and  I  shall  love  them,  and  ever  manifest  that  love,  in 
the  most  tender  and  truthful  mode  in  which  my  affect- 
tions  for  the  people  can  be  evidenced  to  them  ;  and  this 
by  telling  them  the  truth,  as  an  honest  man,  for  their 
own  good.  And  one  of  the  truths  that  I  shall  urge  upon 
them,  above  all  others,  and  as  long  as  I  live  is.  to  grant 
to  no  public  functionary  any  more  power  than  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  the  exercise  of  their  sovereignty. 
That  is  my  love  for  the  people.  And  permit  me  to  say. 
in  reply  to  the  remark  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
mond city  (Mr.  Botts)  the  other  day,  when  lie  regretted 
that  I  had  advocated  and  invoked  the  spirit  of  election- 
erring,  that  I  have  not  one  solitary  word  to  retract  upon 
that  subject — not  a  word.  What  did  I  say?  That  an 
electioneering  campaign,  which  involved  the  discussion 
of  great  political  truths,  which  displayed  in  the  presence 
of  the  majesty  of  the  people,  the  personal  merits  or  de- 
merits of  the  candidates  for  popular  favor,  and  which 
brought  the  people  face  to  face,  eye  to  eye  with  those 
who  courted  their  sweet  voices,  wab  Ixaieficiai  both  to 


the  candidate  and  the  people.  I  said  too,  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  patriots,  the  duty  of  decent  men,  the 
duty  of  those  who  do  truthfully  and  sincerely  love 
the  people,  to  meet  the  demagogue  on  the  stump, 
an-^  elbow  him  off  the  stump;  decency  to  meet  black- 
gu  rdism,  truth  to  meet  error,  and  cool  reason  to 
me  t  the  passions  of  the  clay  ;  and  that  I  did  contemn 
tho  aristocracy  which  is  too  proud  to  do  the  patriot's 
i  ltv  in  that  service.  And  if  you  can  certify  to  me  that 
re  eligibility  will  bring  a  good  man,  a  proved  and  tried 
man  ften  before  the  people  to  meet  the  demagogue,  to 
purify  the  understanding  of  the  heart,  and  the  under- 
stauuing  cf  the  head  of  the  people,  you  recommend  the 
principle  which  I  have  advocated  more  strongly  on  that 
ground  than  any  other. 

I  did  not  intend  to  have  said  one  wora  more  upon  this 
subject,  but  the  gentleman  who  sits  immediately  befere 
me  (Mr.  Meredith)  made  a  well-balanced,  a  well-digest- 
ed, an  ingenious,  and  an  effective  speech  against  the  prin- 
ciple of  re-eligibility,  and  as  I  do  not  think  his  argument 
has  been  answered,  I  beg  leave  but  to  add  a  word.  The 
end  of  the  gentleman  and  my  end  are  the  same,  purity 
in  the  office.  Now,  I  deny  that  ineligibility  secures  pu- 
rity in  the  office.  "Why,  "says  the  gentleman,"  the 
officer  can  prostitute  the  office  for  himself  if  allowed  to 
be  re-elected."  May  he  not  prostitute  the  office  for  party, 
if  he  be  not  re-elected  or  allowed  to  be  re-elected  ?  Is 
not  the  passion  for  party  stronger  than  the  preference 
for  office  ?  Yes,  above  all  other  passions  that  blind  man- 
kind. I  have  known  it  to  over-ride  the  strongest  pas- 
sions in  our  nature — even  the  passion  of  avarice.  The 
gentleman,  when  told  that,  by  allowing  the  governor  to 
be  re-elected,  you  put  him  upon  his  good  behavior,  and 
thereby  force  him  to  demand  a  re  election,  says  you 
have  other  offices  than  that  of  governor,  which  will  re- 
ward a  man  for  doing  his  duty  in  his  place  That  rea- 
son, instead  of  being  one  which  answers  the  argument,  is 
one  which  fortifies  the  argument.  These  other  places 
to  which  the  gentleman  alluded  to,  may  be  made  so  ma- 
ny bribes  to  influence  a  bad  man — and  it  is  to  a  bad  in- 
cumbent only,  to  whom  the  reasons  either  way  can  ap- 
ply— for  if  you  have  a  good  administration,  it  matters 
not  whether  you  adopt  one  principle  or  the  other  :  it  is 
only  to  guard  against  a  bad  man,  to  prevent  the  prosti- 
tution of  the  office,  that  the  gentleman's  argument  ap- 
plies. Now,  I  will  give  him  an  illustration — it  is  this  : 
Heretofore,  this  office  of  governor  has  been  the  stepping- 
stone  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  You  have  had 
the  governor  appointed  by  the  Legislature ;  and  it 
is  the  pet  of  the  Legislature  who  receives  the  ap- 
pointment of  governor ;  and  it  is  he  who  is  supposed 
most  likely  to  be  elected  by  them  to  that  high  place  of 
honor  and  trust,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  One 
object  of  the  people,  in  having  the  governor  elected  by 
the  people,  is  to  destroy  that  power  of  the  Legislature, 
and  to  knock  away  that  stepping  stone  from  aspiring  po- 
liticians. Now  suppose  that  either  party  of  thisf-tate 
elect  a  governor  for  one  term,  to  be  ineligible.  You  have 
an  office  of  governor  perfectly  irresponsible,  not  held, 
and  who  cannot  be  held  responsible  by  the  fear  or  favor 
of  a  re-election.  But,  the  gentleman  says  you  could  have 
another  office  t<<  tender  him.  A  bad  and  corrupt  party 
— and  you  will  find  that  the  aggregate  of  party  will  do 
what  individuals  would  not  do — might  require  the  in- 
cumbent of  the  office  of  governor  to  do  what  he  would 
never  dare  submit  to  the  popular  will  and  judgment. 
He  will  say,  I  cannot  be  elected  ;  I  am  not  allowed  by 
the  Convention  to  come  again  before  the  people :  and 
they  will  say  to  him,  if  you  will  but  do  this  thing — how- 
ever bad,  however  prostituting,  and  however  corrupt  it 
be — if  you  will  but  do  this  thing,  you  shall  be  rewarded 
with  the  great  office  which  we  hold  in  our  hands — with 
a  place  ii.  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Does  not 
the  gentleman  see  that  his  own  argument  cuts  its  own 
throat  ?  Does  not  the  gentleman  see  that  the  fact  that 
there  are  other  offices  which  he  may  receive,  takes  the 
governor  himself  from  before  the  eyes  of  the  people; 
I  takes  him  from  the  opportunity  of  the  people  to  pass 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


judgment  of  approval  or  disapproval  on  his  course, 
makes  him  irresponsible  and  perpetuates  his  irresponsi- 
bility, and  above  all,  provides  for  him  the  reward  of 
prostitution  ?  That  seems  to  me  to  answer  the  gentle- 
man. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  a  few  remarks  to  address  to  this 
committee,  and  more  especially  to  my  honorable  col- 
league from  the  county  of  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  in  an- 
swer to  the  various  interrogatories  which  that  honorable 
gentleman  was  pleased  to  put  to  me  a  few  days  ago,  and 
to  which,  until  now,  I  have  had  no  opportunity  to  re- 
spond. When  I  had  the  honor  of  addressing  this  com- 
mittee a  few  days  since,  I  confess  that  I  labored  under 
what  seems  to  be  an  egregious  mistake.  I  had  suppos- 
ed that  the  proposition  which  you  hold  in  your  hand, 
and  which  proposes,  in  my  humble  judgment,  to  confer 
upon  a  single  individual  the  great  powers  of  governor 
of  this  great  commonwealth  for  life,  emanated  from  the 
eminent  brain  of  my  distinguished  colleague  from  the 
county  of  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts.)  By  the  development, 
however,  which  has  since  taken  place,  I  find  that  my 
very  distinguished  colleague  is  not  the  real  father  of  the 
bantling,  but  that  he  is  only  the  god-father  to  it,  and  that 
its  paternity  belongs  to  the  gentleman  from  Barbour, 
(Mr.  Carlile.)  It  is  not  as  I  supposed,  of  eastern  ori- 
gin, but  claims  its  paternity,  I  believe,  in  the  extreme 
north-west  of  the  State.  Had  I  known  on  that  occasion, 
as  I  know  now,  the  true  origin  of  this  proposition,  I 
should  not  have  felt  altogether  the  pain  which  I  express- 
ed on  that  occasion.  I  did  say  I  felt  pain.  The  gentle- 
man supposes  that  I  was  compensated  for  the  pain  by 
the  pleasure  which  it  would  give  me  to  vote  against  his 
proposition.  How  long  has  that  gentleman  known — how 
long  has  he  been  apprised  of  the  fact — that  it  gave  me 
pleasure  to  vote  against  his  proposition?  I  expressed 
no  such  sentiment  as  that  it  would  give  me  pleasure  in 
voting  against  his  proposition.  I  expressed  no  sentiment 
of  pleasure,  because  I  felt  none  in  regard  to  either  of 
the  three  propositions  before  us — neither  of  them  meets 
my  approbation.  The  gentleman  assumed  that  I  felt 
pleasure,  for  the  purpose  of  eking  out  a  witticism,  as  he 
supposes,  at  my  expense. 

"  Wit  shoots  in  vain  its  momentary  fires, 
The  meteor  bursts  and  in  a  flash  expires  " 

[Laughter.] 

The  gentleman,  in  the  most  emphatic  manner,  ex- 
presses his  regret  that  there  should  be  a  disagreement 
of  opinion  between  himself  and  his  colleagues  upon  this 
momentous  question,  and  fears  that  if  they  begin  to 
disagree  now  they  will  not  be  likely  to  agree  upon  the 
other  great  questions  upon  which  it  will  be  the  duty  of 
this  Convention  to  give  their  best  reflections.  Ts  that 
to  be  charged  to  any  one  of  the  delegation  ?  Ts  the  gen- 
tleman dissatisfied  with  his  colleagues  because  they  have 
not  concurred  in  the  votes  and  propositions  which  he 
submits?  We  remember,  when  we  sat  elsewhere,  a 
proposition  if  not  submitted  by  my  colleague  was  cer- 
tainly supported  by  him,  that  the  mode  of  taking  the 
votes  of  members  of  this  Convention  should  be  changed, 
and  whereas  he  voted  the  second  or  third  in  the  delega- 
tion, that  as  hi?  name  began  with  B  he  would  the  leader 
be.  [Laughter.]  If  that  gentleman  expects  any  man  in 
the  delegation  to  follow  in  his  footsteps,  he  must  be  of 
a  more  tame  and  sequacious  nature  than  the  humble  in- 
dividual who  now  addresses  you.  [Laughter.]  Yes  sir, 
the  sequence,  the  gentleman  will  perhaps  understand 
that  term  better. 

I  expressed  pain  in  regard  to  the  proposition  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  had  submitted  ;  and  what  right 
had  that  gentleman  to  question  my  sincerity?  I  did 
feel  pain,  and  I  still  feel  pain,  that  that  proposition  is 
pending  before  the  committee.  I  feel  pain,  and  I  still 
feel  alarm,  although  I  confess  that  I  am  somewhat  re- 
lieved from  it,  since  I  find  that  this  ball  was  not  origi- 
nally tossed  up  in  the  east,  but  that  it  comes  from  the 
hand  of  one  of  our  western  brethren,  (Mr.  Carlile.)  I 
had  supposed  that  the  gentleman,  whoever  he  was,  that 
threw  it,  was  somewhat  acquainted  with  that  noble  sport 


at  which  in  my  youth  I  have  so  often  disported  myself, 
which  was  then  called  fives.  [Laughter.]  Yes,  fives,  in 
which  a  skilful  player  is  engaged  with  some  half  dozen 
unskilful  ones,  and  would  hit  the  bail  so  as  to  bring  in 
concussion  the  heads  of  those  who  should  get  it.  [Laugh- 
ter.] My  honorable  colleague  has  become  so  corpulent, 
that  I  rather  fear  he  will  not  hold  out  in  this  race.  I 
rather  fear  that  there  are  other  men,  who  will  prove 
themselves  more  fleet,  and  to  have  more  bottom  than 
he.  That  gentleman's  taste  and  his  idea  of  propriety 
in  discussing  a  grave,  a  momentous  subject,  did  not  strike 
me  as  worthy  of  admiration.  He  dealt  with  his  subject 
as  though  he  was  in  the  African  church,  instead  of  the 
Universalist  church,  where  the  Convention  meets  ;  as 
though  he  was  addressing  the  people  upon  the  hustings, 
his  principal  object  being  to  ridicule  same  competitor. 
As  far  as  that  gentleman's  abilities  are  concerned,  I 
never  supposed  they  lay  exactly  in  that  line.  I  knew 
him  to  be  very  eminent  ;  but  I  had  supposed  his  emi- 
nence consisted  in  prophecy.  [Laughter.]  I  should 
have  supposed  the  gentleman  would  have  gravely  got 
up  here  and  prophesied  something — not  like  Daniel  of 
old,  which  should  be  decided  a  thousand  years  after- 
wards, but  that  wmich  would  prove  untrue  in  a  very  few 
days.  [Laughter.]  I  repeat  that  if  my  honorable  col- 
league is  distinguished  for  one  thing  more  than  another, 
it  is  for  this  spirit  of  prophecy.  Now  I  do  not  profess 
to  be  a  prophet,  nor  the  son  of  a  prophet,  but  if  I  did 
prophesy,  I  would  take  care  not  always  to  be  in  the 
wrong. 

Among  the  various  interrogatories  which  my  distin- 
guished colleague  put  to  me,  one  was,  I  recollect,  did  I 
hear,  during  the  canvass,  any  man  object  to  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  Governor  for  life  ?  And  this  question  the 
gentleman  repeated  in  the  most  emphatic  manner.  Well, 
if  I  had  had  an  opportunity,  I  could  have  answered  him 
instantly,  and  without  hesitation,  no.  I  heard  no  man, 
during  the  canvass,  object  to  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
Governor  for  life.  And  I  heard  no  man  object  to  the 
people's  electing  a  king,  if  they  thought  proper.  These 
were  subjects,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  that  did 
not  enter  even  into  the  conception  of  any  candidate  en- 
gaged in  the  discussions  of  the  great  questions  submit- 
ted to  the  people,  from  one  end  of  the  district  to  the 
other. 

And  in  this  connection  the  gentleman  took  the  liber- 
ty— and  in  regard  to  that  subject  there  is  more  than 
meets  the  eye  or  ear — the  gentleman  took  occasion  to 
say,  that  the  humble  member  who  now  addresses  you, 
mistook  the  ticket  upon  which  he  ran  ;  that  he  should 
have  been  upon  the  conservative,  and  not  on  the  radi- 
cal ticket.  And  in  this  connection,  also,  the  gentleman 
introduces  my  address  in  Dutch.  [Laughter.]  Yes, 
my  address  in  Dutch  ;  and  introduced  it,  I  presume,  to 
prove  to  this  honorable  body  that  I  had  been  smuggled 
into  the  position  I  occupy  through  the  Dutch  vote, 
which  had  been  so  peculiarly  heretofore  attached  to  him. 
[Laughter.]  Does  that  gentleman,  or  did  he  mean  to 
insinuate,  that  I  came  here  professing  one  set  of  opin- 
ions, and  am  now  here  acting  upon  another?  If  the 
gentleman  means  any  such  thing,  I  say  to  him,  that  as 
far  as  parliamentary  language  and  propriety  authorizes 
me,  I  denounce  that  insinuation.  I  denounce  it  to  its 
fullest  extent.    I  have  deceived  no  one. 

The  CHAIR,.  The  Chair  does  not  understand  that 
there  was  any  insinuation  of  the  kind  meant.  If  there 
had  been,  of  course  it  would  have  been  out  of  order, 
and  the  gentleman  would  have  been  called  to  order. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  gentleman  said  that  I  mistook  the 
ticket  upon  which  I  ran  ;  that  I  should  have  been  upon 
the  conservative  ticket,  and  not  upon  the  radical  ticket. 
The  gentleman,  I  presume,  arrived  at  that  conclusion, 
from  the  fact  that  I  opposed  a  proposition  which  I  then 
called  his,  but  which  I  now  find  belongs  more  properly 
to  the  gentleman  from  Barbour,  (Mr.  Carlile.)  He  is 
convinced  that  I  am  no  reformer  ;  that  I  should  have 
been  placed  on  the  conservative  ticket ;  because,  for- 
sooth, I  did  not  advocate  a  proposition  that  may  evi- 
dently secure  to  a  single  individual  the  important  office 


128 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


of  Governor  of  Virginia  for  life.  The  gentleman  also 
informs  this  committee  that  he  did  not  enter  into  the 
canvass  ;  that  he  was  not  present.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  he  did  not  electioneer  ;  it  is  perfectly  true  that  he 
did  not  enter  into  the  canvass,  and  did  not  electioneer, 
but  he  published  an  address,  and  I  put  myself  to  the 
trouble  this  morning  of  ascertaining  what  he  said  in  that 
address.  I  wished  to  know  what  he  said  in  it  in  rela- 
tion to  the  executive  department  of  the  government.  I 
wished  to  see  if  that  gentleman  could  bring  that  address 
here,  as  my  friend  on  my  right  (Mr.  Rives)  did  his  on 
yesterday,  and  show  for  what  he  went  when  his  address 
was  before  the  people,  if  he  himself  was  not.  And  1 
find,  after  having  examined  it,  that  this  subject  of  the 
election  of  the  Governor  is  not  adverted  to  at  all  in  his 
address,  and  that  he  comes  here  untrammeled — utterly 
untrammeled.  And  the  gentleman  declares  that  in  his 
opinion  no  man  should  come  to  this  Convention  with  any 
set  of  opinions  avowed.  And  he  declares,  moreover, 
that  in  his  opinion  no  man  should  be  a  candidate  for  the 
office,  and  that  although  he  was  very  willing  to  receive 
the  office,  yet  he  must  not  be  regarded  as  a  candidate 
for  it.  In  other  words,  the  gentleman  seemed  to  put 
himself  upon  his  dignity,  and  in  this  respect  he  very 
much  resembled  his  quandam  friend,  Captain  Tyler — 
who  also  published  an  address  in  response  to  invitations 
to  be  a  candidate  for  office.  And  here,  according  to 
my  conception,  is  a  very  striking  likeness  between  the 
two.  Each  of  the  gentlemen  left  his  address  behind  ; 
one  went  to  Saratoga,  I  believe,  and  the  other  was  at 
Washington.  Neither  committed  himself.  Suppose  the 
idea  of  my  honorable  friend — for  so  I  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  calling  him,  though  perhaps  I  have  committed 
an  impropriety  in  calling  him  so  now,  seeing  that  I  have 
dared  to  oppose  his  proposition — had  been  carried  out, 
and  that  each  member  of  this  Convention  came  here  in 
the  same  untrammeled  situation  which  this  gentleman 
represents  himself  to  be  in,  what  would  be  the  condi- 
tion, I  ask,  of  the  people  of  Virginia?  Would  they  not 
have  selected  gentlemen  in  the  dark?  Would  they  not 
have  been  calling  upon  individuals  to  make  a  Constitu- 
tion for  them,  without  knowing  what  it  was  that  those 
gentlemen  would  propose.  Unquestionably  this  would 
be  the  case. 

There  were  some  other  questions  the  gentleman  pro- 
pounded to  me,  which  escape  my  recollection  at  present. 
Among  other  things,  however,  the  gentleman  asked  me 
if  I  would  go  for  the  Constitution  of  1776  and  of  1830, 
in  regard  to  the  freehold  suffrage,  and  in  regard  to  the 
representation  of  the  counties  ?  Would  I  go  for  the 
freehold  suffrage  ?  asked  the  gentleman.  No,  I  will  not 
go  for  the  freehold  suffrage.  I  will  not  vote  to  form  a 
Constitution  that  shall  place  this  government  in  the  hands 
of  freeholders  alone.  But  I  take  occasion  to  say  that, 
in  my  humble  judgment,  there  is  no  class  of  voters  in 
this  community  equal  to  the  class  of  freeholders.  And 
I  take  occasion  also  to  say  that  the  freeholders  of  Vir- 
ginia constitute  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  country. 
They  constitute  that  class  of  men  who  are  really  con- 
servatives, and  from  whom  no  danger  is  ever  to  be  ap- 
prehended. But  there  are  other  classes  in  this  commu- 
nity to  whom  I  would  do  justice,  and  to  whom  I  believe 
the  right  of  suffrage  ought  to  be  extended,  and  to  whom 
I  am  willing,  with  my  honorable  colleague,  to  make 
the  extension. 

There  was  one  thing  which  struck  me  with  very  great 
surprise,  and  that  was,  that  my  honorable  colleague 
should  have  supposed  that  when  1  spoke  of  black  cock- 
ade federalists,  I  was  making  a  fling  at  him.  It  struck 
me,  I  say,  with  very  great  surprise  that  the  gentleman 
should  have  supposed  that  when  I  spoke  of  that  obnox- 
ious party  that  I  intended  a  fling  at  him.  I  certainly  in- 
tended no  fling  at  him  ;  and  I  certainly  did  not  expect 
that  the  gentleman  would  have  bestowed  an  encomium, 
as  I  understood  him  to  do,  upon  this  black  cockade  par- 
ty. I  certainly  did  not  expect  the  egregious  error  which 
he  committed  in  charging  upon  Washington,  Marshal), 
and  Madison  as  having  belonged  to  that  obnoxious  party. 
I  shall  be  led  to  believe  that  the  gentleman  is  as  unin- 


formed in  regard  to  the  lines  which  separated  the  an- 
cient parties  of  this  country,  as  he  professed  some  time 
since  to  be  in  regard  to  Mason  and  Dixon 's  line.  Wash- 
ington a  black  cockade  federalist!  John  Marshall  a 
black  cockade  federalist!  and  more  surprising  than  all, 
Mr.  Madison  a  black  cockade  federalist !  And  this  said 
by  an  honorable  gentleman  who  has  had  so  much  politi- 
cal experience !  Does  not  that  gentleman  know  full 
well  that  before  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  formed  in  1787,  that  pending  this  great  measure, 
parties  were  divided  under  the  appellation  of  federalist 
and  anti-federalist?  Is  he  not  aware  that  after  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  the  anti-federal  party  had 
nothing  upon  which  to  act ;  that  there  was  no  subject  of 
contest  between  those  two  parties? 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  remind  the  gentle- 
man that  the  debate  is  taking  entirely  too  wide  a  range. 
The  discussion  should  be  confined  to  the  subject  under 
consideration,  and  to  the  amendments  which  are  pend- 
ing. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  to  say  in  answer  to  the  Chair, 
that  I  am  endeavoring  to  meet  an  argument  in  favor  of 
this  proposition  drawn,  or  attempted  to  be  drawn,  by 
my  honorable  colleague,  by  asserting  the  fact  that  these 
great  men  belonged  to  a  particular  party.  I  was  upon 
that  subject — 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  understood  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  as  merely  making  a  passing 
allusion,  and  not  as  entering  into  any  argument  upon  the 
subject  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  take  occasion  then  to  say  that  the  gen- 
tleman, in  his  passing  allusion,  does  exceeding  injustice 
to  these  great  men.  [Laughter.]  I  take  occasion  to  say 
to  this  passing  allusion  of  the  gentleman,  that  Mr.  Madi- 
son, although  he  co-operated  with  those  who  framed 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  never  was  before, 
I  presume,  denominated  a  black  cockade  federalist. 
The  term  black  cockade  federalist  grew  out  of  that 
bloodless  war  which  existed  between  this  country  and 
France,  in  which  no  enemy  could  be  found;  a  war  in  which 
not  one  drop  of  blood  was  spilled  ;  a  war  in  which  we 
had  "  no  fighting  men  abroad,  no  weeping  maids  at 
home  ;  "  [laughter,]  a  war  such  as  I  humbly  pray  God 
all  wars  may  ever  be  ;  a  war  in  which  no  harm  was 
done    a  war  distinguished  by  no  blood  and  carnage. 

But  much  I  think  "has  been  said  upon  this  occasion 
which  should  not  have  been  said.  Much,  I  think,  has 
been  said  upon  this  subject,  by  myself  as  well  as  others, 
which  should  not  have  been  said.  [Laughter.]  We 
have  departed  from  the  true  question  before  the  com- 
mittee. I  do  not  take  upon  myself  the  entire  blame, 
but  I  am  ever  willing  to  bear  my  share  of  the  responsi- 
bility, let  it  be  what.it  may.  Much,  I  say,  in  my  hum- 
ble judgment,  has  been  said  upon  this  occasion,  which 
would  have  been  better  suited  to  holiday  occasions. 
We  have  left  the  momentous  question  occupying  the 
considerations  of  this  grave  body  to  indulge  in  witticisms 
and  in  endeavors  to  ridicule,  a  valuable  weapon  on  some 
occasions,  it  is  true,  but  usually  resorted  to  in  bad  causes. 
The  man  who  cannot  reason  in  regard  to  any  question, 
or  who  disdains  to  do  so,  and  seizes  upon  ridicule  in  lieu 
of  reason,  must  have  a  consciousness  that  he  is  engaged 
in  a  cause  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  reason.  For 
I  take  it  for  granted  that  any  gentleman,  in  a  delibera- 
tive body  like  this,  would  prefer  to  sustain  his  position 
by  strong,  hard  sense ,  rather  than  by  an  endeavor  at  wit- 
ticisms and  sarcasms,  to  defeat  his  opponents.  Whether 
my  honorable  colleague  has  set  this  unenviable  exam- 
ple, I  will  leave  others  to  determine. 

The  question,  the  true  question  before  us,  is,  shall 
the  executive  office  of  this  great  Commonwealth,  accor- 
ding to  the  proposition  of  my  colleague  be  retained  du- 
ring the  life  of  the  incumbent,  if  that  incumbent  can  so 
manage  as  to  secure  his  re-election,  from  term  to  term, 
of  four  years.  Is  that  a  proposition  calculated  to  ad- 
vance the  prosperity  and  to  secure  the  happiness  and 
safety  of  the  people?  Is  it,  in  other  words,  a  republi- 
can proposition?  Is  it  a  proposition  to  which,  if  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  themselves,  they  would  be  likely  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


129 


accede?    I  undertake,  for  once,  to  trespass  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  the  gentleman,  and  to  prophecy  that  the 
people,  if  this  proposition  had  been  submitted  to  them, 
would  have  rejected  it.    I,  for  one,  believe  that  deserv- 
edly popular  as  is  my  distinguished  colleague,  if  he  had 
presented  himself  to  the  voters  of  this  district  and  pro- 
claimed the  proposition  which  he  makes  here,  that  hej 
would  not  at  this  time  have  had  the  honor  of  a  seat  in 
this  body.    It  is  my  deliberate  opinion,  had  that  gen- 
tleman been  in  his  district  and  discussed  this  subject 
before  the  people,  and  let  the  people  of  this  district 
know  that  he  was  willing  to  extend  the  office  of  Go- 
vernor for  life,  the  gentleman,  instead  of  being  third 
upon  the  list  of  candidates  returned,  to  use  a  sporting 
phrase,  would  have  been  "no  where."  [Laughter.] 
I  appeal  to  members  of  this  body  from  the  eastern  side 
of  the  mountains,  at  least,  whether  any  proposition  like 
this  was  ever  discussed  before  their  people  ?    I  appeal 
to  the  entire  delegation  whether  this  proposition  was 
ever  submitted  to  their  people  ?    If  then  this  extraordi- 
nary innovation  upon  the  ancient  rights  of  the  people 
was  never  discussed  before  them,  if  the  people  in  no 
form  whatever  gave  their  approbation  to  such  a  propo- 
sition, I  ask  why  press  it?    The  gentleman  said  the 
other  day  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  '76 
had  set  the  example  of  repeated  terms.    Yes,  the  gen- 
tleman said  most  emphatically  that  they  had  set  the  ex- 
ample of  repeated  terms  ;  that  they  had  declared  in  their 
Constitution  that  the  Governor  should  be  eligible  for 
three  terms,  but  the  gentleman  did  not  say  how  long 
these  terms  were.    In  that  Constitution,  which  was  the 
work  of  such  men  as  Jefferson  and  Mason  and  Grayson, 
they  showed  a  jealousy  of  executive  misrule  and  they 
required  the  chief  executive  officer  should  be  elected 
annually  for  three  terms,  and  then  to  be  ineligible  for 
four  years  afterwards,  thus  carrying  out  the  principle  of 
rotation  in  office  and  a  reduction  of  the  great  public 
functionaries  to  a  private  station — two  principles,  which 
in  my  humble  judgment,  are  dearer  to  the  people  of  this 
ancient  Commonwealth,  than  any  other  which  can  be 
submitted  to  this  Convention.    Rotation  in  office  and 
a  reduction  of  public  functionaries  to  private  sta- 
tion, I  repeat,  are  th^  dearest  rights  ever  contended 
for  by  the  people  of  the  good  old  Commonwealth  of  Vir- 
ginia.   Shall  we  depart  from  them?    Shall  we,  for  the 
purpose  of  imitating  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  depart  from  these  wholesome  and  conservative 
principles  of  liberty?    There  is  a  pernicious  itch  for 
imitation  at  the  present  time  ;  there  is  an  imitation  in 
the  pending  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  which,  to  me,  is  alarming.    The  President  of 
the  United  States  is  elected  for  four  years,  and  he  is 
re-eligible  for  life.    The  Governor  of  Virginia,  accord- 
ing to  my  colleague's  proposition,  shall  be  elected  for 
four  years,  and  shall  be  re-eligible  for  life.    There  is  a 
similarity  which  I  dislike.    Is  it  intended,  is  it  contem- 
plated by  this  Convention,  to  render  the  Governor  of 
Virginia,  in  events  which  may,  God  knows  how  soon 
happen,  the  ally  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  allow  them  to  continue  him  in  office  as  long  as  is 
necessary  to  effect  their  purpose  ?    I  fear  the  consequen- 
ces of  the  extension  of  this  re-eligibility  ;  I  fear  an  in- 
terference from  other  states  ;  I  fear  even  an  interference 
from  foreign  states  ;  and  I  believe,  if  the  proposition  is 
once  ratified  by  the  people  of  Virginia,  the  first  individ- 
ual who  is  elected  to  that  office,  will  be  every  inch  a 
king !    Yes,  T  fear  a  more  important  potentate  than 
many  of  the  kings  and  princes  of  Europe,  at  the  present 
day.    Poland  formerly  elected  a  king,  and  he  was,  as  it 
is  proposed  the  Governor  of  Virginia  shall  be,  re-eligi- 
ble, and  the  people  might  turn  him  out.    But  did  the 
great  powers  of  Europe,  in  the  neighborhood  of  that 
elective  monarchy,  ever  permit  him  to  be  turned  out? 
Never.    And  when  they  found  that  these  elections  were 
troublesome  to  be  regulated,  they  graciously  partitioned 
Poland  among  themselves. 

But  I  object  to  the  period  of  four  years  as  the  duration 
of  the  term  of  office.  I  object  to  it  as  anti-republican  ; 
I  object  to  it  as  not  corresponding,  according  to  my  view, 
with  the  sentiments  of  the  people,  and  of  my  immediate 


constituents  particularly  ;  I  believe  that  the  people  re- 
quire that  all  their  public  officers  shall  be  elected  for 
short  periods  ;  that  they  shall  have  an  opportunity  of 
coming  at  the  delinquent  at  short  periods.  I  have  never 
yet  heard  any  man  declare  that  the  Governor  of  Virgi- 
nia v/as  elected  for  too  short  a  period.  Under  the  old 
freehold  government,  when  the  Executive  officer  was 
elected  annually,  was  there  any  complaint  that  the  Go- 
vernor was  not  elected  for  life  ?  Did  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman, when  he  represented  the  county  of  Henrico  in 
the  State  Legislature,  ever  hear  any  of  his  constituents 
complain  that  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  was 
not  elected  for  life  ?  Did  the  gentleman,  at  that  time, 
ever  hear  any  of  his  constituents  complain  that  the 
Governor  was  not  elected  for  four  or  for  eight  years  ?  I 
had  some  little  experience  with  the  people  about  that 
period,  and  like  that  gentleman,  Ihadsome  experience 
in  the  legislature.  For  a  period  of  years  I  represented 
there  a  large  and  highly  intelligent  county  in  the  imme- 
diate neighborhood  of  this  city,  and  I  can  say  as  a  wit- 
ness upon  the  stand,  that  I  never  heard  a  solitary  indi- 
vidual object  to  the  mode  in  which  the  Governor  was 
elected,  except  that  he  was  not  elected  by  the  people. 
I  never  heard  an  individual,  whether  Federalist  or  Re- 
publican, object  to  the  length  of  time  as  being  too 
short.  No,  never.  The  only  objection  which  I  ever 
heard  upon  the  subject,  was,  that  there  was  a  connection 
between  the  legislative  and  the  executive  department, 
which  was  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights  ;  and  that,  as  the  bill  of  rights  declared  that 
these  two  departments  of  the  Government  should  be 
separate,  distinct,  and  independent  of  each  other,  the 
executive  branch,  by  being  elected  by  the  legislature, 
was  made  to  some  extent,  dependent  upon  the  other 
branch.  That  constituted  the  objection,  and  not  that 
the  Governor  should  cease  to  be  eligible  when  he  should 
return  to  the  body  of  the  people  ;  not  that  the  Gover- 
nor should  be  placed  in  station  and  there  remain  as 
long  as  by  intrigue,  or  force,  or  other  means,  he  might 
continue  himself  in  the  office.  No — no  such  com- 
plaints were  ever  made  in  the  great  county  to  which  I 
allude,  a  county  which  had  the  honor  to  give  the  first 
impulse  to  the  ball  of  the  revolution.  I  have  expressed 
my  fears  and  alarms  at  this  proposition,  and  have  not 
gentlemen  a  right  to  be  afraid  of  propositions  of  this 
sort  ?  I  have  my  fears  on  various  grounds.  I  fear  that 
this  proposition,  should  it  succeed,  will  render  the 
work  of  this  Convention  perfectly  nugatory  and  in  vain. 
I  fear  the  eminent  ability  of  gentlemen  whom  I  see  en- 
listed in  this  crusade,  as  I  regard  it,  against  the  dear- 
est rights  of  the  people.  I  have  a  right  to  express  my 
fears — I  really  entertain  them — and  yet  I  cannot  charge 
myself  with  any  greater  degree  of  pusilanimity,  than 
is  usually  attachable  to  the  character  of  men.  I  think 
it  better  to  be  afraid  cf  danger  while  far  off,  than  to 
shrink  from  it  when  that  danger  shall  be  upon  you.  I 
would  guard  the  rights  of  the  people. 

Gentlemen,  with  a  degree  of  ingenuity  extraordina- 
ry indeed,  have  endeavored  to  prove  to  this  Conven- 
tion, that  they  are  advancing  the  rights  of  the  people 
by  enabling  them  to  continue  men  in  power  during  life. 
The  thing  is  impossible.  Advance  republican  princi- 
ples by  rendering  the  chief  Executive  officer  eligible 
for  life  ?  The  man  must  be  bold  and  confident  in  his 
own  abilities  to  the  extreme,  who  can  advocate  such  a 
proposition  in  a  body  so  intelligent  as  this.  Advance 
republican  principles  by  rendering  an  individual  eligi- 
ble to  the  first  office  in  the  gift  of  the  State  ;  where  he 
will  be  tempted  to  continue  in  office  by  every  means  in 
his  power?  Where  is  the  man  who  would  not  prefer  to 
be  Governor  of  Virginia  for  four  years,  with  a  chance 
amounting  to  almost  the  certainty  of  being  re-elected 
for  four  more,  with  a  salary  of  five  thousand  dollars — 
as  the  report  proposes  to  give,  thus  securing  to  him  the 
pretty  little  sum  of  forty  thousand  dollars — I  ask  where 
is  the  man  who  would  not  prefer  this  office  even  to  that 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  itself,  for  a  sin- 
gle term?  And  when  you  add  to  it  the  prospect  of  be- 
ing continued  for  life  ;  aye,  and  transmitted  to  heirs,  I 
apprehend,  if  this  proposition  should  be  engrafted  in 


130 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  Constitution,  that  we  shall  have  a  contest  for  this, 
office  such  as  never  was  known  in  any  state  for  the  gu- 
bernatorial chair  before.  Pass  this  proposition  and 
you  will  find  every  means,  internal  and  external,  fair 
and  foul,  resorted  to,  to  secure  the  election  of  the  in- 
cumbent. Gentlemen  will  recollect  somewhat  of  the 
history  of  the  ancient  Republics.  Was  it  the  custom 
of  the  ancient  Republics  to  elect  their  great  officers 
for  a  great  length  of  time?  The  Consuls  of  Rome  were 
elected  but  for  two  years,  and  the  Dictator  himself  on- 
ly for  six  months  ;  here,  however,  we  propose  to  elect 
our  chief  magistrate  for  four  years — most  probably  for 
eight  ;  for  unless,  as  was  remarked  the  other  day,  the 
incumbent  has  committed  some  flagitious  wrong,  he 
will  be  continued  in  office  for  eight  years  :  and  the  road 
being  still  open  to  him,  will  he  not  attempt  a  re-election 
for  eight  years  more  ?  I  ask  gentlemen  to  ponder  and 
reason  in  their  own  minds  ;  and  to  answer  the  inquiry, 
whether  an  individual  having  this  great  office  under  his 
control  for  eight  vears,  will  not  endeavor  to  continue 
himself  in  place  ?  The  argument  I  think,  will  be  :  we 
have  been  invited  to  it  by  the  reform  Convention  that 
formed  this  Constitution— that  Convention  found  the 
short  term,  and  the  principle  of  returning  to  the  masses 
of  the  people,  in  order  to  bring  down  the  high  functiona- 
ries to  learn  how  it  is  to  get  a  living  by  the  sweat  of 
their  brow,  and  that  they  might  be  taught  by  actual  ex- 
perience, the  condition  of  the  people,  by  mingling  and 
becoming  one  of  them — and  it  abandoned  those  prin- 
ciples. I  cannot,  I  will  not  depart  from  these  ancient 
principles.  I  may  be  dubbed  conservative.  Let  me 
be  so.  I  may  even  take  upon  myself  the  appellation  of 
federalist.  I  will  take  upon  myself  any  appellation 
that  the  gentleman  thinks  proper  to  bestow  upon  me, 
rather  than  yield  the  rights  of  the  people  whom  I  have 
the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent.  My  honorable  col- 
league the  other  day,  in  regard  to  the  promotion  of  the 
Governor,  or  rather  in  regard  to  this  eligibility  of  the 
Governor  to  other  offices,  said,  if  I  do  not  greatly  mis- 
take, that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  this  Convention 
to  prevent  the  Governor  from  being  elected  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States,  and  other  federal  offices.  If 
I  am  in  error,  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  correct  me. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    That  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  gentleman  says  that  is  what  he 
said — that  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  this  Convention  to 
inhibit  the  governor  from  receiving  any  high  office  at  the 
hands  of  the  federal  government,  and,  I  presume,  at  the 
hands  of  any  foreign  government.  It  is  not,  says  my 
Colleague,  in  the  power  of  this  Convention  to  inhibit  the 
governor  from  being  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  Why,  is  it  not  in  the  power  of  the  people  to  pre- 
vent their  governor,  or  any  other  citizen,  from  being  elect 
ed  to  that  office  ?  I  perceive  no  reason  why  this  Con- 
vention may  not  say  to  the  Legislature  that  it  shall  not 
elect  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  any  man  who  is 
in  office,  from  a  constable  to  the  chief  magistrate  of  the 
State.  I  ask  wi  ether  this  Convention  has  not  the  pow- 
er to  impose  such  a  restriction  upon  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  government  ?  No  power  of  restriction  upon  this 
great  officer  ?  Accordiug  to  the  advocates  of  this  extra- 
ordinary proposition,  he  is  to  serve  for  life,  if  he  can  so 
manage  as  to  secure  his  election  for  so  long  a  period ; 
and  in  the  mean  time,  he  is  not  to  be  inhibited  from  other 
or  better  offices.  Yes,  sir,  elected  for  life,  with  the  privi- 
lege, according  to  my  colleague,  during  life,  of  being  elect- 
ed to  the  high  office  of  Senator.  I  do  not  concur  with 
my  colleague  in  this  respect-  I  greatly  prefer  the  pro- 
position of  the  committee,  the  original  proposition.  But 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  was,  that  his  proposition 
advances  the  privileges  of  the  people.  The  argument — 
the  legitimate  argument — is,  whether  it  advances  the 
rights  of  the  people,  or  whether  it  endangers  the  rights 
of  the  people.  That,  I  submit,  to  be  the  true  question 
under  consideration. 

The  gentleman  said,  that  we  should  not  restrict  the 
privilege  of  the  people  in  electing  this  officer,  time  and 
again,  as  long  as  he  shall  live. 

The  gentleman  also  said  something  about  the  election 


of  the  distinguished  General  Scott.  I  will  draw  an  il- 
lustration of  my  humble  views  in  regard  to  that  distin- 
guished man.  I  ask  of  my  colleague,  whether,  under  his 
idea  of  extending  the  rights  of  the  people,  he  would  have 
them  exercise  the  privilege  of  electing  the  distinguished 
gentleman  alluded  to  by  him,  to  the  office  of  Chief  Ma- 
gistrate ?  Nay,  I  go  further.  Will  the  proposition  al- 
low the  people  the  privilege  of  electing  the  illustrious 
sage  of  Ashland,  to  be  the  governor  of  his  native  State  ? 
Are  they  not  restricting  and  confining  an  election  to 
the  citizens  of  their  own  State  ?  And  is  not  that  a  re- 
striction upon  the  powers  of  the  people  ?  Is  not  that  a 
restriction,  a  much  greater  deprivation  than  a  restric- 
tion which  shall  confine  an  election  for  a  limited  period, 
and  bring  the  incumbent  back  to  the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple? In  the  nature  of  things  it  becomes  the  duty  of 
this  body,  not  only  to  restrict  the  departments  of  the 
government,  but  to  restrict  the  people  themselves.  For 
this  Convention  is  the  representation,  the  impersona- 
tion of  the  people.  We  stand  here,  representing  the 
people  in  their  sovereign  capacity ;  and  what  we  do,  they 
do.  The  acts  of  this  body  are  the  acts  of  the  people. 
The  people  certainly  have  aright  to  restrict  themselves, 
even  if  we  view  the  proposition  in  that  light. 

If  we  are  to  have  a  proposition  such  as  this — if  we 
are  to  have  a  Constitution  like  this,  let  us  go  the  entire 
figure.  Let  the  Constitution  be  opened  to  the  entire 
world,  and  allow  any  man  to  be  elected  whom  the  peo- 
ple of  Virginia  may  think  proper  to  elect.  If  there  is 
to  be  no  restriction  in  regard  to  the  governor,  let  it  be 
said  that  any  man  may  be  elected.  Open  the  door  to  old 
Kentucky;  open  the  door  to  my  old  friend  Winfield 
Scott ;  open  the  door  if  you  will,  to  Kossuth ;  open  the 
door  even  to  Lord  Brougham ;  and,  perhaps  some  gen- 
tleman might  like  to  open  it  to  a  member  of  the  royal 
family,  for  I  believe  that  this  proposition,  in  the  end, 
will  lead  to  royalty  or  a  king.  [Laughter.] 

What  I  have  said,  I  am  perfectly  aware  has  been  very 
imperfectly  delivered.  My  health,  my  personal  condi- 
tion, and  even  my  mental  condition,  is  not  favorable  to 
an  address  of  this  kind.  I  never  rise  to  address  this 
body  without  a  very  sensible  embarrassment.  It  has 
continued  with  me  during  the  entire  time  I  have  address- 
ed this  committee,  The  gentleman  over  the  way,  while 
he  made  me  the  object  of  his  particular  notice,  a  few 
days  since,  took  occasion  to  say  that  it  was  done  with 
all  imaginable  kindness.  What  I  have  said  was  in  a 
similar  spirit — in  all  imaginable  kindness.  But  I  will 
take  occasion,  in  conclusion,  to  say,  that  I  regard  it 
excessively  dangerous  for  any  gentleman,  however  pop- 
ular he  may  be,  to  conceive  the  idea  that  his  popular- 
ity will  stand  everything.  I  will  take  occasion  to  say 
that  "whom  the  Lord  means  to  destroy,  he  first  runs 
mad. " 

A  MEMBER.  That  is  not  the  quotation.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  further  say  that  I  have,  ever 
since  I  have  turned  thirty,  considered  doubt  as  the  bea- 
con of  the  wise.  I  have  ever  considered  that  the  opin- 
ions of  the  man  who  doubted  whether  he  was  right,  and 
who  would  reflect  and  ponder  in  his  mind  whether  he 
was  right  or  wrong,  was  more  apt  to  be  right  than  he, 
who,  seizing  upon  the  first  "hop"  of  an  idea,  is  ever  af- 
terwards looking  for  arguments,  specious  or  otherwise, 
to  sustain  him  in  error. 

We  are  engaged  in  a  work  which  ought  to  excite  our 
affections  and  our  very  best  judgments  for  the  people. 
The  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  has  spoken 
in  regard  to  the  people  in  terms  of  eloquence  which  few 
here  will  rival.  And  will  not  that  gentleman  perceive, 
with  his  ample  knowledge  of  history,  that  the  people 
often  require  to  be  protected  from  ambitious  knaves  ? 
And  are  we  not,  one  and  all,  apprised  of  the  fact  that  hu- 
man nature  is  the  same  in  all  countries,  and  at  all  times  ? 
Are  we  not  apprised  of  the  fact,  that  no  people  ever  lost 
their  liberties  by  the  strong  arm  of  power  alone ;  but 
that  they  have' bowed  their  willing  necks  to  the  yoke, 
misled  and  misguided  by  their  great  favorites  ?    Was  it 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


131 


not  so  in  ancient  times  ?  Has  it  not  been  so  in  more  re-  Mr.  BOTTS.  And  he  says,  if  I  expect  any  followers 
cent  times?    Has  it  not  been  so  every  where?    God  here,  I  must  find  some  one  more  segacious  than  he. 


I  did  not  say  that. 
It  was  something  in  that  way. 
That  was  not  the  word.    It  was  se- 


Mr.  DAVIS. 
Mr.  BOTTS. 
A  MEMBER. 

quacious. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  It  seems  that  I  did  not  apprehend  the 
gentleman,  and  I  will  pass  on.  [Laughter.]  But  what 
the  gentleman  did  say,  (that  I  regretted  to  hear,)  was, 
that  he  supposed  my  remarks  were  intended  to  ridicule 
him.  Why,  I  take' occasion,  with  infinite  satisfaction, 
to  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  nothing  is  further  from 
my  disposition,  or  from  my  tastes  than  ridiculing  any 
caan.  I  did  feel  that  the  gentleman's  remarks  were  al- 
together out  of  place,  and  unkind  in  their  tone  and  tem- 
per, and  that  one  hearing  his  speech,  or  reading  it  in 
the  public  prints,  unconnected  with  the  proposition  I 
submitted,  that  they  would  very  naturally  believe  I  had 
had  submitted,  a  most  outrageous  and  monstrous  propo- 
sition to  the  Convention  ;  and  one  that  was  calculated 
to  strip  the  people  of  all  their  powers,  and  of  all  their 
liberties.  That  was  the  feeling  in  which  I  answered 
the  gentleman 's  remarks.  If  I  did  it  in  a  way  to  expose 
the  fallacy  of  his  arguments,  it  was  with  any  other  than 
a  disposition  to  ridicule  him.  If  there  was  a  laugh  at 
the  expense  of  the  gentleman,  it  was  no  fault  of  mine. 
I  certainly  did  not  desire  to  create  a  laugh.  But  the 
gentleman  asked  me,  or  rather  suggested  the  possibility 
that,  in  making  a  reference  to  the  printing  of  his  ad- 
finite  pleasure  that  it  would  give  him  to  vote  against  j dress  in  the  German  language,  that  I  might  have  in- 
the  proposition  of  his  colleague.  And  in  using  these  tended  to  insinuate  that  he  had  smuggled  himself  into 
terms,  I  would  remark,  it  was  not  by  way  of  witti-  this  Convention.  I  imagine  that  no  other  gentleman 
-cism,  either.  I  simply  referred  to  the  gentleman's  who  was  presentput  that  construction  upon  my  remarks, 
language,  and  said  I  did  not  know  whether  to  congrat-  I  do  not  think  he  thought  himself,  at  the  moment,  I 

•to  congratulate  him  iwas  doing  it,becai 


savs  us  from  its  being  so  here. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  have  very  little  to  say  in  reply  to  the 
gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  yet  I  feel  the 
necessity  of  throwing  myself,  for  moment,  upon  the 
indulgence  of  the  committee.  I  very  much  regret  that 
this  discussion  has  taken  the  turn  it  has  ;  and  while  I 
have  nothing  to  regret  of  what  the  gentleman  has  said, 
I  have  a  great  deal'to  regret  of  the  manner  and  of  the 
spirit  in  which  he  has  said  it.  And  I  have  still  more  to 
regret,  if  I  have  been  unintentionally  the  cause  of  giv- 
ing any  good  grounds  of  offence  to  that  gentleman.  It 
will  be  recollected,  that  when  the  gentleman  speaks  of 
"  taking  the  ball  at  the  first  hop,  "  that  my  worthy  col- 
league took  my  proposition — as  I  still  say  it  is,  for  it 
stands  as  my  proposition  before  the  committee,  and  I 
stand  responsible  before  the  Convention  for  it — that  he 
took  my  proposition  at  the  first  hop.  And  although 
the  gentleman  did  not  denounce  me  in  terms,  yet  he 
certainly  did  denounce  that  proposition  in  terms  which, 
in  my  opinion,  were  very  exceptionable,  If  I  had  chosen 
to  take  exceptions  to  them — especially  coming  from 
what  I  will  not  forget — a  gentleman  who  has  been  for  a 
long  time,  not  only  my  personal,  but  my  warmest  polit- 
ical friend.  He  certainly  made  the  declaration  that  it 
did  give  him  infinite  pain  to  hear  such  a  proposition  as 
that  submitted  by  his  colleague,  presented  for  the  con- 
sideration of  this  Convention  ;  and  he  spoke  of  the  in 


ulate  or  to  sympathize  with  him — to 


lecause  another  of  my  colleagues,  who  sat 


upon  the  pleasure  afforded  him  in  voting  against  my  J  immediately  behind  me,  and  who  had  done  precisely 


proposition,  or  to  sympathize  with  him  for  the  pain  the 
proposition  itself  occasioned. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  appeal  to  the  Convention  that  I  used 
no  such  language. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  appeal  to  the  reporter,  whenever  he 
shall  publish  this  debate. 

The  CHAIR.  When  a  gentleman  is  occupying  the 
floor,  these  conversations  are  very  improper. 
_  Mr.  BOTTS.  In  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  propo- 
sition, I  certainly  attach  no  sort  of  importance  to  it.  I 
am  willing  to  transfer  all  the  credit  and  honor  belong- 
ing to  it  to  the  gentleman  from  the  western  part  of  the 
State,  who,  it  seems,  had  submitted  a  proposition  of  a 
similar  character,  but  of  which  I  profess  to  have  been 
entirely  ignorant  at  the  time.  I  knew  not  of  it.  although 
I  had  the  paper  in  my  pocket  ;  but  I  had  not  withdrawn 
it  therefrom  from  the  moment  when  the  document  was 
first  handed  round  to  the  members.  Thus,  not  having 
taken  it  up  for  examination,  and  not  expecting  that  the 
question  would  come  up  at  the  moment  it  did,  I  sub- 
mitted the  proposition,  without  any  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  a  similar  one  had  been  before  offered.  I  speak 
of  it  as  my  proposition,  because  I  stand  responsible  for 
it  before  the  Convention  and  the  people.  And  yet  I 
am  not  disposed  to  claim  its  paternity.  The  gentleman, 
then,  does  me  injustice  also  in  supposing  that,  in  voting 
for  a  proposition  not  made  by  me,  but  by  the  gentleman 
from  Wheeling — 

A  MEMBER.    From  Barbour,  you  mean. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  No,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Wheel- 
ing, (Mr.  Jacob,)  said  that  the  list  of  members  should 
be  called  in  alphabetical  order,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying the  sectional  aspect  given  to  every  question 
which  came  before  the  Convention,  that  because  my 
name  began  with  the  letter  B,  I  was  desirous  the  lead- 
er to  be.  I  think  that  was  the  gentleman's  rhyme.  I 
aspire  to  no  such  office.  I  would  be  glad  if  my  friend 
would  place  himself  under  somebody  who  would  lead 
him  to  more  democratic  views  than  ke  has  expressed 


the  same  thing,  did  not  suppose  I  intended  to  say  he  had 
smuggled  himself  into  the  Convention.  When  I  made 
the  remark,  the  gentleman  turned  to  his  colleage  and 
said,  "  take  notice  of  that :  "  to  which  I  replied,  "  I  am 
not  talking  to  Mr.  Scott.  He  gave  me  no  provocation. 
I  am  talking  to  you.  "  Nov/,  the  gentleman  says,  that 
all  he  said  to  me  was  in  the  spirit  of  kindness,  and  that 
it  was  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  I  addressed  my  re- 
marks to  him.  This  may  be  true  ;  but  I  think  it  must 
be  apparent  to  the  Convention  that  he  was  much  more 
unhappy  in  his  mode  of  expression. 
Mr.  DAVIS.  I  said  "  the  same  kind  of  kindness.  " 
Mr.  BOTTS.  What  I  did  say  was  said  in  the  spirit 
of  all  kindness.  But  the  gentleman  professes  great  sur- 
prize at  my  ignorance  of  the  early  history  of  parties,  and 
supposes  that  I  had  denounced  Washington,  Madison  and 
Marshall,  as  black  cockade  federalists.  Now,  could 
any  man  have  listened  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
this  morning,  who  had  not  heard  what  preceded  them, 
without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  I  had  had  the  ef- 
frontery and  the  impudence  to  stand  up  here  in  the  face 
of  this  Convention,  and  denounce  the  father  of  his  coun- 
try and  those  illustrious  men  associated  with  him,  as 
black  cockade  federalists.  Why,  a  moment  after  the 
gentleman  accused  me  of  having  denounced  these  illus- 
trious men  as  black  cockade  federalists,  he  expresses 
his  surprise,  and  I  do  not  know  but  he  expressed  his  pain 
again,  that  he  felt  at  the  encomiums  I  bestowed  on  those 
very  men.  But  who  was  it  that  used  the  term  black 
cockade  federalist,  and  what  was  the  connection  in  which 
the  gentleman  used  it,  and  to  which  I  responded?  His 
language  was,  that  he  had  never  known  any  other  than 
a  black  cockade  federalist  to  advocate  this  principle  of 
re-eligibility  to  office. 
Mr.  DAVIS.    For  life. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  No  one  has  ever  proposed  it  for  life. 
That  was  the  connection,  I  repeat,  in  which  I  responded 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman.  I  asked  the  gentle- 
man if  he  knew  who  these  black  cockade  federalists 


here  ;  but  as  I  know  him  to  be  a  very  unruly  horse,  and  j  were,  that  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 

traces,  I  beg  leave  not  and  that  did  recognize  the  principle  of 


one  who  is  apt  to  kick  out  of  the 
to  take  charge  of  him  in  my  team. 
Mr.  DAVIS.    No  danger  of  that 


recognize  tne  principle  of  re-eligibility  to 
office?  And  I  said  they  were  General  Washington, 
James  Madison  and  John  Marshall,  with  a  host  of  other 


132 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


illustrious  men.  And  I  went  on  then  to  pass  an  enco- 
mium, a  just  and  deserved  encomium,  that  I  will  repeat 
here  and  elsewhere,  at  any  time  and  in  any  place,  re- 
gardless of  consequences.  I  do  not  make  speeches  to 
buncombe,  but  if  1  did  make  speeches  to  buncumbe,  it 
might  be  an  object  to  leave  that  portion  of  my  remarks 
out,  because  I  know  that  it  is  not  very  agreeable  to  bun- 
cumbe ears  to  hear  it.  You  might  as  well,  in  these  days, 
call  a  man  a  mad-dog  as  a  federalist.  I  said,  in  the  en- 
comium that  I  passed  on  that  party,  that  it  had  commit- 
ted errors — doubtless  it  had  committed  errors,  and  great 
errors ;  and  I  said  that  the  errors  of  that  party  would  con- 
trast favorably  with  the  errors  committed  by  other  parties 
that  had  been  in  power  since.  The  gentleman  seemed  to 
think  strange  of  my  ignorance  of  the  early  history  of  par- 
ties, in  associating  Mr.  Madison  with  these  federalists. 
Does  the  gentleman  not  know  that  Mr.  Madison  was  class- 
ed with  the  federal  party  in  the  early  period  of  his  life — 
as  a  friend  to  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution, 
which  was  the  original  question  which  divided  parties — 
and  that  he  was  always  held  to  be  a  federalist  until  a 
much  more  advanced  period  of  his  life  ?  But  not  in 
that  connection  did  I  refer  to  him.  It  was  in  connec- 
tion with  his  association  as  one  of  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  that  I  referred  to 
him,  in  connection  with  Washington  and  the  men  whom 
he  was  denouncing  as  black  cockade  federalists.  The 
denunciation  came  from  his  lips,  and  the  defence  from 
mine. 

With  a  pertinacity  that  is  surprising — with  an  object 
which  I  shall  not  attempt  to  explain — but,  I  say,  with  a 
pertinacity  that  is  surprising,  the  gentleman  has  argued, 
in  the  course  of  his  remarks  to-day,  as  well  as  on  a  for- 
mer occasion,  this  question,  as  if  it  were  a  proposition 
for  an  election  for  life,  and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  em- 
ploy these  identical  words — that  it  is  a  proposition  for  a 
life  election,  which  he  apprehends  will  soon  run  into 
royalty.  Well,  I  have  endeavored  heretofore  to  set  him 
right,  but  without  avail.  I  did  not  attempt  to-day,  (know- 
ing his  extreme  bashfulness,  diffidence  and  modesty,  and 
the  embarrassment  under  which  he  labored,  to)  arrest 
him  in  the  progress  of  his  remarks,  and  set  him  right  on 
a  proposition  again,  which  he  ought  so  well  to  have 
known  and  understood  by  this  time.  The  only  way 
in  which  I  can  account  for  his  pertinacity,  is  upon 
the  principle  which  once  governed  the  eccentric 
Mr.  Pope,  more  familiarly  known  as  "  Billy  Pope,  "  as 
illustrated,  in  an  anecdote  which  I  have  heard  told  of 
him  :  He  was  once  defending  a  criminal,  and  was  com- 
menting largely  on  testimony  he  had  heard  elsewhere, 
but  which  was  not  presented  before  the  jury;  he  was  in- 
terrupted by  the  court,  and  told  that  no  such  evidence  had 
been  heard  by  the  court  andhe  must  desist.  "Certainly," 
said  Mr.  Pope  ;  "I  was  wrong."  But  he  again  went  on  as 
before  ;  he  was  again  arrested,  and  again  he  went  on, 
when  the  court  reprimanded  him.  In  a  very  short  time, 
however,  he  found  himself  remarking  on  the  same  testi- 
mony, and  he  was  again  and  again  arrested,  and  told  by 
the  court  that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  refer  to  it. 
"  Well,"  said  Mr.  Pope,  "  may  itplease  the  court,  it  is  in 
my  speech,  and  I  must  speak  it,  and  the  jury  can  discard  it 
from  their  minds  when  they  retire;  for  if  I  leave  offhere,  I 
shant  know  where  else  to  begin. "  [Laughter.]  I  suppose 
it  was  in  the  gentleman's  speech,  and  he  was  bound  to 
speak  it,  but  I  do  hope  that  the  jury  will  discard  it  from 
their  minds  when  they  go  out  to  deliberate  and  bring  in 
a  verdict  on  the  question.  So  far  from  going  for  a  life 
provision,  I  go  for  the  term  of  two  instead  of  four  years; 
and  in  this,  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  go  with  me. 
There  is  another  proposition  upon  which  I  wish  the  gen- 
tleman would  go  with  me,  that  is  in  curtailing  executive 
power.  I  wish  to  cut  down  and  make  short  terms  of  all 
the  public  offices.  I  want  short  terms  and  strict  account- 
ability for  your  judges  as  well  as  executive  officer.  1 
desire  to  hold  the  governor  down  to  the  shortest  possible 
time  that  can  be  conveniently  adopted,  because  I  think 
two  years  is  long  enough  to  be  troubled  with  a  bad  go- 
vernor, and  quite  often  enough  to  re-elect  a  good  one. 
And  I  make  the  same  remarkin  regard  to  the  judges  and 
every  other  description  of  public  officers. 


The  gentleman  expresses  great  alarm  at  the  disposi- 
tion manifested  in  this  Convention  to  imitate  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  Why,  I  cannot  understand 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman.  He  is  alarmed  at  the 
disposition  manifested  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  this 
body  to  imitate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  to  follow  a  precedent  made  by  our 
forefathers !  And  yet  at  the  same  moment,  and  in  the 
same  breath,  he  rebukes  me  for  not  following  those  same 
old  precedents  !  And  the  gentleman  is  still  more  sur- 
prised at  the  opinions  I  expressed,  that  it  was  not  com- 
petent for  this  Convention  to  impose  any  qualification  or 
restriction  upon  the  election  of  any  citizen  of  Virginia 
to  a  federal  office.  Why,  the  gentleman  has  read  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  very  little  purpose, 
if  he  has  not  ascertained  that  the  qualifications  of  feder- 
al officers  are  fixed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  that  if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Legislature, 
in  despite  of  this  proposed  constitutional  restriction,  to 
elect  the  governor  a  senator,  that  his  right  to  hold  that 
office  is  to  be  tested  there,,  and  there  alone,  and  tested 
by  qualifications  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  take  broader  grounds  than  I  did  be- 
fore. In  my  remarks  then,  I  spoke  merely  of  the  Presi- 
dential office — the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Tresuary,  or 
any  other  cabinet  officer — foreign  ministers,  &c.  ;  ail  of 
whose  qualifications  were  fixed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  not  by  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  Vir- 
ginia. 

Well,  the  gentleman  desires  to  know  whether  I  wish 
to  have  General  Scott  or  the  sage  of  Ashland  elected 
governor  of  Virginia?  Why,  yes,  if  they  shall  come 
among  us,  and  reside  in  the  State,  and  it  shall  be  the 
pleasure  of  the  good  people  of  the  Commonwealth  to 
elect  either  of  these  distinguished  gentlemen  to  the  gub- 
ernatorial chair,  I  should  be  the  last  man  in  the  world 
to  complain.  I  wish  we  could  get  as  good  men  as  either 
of  them.  But  I  very  much  fear  it  will  be  a  long  time 
before  we  have  any  such  men  in  the  gubernatorial  chair. 
He  certainly  did  not  mean  to  ask  the  question  of  me, 
whether  I  would  consent  to  fix  no  qualification  whatever., 
of  citizenship  upon  the  Governor  of  Virginia?  That 
would  be  running  to  a  latitude  or  excess  that  I  do  not 
suppose  the  gentleman  ever  intended. 

The  last  remark  of  the  gentleman  was,  that,  "  whom 
the  Gods  would  destroy  they  first  make  mad.  "  Well? 
I  consider  that  remark  as  so  much  more  appropriate  to 
my  friend  than  it  is  to  myself,  that  I  leave  it  where  it 
started — I  leave  it  with  my  colleague,  where  madness 
has  been  manifest,  while  my  temper  has  ben  unruffled. 

I  will  conclude  my  remarks  in  the  manner  in  which  I 
commenced  them.  I  must  take  occasion  to  repeat,  that 
I  deeply  regret  that  this  debate  has  taken  the  turn  in  has. 
It  was  no  part  of  my  purpose  or  disposition  to  give  it  a 
personal  turn.  I  meant  nothing  of  the  kind.  I  am  very  un- 
willing to  treat  in  a  personal  way,  the  remarks  the  gentle- 
man lias  presented  to  the  Convention  this  morning. 
They  seem  to  have  been  delivered  under  a  certain  de- 
gree of  soreness,  occasioned,  I  have  no  doubt,  much 
more  by  what  has  transpired  beyond  the  walls  of  this 
room,  than  from  anything  which  has  passed  here.  And 
if  I  knew  how  to  salve  over  the  gentleman's  wounds,  I 
would  do  it  with  infinite  satisfaction. 

Mr.  DAVIS.    I  do  not  feel  wounded  at  all,  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  No  bones  broken  ?  Well,  then,  neither 
of  us  are  bruised,  and  neither  of  us  have  our  bones  bro- 
ken, and  as  the  gentleman  has  taken  two  slaps  at  me, 
and  I  only  one  him,  and  as  he  has  at  least  that  much  the 
advantage,  I  hope  he  will  cry  "  quits  "  on  this  occason, 
and  that  we  shall  meet  hereafter  as  we  have  met  before 
this  discussion. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  am  very  glad  that  the  gentlemen 
have  had  an  opportunity  of  replying  to  each  other,  and 
the  whole  thing  reminds  me  of  a  circumstance  which  oc- 
curs to  my  mind,  and  which  I  take  the  opportunity  of 
telling  this  Convention,  as  a  prelude  to  the  motion  which 
I  desire  to  make.  There  was  in  my  county,  some  years 
ago,  an  old  couple  who  frequently  quarreled  ;  and  a  lit- 
tle servant  in  the  house  observed  that  the  old  man  al- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


133 


ways  said  when  he  quarreled  with  his  wife,  "  my  dear 
you  do  not  understand  me;"  and  he  grew  up  under  the 
idea  that  these  words  always  caused  a  difficulty  between 
man  and  wife.  One  day  a  real  quarrel  between  a  man 
and  his  wife  occurred  in  the  neighborhood,  which  the 
-servant  witnessed,  and  he  came  back  and  reported  the 
occurrence.  On  being  asked  what  caused  it,  his  reply 
was,  "  I  reckon  they  didn't  understand  it.  "  I  imagine 
there  is  some  misapprehension  between  gentlemen  that 
has  produced  this  controversy,  if  there  is  any  controver- 
sy between  them. 

The  time  for  the  rising  of  the  committee  is  near  at 
hand,  and  I  desire  to  say  something  on  the  subject  now 
pending  before  the  Convention.  It  is  utterly  impossible 
for  me  to  go  through  with  what  I  have  to  say  before  the 
hour  of  adjournment,  and  I  therefore  move  that  the  com- 
mittee rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  rose. 
And  then,  on  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  till 
to-morrow  at  12  o'clock,  M. 

THURSDAY,  February  6th,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manley,  of  the  Baptist 
Church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE  REGISTER  OF  DEBATES. 

Mr.  McCAMANT.  By  the  sixth  resolution  of  the 
series,  adopted  by  this  Convention  on  the  20th  of  Janu- 
ary last,  there  was  authorized  to  be  published  600  co- 
pies of  the  Register  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of 
this  Convention,  each  member  and  officer  to  receive  one 
copy,  and  the  residue  were  to  be  deposited  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth,  to  be  disposed 
of  as  the  General  Assembly  might  direct.  In  the  reso- 
lution adopted  on  that  occasion,  there  was  no  provision 
made  for  furnishing  the  governor  and  executive  council 
each  with  copies  of  those  debates.  I  consider  it  as  an 
omission,  to  supply  which,  I  offer  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  one  copy  of  the  Register  of  Debates 
and  Proceedings  of  this  Convention,  be  delivered  as 
published  to  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
also  a  copy  to  the  Executive  Council. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  propose  to 
increase  the  number  ordered  to  be  published? 

Mr.  McCAMANT.  No  sir  ;  I  desire  them  to  be  de- 
ducted from  those  which  are  to  be  deposited  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  suggest  to  the 
gentleman,  that  he  add  at  the  end  of  his  resolution,  the 
words  "  to  be  deducted  from  the  residue,  after  furnish- 
ing the  members  and  officers  of  the  Convention.  "  Oth- 
erwise the  resolution  might  be  construed  as  ordering  an 
additional  number. 

Mr.  McCAMANT.  I  will  accept  of  that  amend- 
ment. 

The  resolution  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as 
amended,  and  adopted  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  one  copy  of  the  Register  of  Debates  and 
Proceedings  of  the  Convention  be  delivered  as  published 
to  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth,  and  also  a  copy 
to  the  Executive  Council,  to  be  deducted  from  the  resi- 
due, after  furnishing  the  officers  and  members  of  this 
Convention. 

RESTRICTION  OF  DEBATE. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  I  wish  to  live  to  see  this  Con- 
vention form  a  Constitution  for  the  State,  but  if  the  lat- 
itude and  range  is  given  to  the  debate  on  every  ques- 
tion that  is  to  come  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
that  has  been  given  to  this  one,  I  am  fearful  that  even 
the  prophet  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
(Mr.  Davis)  the  other  day,  will  not  be  able  to  foretell 
how  many  of  us  shall  live  to  see  the  day  when  our  la- 
bors here  shall  be  completed.  For  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing some  system  and  rule  to  the  debate  on  every  ques- 


tion which  may  come  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  I 
offer  the  following  resolution,  which  I  ask  may  be  read 
with  the  rule  to  which  it  refers  : 

_  Resolved,  That  the  fifth  rule  of  the  Rules  and  Regula- 
tions of  the  Convention  be  adopted  to  govern  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  whole. 

The  rule  is  as  follows  : 

"  5th.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  twice  to  the 
same  question  without  leave,  nor  more  than  once  un- 
til every  other  member  intending  to  speak  shall  have 
spoken.  " 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution — a 
count  being  had — and  there  were  ayes  36,  noes  17 — not 
a  quorum  voting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  seems  to  the  Chair  that  there 
is  a  quorum  present.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms  will  in- 
vite members  of  the  Convention,  present,  to  take  their 
seats. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  think  if  every  member  was  to 
vote,  there  would  be  found  to  be  a  quorum  present.  1 
move  to  lay  ihe  resolution  on  the  table. 

The  question  was  taken  on  this  motion — a  count  be- 
ing had — and  there  were  ayes  31,  noes  32 — no  quorum 
voting. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  The  question  then  recurs,  I  sup- 
pose, on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  sir  ;  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion taken  on  it  until  a  quorum  shall  be  present. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  object  of  going  into  committee  of 
the  whole — 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  not  a  debatable  motion, 
being  to  lay  on  the  table. 

Mr.  GOODE.  Can  a  motion  be  made  when  a  quo- 
rum is  not  present? 

The  PRESIDENT.    Yes,  sir  ;  most  unquestionably. 

Mr.  GOODE.    Very  well,  sir  ;  1  am  satisfied. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  suggest  that  the  roll  be 
called. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.    Let  us  have  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  would  remark  that  there  can  be  but 
barely  a  quorum,  if  there  is  indeed  a  quorum,  at  all  pre- 
sent ;  and  whilst  I  am  inclined  to  vote  for  the  proposition , 
I  think  it  but  fair  to  permit  those  gentlemen,  who  are 
now  absent,  to  participate  in  the  determination  of  the 
Convention  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  Under  this  view,  I  am  willing 
that  the  resolution  shall  lie  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

By  general  consent  the  resolution  was  then  laid  on  the 
table. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT; 

The  Convention  then,  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
(Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk,  in  the  Chair,)  resumed  the  con- 
sideration of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Execu- 
tive Department. 

re-eligibility  of  the  governor. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  1st  sec- 
tion of  the  1st  article  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
the  executive  department,  with  the  pending  amend- 
ments thereto. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  shall  not  follow  the  example  of 
gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  on  this  occasion,  of 
entering  into  a  personal  explanation,  or  delivering  to 
this  Convention  a  political  disquisition  upon  the  subject 
of  federal  party  politics ;  for  whilst  I  have  been  as  much 
entertained  by  these  gentlemen  as  any  other  member  of 
this  Convention,  I  do  not  think  that  such  a  course  of  ar- 
gument is  calculated  to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention  for  that  cool,  calm  and  deliberate  con- 
sideration of  questions  submitted  to  us  for  our  decis- 
ion, which  is  necessary  ;  nor  do  I  think  it  well  calculated  to 
aid  gentlemen  calmly  and  impartially  to  reach  the  con- 
clusions at  which  we  are  to  arrive.  I  feel  on  this  occa- 
sion, a  full  sense  of  the  weight  of  responsibility  which 
rests  upon  me  as  a  member  of  this  Convention.  We 
have  come  together,  chosen  by  the  people  of  Virginia, 
without  regard  to  party  distinctions,  to  form  a  govern- 
ment for  the  people  of  Virginia,  now  living,  and  for 
those  who  are  to  come  after  us,  to  j  the  latest  posterity. 


134 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


And  when  I  think  of  the  importance  and  of  the  solemni- 
ty of  the  duties  devolved  upon  us*  I  confess  I  feel  in  my 
own  mind  a  far  greater  sense  of  humility,  than  of  pride 
and  of  display.  I  shall  therefore,  steering  clear  of  all 
extraneous  considerations,  as  far  as  I  can,  come  to  the 
consideration  of  this  subject,  in  what  I  deem  to  be  a 
proper  and  liberal  spirit. 

Whatever  we  do  now,  we  must  presume  is  to  last 
throughout  all  time;  it  will  not  do  to  undertake  to  frame 
a  government  merely  for  the  present  day.  While  I  shall 
not  deny  to  those  who  are  to  come  after  us,  the  same 
power  to  remodel,  reform  or  abolish  their  government, 
that  we  posses ;  still,  in  doing  this  work,  we  should  sup- 
pose at  least,  that  we  are  doing  it  to  last  for  all  time  to 
come;  and  we  should  not  allow  our  minds  to  be  misled 
upon  a  question  so  grave  and*  important  as  this.  I  be- 
lieve in  all  the  republics  which  have  gone  before  us,  that 
had  their  public  functionaries  continued  honest,  patriotic 
and  faithful,  properly  discharging  their  duties  and  keep- 
ing their  governments  in  a  proper  course  of  progress  ac- 
coi  cling  to  first  principles,  there  would  not  have 
been  found  that  spirit  of  corruption,  anarchy  and 
degradation,  which  was  seen  afterwards  to  be  moving  even 
among  the  masses  themselves.  The  beginning  of  cor- 
ruptions in  all  countries,  is  in  the  public  functionaries, 
and  not  in  the  people.  They  commence  with  the  gov- 
ernment, and  work  out  their  effects  among  the  people, 
until  the  whole  mass  becomes  corrupt,  and  then  the 
government  falls,  and  the  people  sink  into  anarchy  and 
confusion.  Now,  if  we  fail  to  adopt  a  principle  in  any  one 
of  the  propositions  submitted  to  the  consideration  of 
this  Convention,  to  arrest  consequences  like  these,  or  if 
we  incautiously  put  into  the  frame-work  of  our  govern- 
ment any  principle  calculated  to  produce  these  conse- 
quences, then,  when  the  virtuous  days  of  this  republic 
shall  have  departed,  and  when  we  find  anarchy  and  con- 
fusion stalking  abroad  over  the  land,  it  will  be  too  late 
either  to  go  back  to  correct  principles,  or  to  go  forward 
to  reach  tit  em  as  a  remedy  for  those  evils.  The  marine*, 
fatigued  with  the  monotony  of  a  residence  on  land — his  ter- 
ra firma — leaps  into  his  vessel  with  a  light  heart,  with  a 
cheerful  spirit  ,  and  with  a  proud  anticipation  of  the  pleas- 
ures and  profit  of  his  voyage;  but  when  the  tempest  howls 
around  him,  when  the  waves  of  old  ocean  break  upon 
his  vessel  and  she  is  about  to  sink,  and  the  last  hope  of 
rescue  depart  from  his  own  breast,  then  it  is  he  will  ex- 
claim with  Shakspeare,  "Now  would  I  give  a  thousand 
furlongs  of  sea  for  an  acre  of  barren  ground;  long  heath, 
brown  furze,  or  anything ;  the  wills  above  be  done  ;  but 
I  would  fain  die  a  dry  death."  But  it  is  too  late.  So, 
when  corruption  and  degradation  prevail  among  the 
people,  by  the  operation  of  your  government  or  by  the 
principles  incorporated  into  that  government ;  if  when 
that  day  shall  come — winch  God  in  his  mercy  forbid 
shall  ever  approach  this  beloved  land  of  ours — then 
when  some  Marius  or  Cataline  rises  up  to  give  force  or 
efficacy  to  this  evil  spirit,  if  there  exist  among  them  one 
patriot,  one  Cato  of  the  day,  he  may  well  exclaim,  let 
me  die  the  death  of  a  freeman,  rather  than  submit  to 
a  death  like  this.  I  call  upon  gentlemen,  in  view  of  the 
momentous  consequences  that  may  result  from  our 
work,  in  view  of  the  high  responsibility  which  we 
owe  to  the  constituent  body,  to  ponder  well  over  the 
work  we  are  about  to  make ;  and  I  caution  gentlemen  in 
this,  the  very  first  proposition  submitted  to  the  consid- 
eration of  this  reform  Convention,  not  to  make  a  false  step. 
I  warn  them  not  to  disregard  principle ;  and  there  is 
every  reason  in  this  day  of  intelligence  and  freedom, 
why  we  should  adhere  rigidly  to  sound  principle,  with- 
out stopping  too  timidly  to  calculate  the  consequences 
which  will  result  from  their  incorporations  into  our  fun- 
damental law.  But  in  the  course  of  the  remarks  which 
I  propose  to  submit,  I  will  reach  this  question  in  its 
more  appropriate  place ;  and  I  will  proceed  now  directly 
to  the  questions  submitted  to  this  committee,  endeavor- 
ing, if  I  can,  to  bring  back  its  consideration  to  the  single 
question  before  us. 


If  1  understand  it,  the  committee  on  the  executive 
department  have  reported  a  plan  by  which  the  Governor 
of  Virginia  is  to  be  elected  for  four  years,  and  aiter  the 
expiration  of  the  next  four  years,  shall  be  forever  there- 
after ineligible  to  the  office  of  governor.  To  this  pro- 
position of  the  committee,  the  gentleman  from  Pittsyl- 
vania (Mr.  Tredway)  submits  a  competing  proposition, 
and  that  is,  that  in  lieu  of  the  plan  proposed  by  the  com- 
mittee, the  governor  shall  be  elected  for  four  years,  and 
at  the  end  of  his  term,  shall  be  ineligible  for  the  next 
succeeding  term  of  four  years.  The  gentleman  from 
Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  offers  as  substitute  for  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  simply  that 
you  shall  put  in  your  constitution  the  provision  that 
your  governor  shall  be  elected  for  four  years,  subject  to 
re-election  at  the  will  of  the  people. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  That  is  not  the  proposition  I  made. 
I  said  nothing  about  four  years ;  and  I  prefer  two,  as 
the  duration  of  the  governor's  term  of  office.  My  pro- 
position is  merely  to  strike  out  all  that  relates  to  ineli- 
gibility. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  know  that  that  is  the  individual 
opinion  of  the  gentleman,  but  viewing  the  proposition 
as  it  now  stands  before  the  committee,  I  presented  it  in 
its  proper  attitude.  One  is  offered  as  an  amendment  to 
the  other,  and  there  is  no  proposition  pending  before 
the  committee  now,  that  the  officer  shall  hold  for  two 
years  instead  of  four.  Now,  if  it  were  not  for  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  question  has  been  treated — with  en- 
tire fairness,  as  I  admit,  on  the  part  of  those  to  whose 
views  I  am  opposed — if  it  were  not  for  the  course  of  re- 
mark pursued  by  gentlemen,  this  question  would  pre- 
sent much  less  terror  to  the  minds  of  gentlemen,  and 
excite  much  less  alarm  in  the  country  than  it  is  calcu- 
lated to  do.  The  worthy  g.  ntleman  from  Richmond  (Mr. 
Meredith)  three  or  four  days  ago,  in  a  most  able  _and 
dignified  speech,  delivered  on  that  occasion,  certainly 
mistook  the  proposition  before  the  House,  it  being  one  of 
re-eligibility  for  four  years  at  the  will  of  the  people,  and 
not  of  the  election  of  governor  for  life.  I  know  he  did 
not  design  to  make  an  impression,  either  in  the  Conven- 
tion or  in  the  country,  that  this  was  a  proposition  to 
elect  the  governor  directly  for  life,  but  such  is  the  dec- 
laration gone  forth  to  the  country,  to  a  people  jealous  of 
everything  that  even  squints  at  monarchy.  My  friend 
from  Goochland,  (Mr.  Leake,)  in  the  same  spirit,  design- 
ing to  present  the  question  with  equal  fairness,  I  admit, 
indulged  in  similar  remarks,  calculated  to  produce  tho 
same  effect. 

Mr.  LEAKE.    I  had  no  such  intention. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  am  only  speaking  of  the  effect  aris- 
ing from  the  manner  in  which  the  question  was  argued 
here,  without  for  one  moment  suspecting  or  meaning  to 
insinuate  that  any  gentleman  designed  to  produce  such 
an  impression.  Then,  besides  this,  on  yesterday  the 
worthy  gentleman  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Davis)  added  a 
much  darker  coloring  to  this  picture.  I  understood  him 
to  say  that  the  practical  operation  of  this  system 
would  be  to  make  the  governor  "  every  inch  a  king !" 
When  these  remarks  go  forth  to  the  country,  I  shall 
be  not"  at  all  surprised  if  the  timid  and  cautious  of  the 
land  should  feel  that  we  are  treading  on  sacred  ground, 
and  that  we  are  indeed  attempting  to  do  something  in 
this  reform  Convention  tending  to  carry  us  back  to  the 
monarchy  from  which,  I  trust,  we  are  forever  relieved. 
Let  us  meet  this  question  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented to  us — let  us  meet  it  as  a  question  of  popular 
power.  What  is  it?  By  the  very  theury and princ'ples 
of  our  government,  all  power  belongs  to,  and  resides 
with  the  people,  and  can  only  be  derived  from  the  peo- 
ple. We,  as  their  representatives,  are  called  here  to 
consider  elementary  principles  of  government — to  re- 
construct the  government  which  has  existed,  upon  such 
principles  as  may  conduce  to  the  welfare  and  interests 
of  society.  We,  who  are  called  to  do  this  work,  find  all 
power  now  existing  in  the  people  of  the  commonwealth, 
for  in  that  view  we  are  obliged  to  consider  it,  so  far  as 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


135 


our  action  here  is  concerned.  We  look  at  the  old  frame 
work  of  the  government,  for  it  is  true  that  the  old  con- 
stitution is  still  in  existence,  but  we  were  called  together 
here  to  amend  that  constitution.  In  making  a  new  gov 
eminent  for  the  people  of  Virginia,  we,  therefore,  so  far 
as  we  are  concerned,  must  regard  at  this  moment  ail 
the  political  power  of  the  country  as  resting  and  abiding 
with  the  people  now  resolved  into  their  original  elements 
and  engaged  in  framing  a  government  for  themselves 
and  posterity.  If,  then,  the  power  to  select  a  governor 
be  an  unlimited  power,  and  without  constitutional  re- 
striction, it  rests  and  abides  with  the  people  of  the  State, 
until,  by  that  restriction,  the  people  have  been  deprived 
of  it.  Will  the  gentlemen,  then,  regard  this  as  no  re- 
striction on  popular  rights — as  no  limitation  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  people  2  How  can  they  reach  such  a  conclu- 
sion as  that  ?  Without  your  limitation,  the  people  would 
have  the  broad  limits  of  the  commonwealth  from  which 
to  make  their  selection  of  chief  magistrate.  There  will 
be  no  other  disability  than  that  which  arises  from  non- 
age, imbecility,  lunacy,  alienage,  or  some  such  limita- 
tion as  that,  found  in  all  constitutions  of  government. 
My  principle  is,  to  limit  the  rights  of  selection  in  the 
people  just  as  little  as  possible — to  give  the  people 
power  to  select  their  agents  from  wh  iever  quarter  of 
the  commonwealth  they  will,  and  utterly  without  any 
restraint  as  to  the  person,  other  than  those  I  alluded  to. 
This  is  my  principle,  and  it  is  the  principle  of  popular 
rights.  How  do  gentlemen  stand  on  the  other  side  ? 
They  assume  to  say  that  the  people  shall  not  do  this 
thing,  and  that  their  rights  of  selection  and  election 
shall  be  limited.  Pray  tell  me  what  is  the  reason  for 
this  ?  Are  gentlemen  sure  that  the  people  are  capable 
of  self-government  ?  Do  they  believe  that  the  people 
will  exercise  this  power  wisely  and  discreetly,  if  it  is 
given  to  them  ?  If  they  do,  why  put  a  restriction  upon 
it  ?  In  the  very  nature  of  the  proposition,  therefore, 
the  objection  to  giving  the  peopel  this  right  of  re-elect- 
ing their  public  functionary  and  chief  magistrate  to  of- 
fice, is  a  limitation  upon  their  will  and  power.  And 
why  is  it  sought  to  be  put  in  the  constitution,  if  it  is  not 
founded  on  the  idea  incautiously  insinuated  by  gentle- 
men, that  the  people  will  abuse  that  power ;  because,  if 
they  are  to  exercise  it  wisely  and  discreetly — if  that  be 
the  operation  of  the  system,  then  every  election  of  the 
governor  made  by  the  people,  whether  that  election  be 
immediate  or  a  re-election,  will  be  wisely  and  discreetly 
made.  There  can  be  no  limitation  or  restriction  desired 
by  those  who  believe  in  the  capacity  of  the  people  for 
self-government,  and  that  they  will  wisely  and  discreet- 
ly exercise  their  powei  s  in  the  selection  of  a  public  func- 
tionary. I  confess  I  am  one  who  entertain  that  opinion, 
and  before  I  proceed  further  I  beg  simply  to  read  some 
three  or  four  words  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  taking  parts  of 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Kercheval,  in  1816,  as  constituting  the 
platform  upon  which  I  stand  in  this  Convention  on  this 
subject.  Mr.  Jefferson  says :  "lam  not  among  those 
who  fear  the  people."  So  say  I.  Again  Mr.  Jefferson 
says.  "Only  lay  down  true  principles  and  adhere  to 
them  inflexibly/'  Now  what  is  my  platform  ?  These 
two  or  three  lines  from  the  writings  of  that  immortal 
patriot  constitute  the  very  platform  on  which  I  stand 
here.  I  fear  not  the  people.  I  have  no  apprehension 
that  they  will  abuse  their  powers.  I  believe  them  to  be 
entirely  capable  of  exercising  it  according  to  their  own 
sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  and  in  the  best  way  to  pro- 
mote their  interests.  I  believe  that  the  right  principle 
in  this  matter  is  not  to  restrict  the  people  in  the  exercise 
of  their  choice.  The  principle  is  right  that  the  people 
should  elect  their  public  functionary,  and  that  without 
any  limitation  as  to  the  person,  o*\ier  than  those  to  which 
I  have  referred.  That  is  a  correct  principle,  and  if  gen- 
tlemen will  admit  it  to  be  a  correct  principle,  then,  like 
Mr.  Jefferson,  I  say,  lay  that  principle  in  your  constitu- 
tion and  adhere  to  it  inflexibly.  For  one,  I  am  deter 
mined  to  do  so. 

It  seems'  to  me  that  this  question  of  the  re-eligibility 


of  a  chief  magistrate  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia 
is  one  which  in  itself,  without  the  idea  of  experience, 
addresses  itself  as  a  single  proposition  now  for  the 
first  time  presented  to  our  consideration  with  far  great- 
er force  in  favor  of  re-eligibility  than  against  it.  Now 
in  the  first  place,  I  lay  down  the  proposition,  that  if  the 
Governor  is  to  be  elected  for  four  years  and  no  longer 
— and  I  beg  leave  in  this  view  to  say  to  my  friend  from 
Pittsylvania  that  I  see  scarcely  a  shade  of  difference 
in  the  practical  operation  of  the  thing,  and  I  am  sure 
there  never  will  be  a  difference  between  the  exclusion 
for  all  time  to  come  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  elect 
a  Governor  after  his  term  has  expired,  and  its  exclu- 
sion for  the  next  succeeding  term  of  four  years — and 
entertaining  that  opinion,  I  shall  view  the  proposition 
as  amounting  to  the  same  thing — now,  I  say,  if  you  are 
to  limit  the  service  of  the  chief  magistrate  to  four 
years,  and  say  that  at  the  end  of  that  four  years  he 
shall,  whether  he  exhibit  merit  or  demerit,  inevitably 
go  out  of  office,  you  deprive  him  of  the  inducement 
which  would  otherwise  operate  on  him  to  perform  his 
duty  well  and  faithfully.  If  he  is  to  be  confined  to 
four  years,  it  is  an  impossibility  for  him  to  conceive  any 
great  system  of  measures  and  carry  them  out  for  the 
public  good.  He  will  have  no  ambition  to  undertake 
a  work  when,  by  the  time  it  is  prepared,  he  will  be  de- 
prived of  all  participation  in  the  administration  of  the 
government  ;  and  he  will  simply  go  along,  taking  care 
to  do  no  harm,  but  very  careless  about  doing  any  posi- 
tive good.  This  is  to  be  the  effect  wThen  you  confine 
the  office  to  four  years.  But  if  you  allow  him  to  be  re- 
elected beyond  that  time,  do  you  not  present  strong 
considerations  weighing  on  his  mind,  ably,  cautiously 
and  faithfully  to  perform  his  duty  ?  You  put  him  di- 
rectly under  two  of  the  most  powerful  influences  which 
can  operate  on  human  nature  to  do  right.  What  are 
they?  The  hope  of  reward,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
fear  of  punishment  on  the  other.  All  experience  will 
show,  and  every  practical  man  will  admit,  that  when- 
ever you  can  put  on  a  public  functionary  these  two 
powerful  inducements,  operating  on  different  principles 
of  the  human  mind,  you  secure  the  very  best  conceiva- 
ble discharge  of  duties.  You  open  to  him  the  hope  of 
reward,  to  operate  on  his  mind  to  induce  him  to  con- 
ceive measures  for  the  public  good  and  fearlessly  to 
carry  them  out,  because  he  may  be  again  elected  and 
may  receive  a  reward  for  his  fidelity.  With  these  pow- 
erful considerations  operating  to  induce  him  to  dis- 
charge his  duties  faithfully,  you  present  also  the  terrors 
of  punishment  to  him  ;  ^nd  say  what  you  will,  public 
indignation,  in  this  and  in  a!1 countries,  is  the  most  pow- 
erful engine  that  can  operate  on  the  human  mind.  It 
is  worse  than  banishment  or  imprisonment  for  life — 
worse  than  any  other  conceivable  punishment.  I  say, 
then,  by  allowing  the  go\2rnor  to  be  ic-eligible,  you 
impose  these  wholesome  restraints  upon  him  ;  you  sive 
to  him  the  hope  of  reward,  if  he  faithfully  performs  all 
his  duties,  and  the  fear  of  punishment  for  au  evil  or  an 
improper  discharge  of  them.  Well,  it  is  not  inconceiv- 
able, when  you  look  at  all  the  frailties  and  imperfec- 
ions  of  man,  and  when  you  find  that  even  the  talented 
and  learned  men  of  the  world  are  subject  to  the  same 
frailties  and  imperfections,  that  the  freemen  of  Vir- 
ginia may  at  some  future  time  elect  a  man  for  Gov- 
ernor who  will  be  of  a  very  avaricious  turn  of  mind. 
Avarice  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  passions  which 
can  operate  on  the  human  mind,  and  often  amounts  to 
a  monomania.  You  select  a  man  and  put  him  in  the 
gubernatorial  office  with  a  strong  feeling  of  this  nature 
preying  on  his  mind  He  will,  by  his  election,  have  the 
certainty  of  getting  twenty  thousand  dollars,  and  that 
he  will  get  without  any  sort  of  necessity  for  industry 
and  energy  in  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty,  be- 
cause he  is  entitled  to  it,  let  him  perform  his  duty  as 
he  may.  May  he  not  prostitute  his  office  in  different 
ways,  by  which  to  gratify  this  lust  of  his,  this  passion 
of  avarice  ?  I  am  supposing  a  case  where  this  very 
feeling  of  avarice,  after  he  had  gone  into  the  guberna- 
torial chair,  operated  on  his  mind  to  bring  about  a 


136 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


change  in  his  conduct.  I  am  not  supposing  the  case  of 
a  man  who  is  corrupt  and  dishonest,  however  avaricious 
he  might  be  at  the  moment  of  his  election.  The  change  is 
brought  about  and  he  is  rendered  dishonest  by  the  in- 
fluence of  the  very  proposition  in  the  Constitution 
which  gentlemen  are  seeking  to  engraft — the  certainty, 
the  inevitable  certainty,  of  going  out  of  office  at  the  end 
of  four  years,  without  any  hope  or  possibility  of  ob- 
taining it  again,  let  his  measures  and  his  conduct  be 
what  they  may.  A  change  thus  brought  on  a  man  of 
this  description,  may  he  not  prostitute  bis  office  for  his 
own  personal  aggrandizement,  in  various  ways  ?  He 
has  the  patronage  of  the  government  in  his  bauds.  He 
has  various  offices  to  dispense,  and  there  are  salaries 
and  emoluments  attached  to  them.  May  he  not  bring 
corrupt  men  about  him  under  a  bargain,  by  which  these 
emoluments  are  to  be  divided  between  him  and  them, 
and  thus  may  he  not  actually  throw  into  the  hands  of 
an  avaricious  and  corrupt  set  of  men  the  whole  power 
a*d  administration  of  the  government  ?  This  is  a  result 
which  might  ensue  from  the  four  years'  limitation,  but 
when  you  offer  to  the  man  the  hope  of  reward,  in  the 
continuance  of  the  emoluments  and  honors  of  office,  you 
remove  all  the  temptations  to  mal-conduct  and  corrup- 
tion in  it,  and  secure  a  pure  and  faithful  administra- 
tion of  the  gubernatorial  office.  Limit  the  office  to  four 
years,  or  say  that  he  shall  not  be  re-eligible  after  that 
time,  and  what  then  is  to  be  resorted  to  ?  A  miserable 
scrambling  at  the  end  of  every  four  years  for  office,  and 
a  totally  new  set  of  the  public  functionaries,  from  the 
very  highest  to  the  lowest.  Your  governor  is  elected 
for  four  years.  He  will  displace  every  man  that  he 
finds  in  office,  appointed  under  the  preceding  adminis- 
tration. He  will  want  his  own  agents  to  administer 
power  for  him,  and  they  will  be  taken  from  among  his  per- 
sonal favorites.  Not  only  will  you  get  up  this  miserable 
scrambling  for  office,  at  the  end  of  every  four  years,  but  the 
whole  administrative  po'icy  of  the  government  will  be 
changed.  Your  public  functionaries  are  all  to  go  out 
of  office  and  new  ones  put  in,  and  thus  there  will  be  a 
perpetual  struggle,  so  far  as  the  office  of  governor  is 
concerned,  between  the  ins  and  the  outs.  This  inconve- 
nience and  evil  has  presented  itself  under  the  operation 
of  the  federal  government,  and  is  one  which  all  men  re- 
gret and  deplore ;  and  what  we  see  there,  we  shall  ex- 
perience here.  Besides,  it  produces  and  will  bring  about  a 
want  of  stability  in  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment. We  know  very  well  that  to  put  your  govern- 
ment upon  the  right  track  and  enable  it  to  suggest  wise, 
cautious  and  beneficial  measures  for  the  people,  cannot 
well  be  done  in  four  years.  Oftimes  a  measure,  which 
in  itself  appears  right  and  proper,  meets  with  strenuous 
opposition  when  it  is  introduced ;  and  it  must  be  consid- 
ered and  re-considered,  until  the  "public  mind  is  able  to 
act  upon  it,  and  form  a  judgment  in  its  favor.  A  most 
important  measure  of  the  governor  may  not  be  put  in 
operation  until  the  third  year  of  his  administration,  and 
then  there  is  entirely  too  short  a  time  to  furnish  the 
practical  working-out  of  this  measure  before  he  is  eject- 
ed from  office,  by  this  constitutional  ban,  under  which 
it  is  proposed  to  place  him.  It  requires  often,  years  to 
consummate  wise  and  proper  measures  for  the  interests 
of  the  country.  It  cannot  be  done  in  four  years.  If  a 
governor  who  has  thus  shown  capacity  in  the  first  term 
of  his  administration  to  conceive  proper  measures  for 
the  benefit  of  the  country,  is  subject  to  re-election,  and 
again  re-elected,  he  will  be  able  to  carry  out  and  perfect 
his  own  schemes  for  the  public  benefit.  Otherwise, 
without  a  re-election,  you  produce  a  total  want  of  sta- 
bility in  the  administrative  policy  of  the  country. 
I  Again,  an  individual  is  elected  governor  who  has  no 
experience  in  the  duties  of  the  office.  You  take  a  man 
from  any  quarter  of  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia. 
He  has  probably  distinguished  himself  in  the  legislative 
halls  of  the  State,  or  he  may  have  been  in  Congress — 
but  he  has  never  held  the  executive  office,  however, 
and  you  throw  him  into  that  office,  in  every  way  inex- 
perienced, and  it  must  take  some  time  before  he  can 


prepare  his  own  mind  for  the  proper  consideration  of 
measures  intended  for  the  public  good.  Just  as  he  be- 
comes sufficiently  experienced, — just  as  he  has  acquired 
sufficient  information,  and  just  as  he  has  become  quali- 
fied to  be  most  useful  as  a  chief  magistrate — at  that 
moment  this  constitutional  ban  operates  upon  him,  and 
then,  although  the  people  might  desire,  with  a  unani- 
mous voice,  to  re-elect  him  to  the  office,  they  are  to  be 
deprived  of  that  privilege.  Thus,  you  deprive  the  peo- 
ple of  the  opportunity  of  re-electing  a  man  of  experi- 
ence and  capacity.  Tell  me,  in  what  attitude  do  you 
place  us  before  the  country  ?  Why  you  say  the  people 
may  elect  an  inexperienced  man  for  four  years,  but 
that  they  shall  not  elect  an  experienced  man  for  the 
next  four  years.  Do  you  not  perceive  at  once  that  this 
is  ah  invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  people  calculated  to 
deprive  them  of  the  opportunity  to  elect  the  most  effi- 
cient man  that  can  be  had  to  fill  the  gubernatorial  office  ? 

Again — if  you  confine  the  office  to  four  years,  you 
make  the  elective  body  careless  as  to  the  qualifications 
and  merits  of  the  man  who  is  to  be  their  Governor.  I 
call  your  attention  to  every  day's  experience  in  this 
matter.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  election  of  dele- 
gates to  the  legislature.  How  often  do  you  hear  it  said 
among  the  people,  "  I  differ  with  this  man  ;  I  do  not 
agree  with  his  political  principles  ;  he  is  a  good  fellow? 
however,  and  we  will  let  him  go  to  the  legislature  for 
one  year.  "  Hundreds  and  thousands  of  votes,  from 
personal  considerations  of  this  character,  utterly  with- 
out regard  to  the  qualifications  of  the  man,  will  be 
brought  to  bear  in  the  election  for  Governor.  Men 
who  differ  from  him,  who  repudiate  his  principles,  who 
have  little  respect  for  his  qualifications,  will  say,  "  he 
is  a  very  good  fellow,  he  will  not  ruin  the  country  in 
four  years,  and  we'll  let  him  be  elected  " — and  thus 
you  make  the  people  themselves  careless  as  to  the  elec- 
tion of  the  candidate,  and  careless  of  the  qualifications 
which  he  possesses.  This  is  to  be  another  evil  result- 
ing from  the  limitation  on  the  term  of  the  gubernato- 
rial service. 

But  an  ambitious  man,  may  he  not  be  elected  Gover- 
nor of  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia?  Ambitious  men 
exist  in  Virginia  as  well  as  in  all  other  countries  ;  and 
suppose  it  should  be  the  case  that  at  some  future  day  a 
very  ambitious  man — some  Aaron  Burr,  if  you  please — 
should  be  elevated  to  the  office  of  Governor  of  Virginia. 
He  is  an  ambitious  man,  fond  of  power,  and  he  is  doom- 
ed by  inevitable  necessity  to  go  out  of  office  at  the  end 
cf  four  years.  May  not  this  passion,  this  overweening 
and  overwhelming  spirit  of  ambition,  suggest  to  his  mind 
the  propriety  at  once,  by  actual  usurpation  or  even  rev- 
olution, of  getting  rid  of  this  constitutional  restriction,, 
and  putting  himself  at  the  head  of  the  government  as  a 
monarch,  if  you  choose,  for  life?  I  do  not  pretend  to 
say  that  such  a  thing  will  ever  occur — God  forbid  that 
it  ever  should — but  in  laying  the  foundation  of  a  gov- 
ernment, we  should  guard  against  all  the  chances  of  oc- 
currences of  this  sort.  When  you  limit  the  term  to 
four  years,  you  set  the  spirit  of  ambition  to  work,  and 
he  might  undertake  by  revolution  even,  to  perpetuate 
his  power,  inasmuch  as  the  people  would  have  no  right 
to  re-elect  him.  Remove  this  limitation,  and  throw 
aside  this  ban  of  the  constitution,  and  such  a  man,  with 
this  spirit  of  ambition,  would  know  that  the  true  road 
to  promotion  would  be  by  a  proper  and  faithful  perfor- 
mance of  his  duty.  I  have  another  objection  to  this 
principle,  and  while  upon  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I 
may  possibly  run  ahead  of  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion ;  yet  knowing,  as  well  as  I  do,  the  sentiments  and 
feelings  of  the  people  in  relation  to  this  matter,  I  may 
assume  it  as  determined,  this  principle  of  ineligibility 
shall  not  be  applied  to  any  officer  elected  by  the  people, 
except  the  Governor.  I  am  aware  that  there  are  advo- 
cates in  this  Convention  for  the  principle  of  the  ineli- 
gibility of  the  judges,  but  I  believe  that  if  any  one 
thing  was  decided  by  the  people  clearly  and  unequivo- 
cally, it  is  that  the  principle  of  re-eligibility  to  the  of- 
fice of  judge  shall  be  incorporated  in  the  constitution 
which  we  are  mending.    It  is  one  which  I  advocate  in 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


137 


relation  to  all  public  offices — and  more  strongly  in  rela- 
tion to  judges  than  any  other.  If  that  be  the  sentiment 
of  the  members  of  the  Convention,  as  I  am  much  in- 
clined to  believe  it  is,  then  what  is  the  consequence  of 
applying  this  limitation  on  the  rights  of  the  people  to 
elect  their  Governor  ?  It  is  to  make  an  odious  discrim- 
ination in  the  office  of  Governor,  which  you  do  not  ap- 
ply to  any  other  public  office,  provided  by  the  constitu- 
tion, which  we  are  to  make.  We  send  forth  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Virginia  a  constitution  for  their  ratification  and 
adoption,  and  what  do  they  see  in  it?  They  see  in  re- 
lation to  the  other  public  functionaries  in  the  country, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  that  their  rights  to  re- 
election are  unlimited  and  unrestricted  ;  and  they  will  be 
very  likely  to  a?k,  why  is  this  odious  restriction  made  in 
relation  to  the  highest  public  functionary,  and  all  others 
left  free  from  its  application  ?  It  is  an  odious  discrim- 
ination against  the  office  of  Governor  which  ought  not 
to  exist.  I  wish  to  see  uniformity  in  this  constitution. 
If  it  is  a  principle  which  applies  to  one,  it  is  applicable 
to  all,  and  more  especially  to  the  chief  magistrate  of 
the  commonwealth. 

If  you  confine  this  office  to  four  years,  you  lessen  its 
|  importance  and  its  dignity.  Now,  I  confess,  I  am  for 
making  this  office  of  Governor  an  important  and  highly 
honorable  one.  The  executive  committee  have  already 
reported,  and  I  believe  the  Convention  will  be  disposed 
to  agree,  that  his  salary  shall  be  increased  to  $5,0CO  ; 
and  thus  you  add  importance  to  the  office  by  the  emolu- 
ments attached  to  it.  I  desire  it  to  be  a  highly  honora- 
ble station,  such  an  office  as  will  be  contended  for  by 
the  best  talent  and  the  highest  experience  of  the  land. 
I  desire  to  make  it  an  office  that  will  call  any  man  from 
his  private  occupation,  that  will  be  able  to  bring  out  the 
talent  of  the  country,  even  from  the  federal  government. 
I  desire  to  place  the  men  of  the  highest  talent,  of 
the  best  capacity,  of  the  most  enlightened  patri- 
otism, in  the  highest  office  of  the  Commonwealth. 
You  lessen  its  importance  when  you  limit  the  term  to 
four  years.  But  when  you  prohibit  a  re-election  by  the 
people,  you  detract  much  more  from  its  importance  than 
when  you  limit  the  term  to  four  years. 

Again,  and  the  last  of  the  positions  which  I  shall  as- 
k  sume  upon  the  proposition  now  submitted,  so  far  as  I 
t  may  consider  it  upon  my  own  view,  I  ask  you  if  there 
is  not  another  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  this  limi- 
tation of  the  Governor's  office  to  four  years  ?  He  is  to 
go  out — or  he  may,  under  the  constitutional  provision, 
be  obliged  to  go  out— at  the  end  of  four  years.  Do  you 
not  put  a  very  powerful  temptation  upon  him  to  provide 
for  a  successor  to  fill  his  place?  Do  you  not,  in  this 
way,  throw  a  temptation  upon  him  so  to  exercise  his 
power  and  patronage  as  to  secure  his  own  personal  fa- 
vorites to  succeed  him  in  office  ?  A  double  considera- 
tion will  operate  on  his  mind  to  do  this  thing.  First,  his 
personal  considerations  secured  for  the  carrying  out  a 
set  of  measures  which  he  is  unable  to  complete,  he  will 
not  be  desirous  that  these  measures  shall  go  into  un- 
friendly hands,  for  their  consummation,  and  he  will 
seek  to  get  some  other  individual,  who  agrees  with  him 
in  opinion,  and  the  exercise  of  all  his  power  and  patro- 
nage will  be  regulated  with  a  view  to  secure  such  a  suc- 
cessor ;  and  so  far  as  that  is  done,  it  will  operate  against 
an  impartial  and  unbiassed  judgment  of  the  people. 

These  are  my  own  views  in  relation  to  the  reasons 
why  the  office  of  Governor  should  not  be  confined  to 
four  years.  I  think  that  they  are  entitled  to  some  con- 
sideration at  the  hands  of  the  Convention.  They  are 
at  least  satisfactory  to  my  own  judgment,  and  upon  them 
1  shall  act. 

But  we  are  told— and  that  argument  always  applies 
to  every  case  of  amendment,  or  if  you  choose  to  call  it 
so,  of  innovation— that  to  do  this  thing  will  be  against 
the  wisdom  of  our  forefathers— and  that  the  men  of 
the  days  of  the  revolution  were  against  this  prin- 
ciple of  unlimited  re  eligibility.  Now,  I  have  read 
to  very  little  purpose  if  there  is  any  tiling  in 
the  history  of  the  State  that  can  lead  to  that  con- 
clusion.   1  admit  that  in  the  old  constitution  of  Vir- 


ginia, the  governor  might  be  elected  for  three  terms 
aud  must  then  go  out  of  office;  and  I  suppose  gentle- 
men will  rely  on  that  for  a  precedent  and  regard  it  as 
the  judgment  of  the  fathvrs  of  the  republic  sanctioning 
this  principle  in  the  old  Constitution  ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, it  being  the  judgment  and  opinion  of  our  ancestors, 
we  should  not  now  seek  to  undo  their  determination. 
I  will  offset  that  precedent  by  another,  and  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  the  Federal 
Constitution  there  is  no  limit  upon  the  rights  of  the 
people  to  re-elect  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as 
often  as  they  please.  Now,  our  forefathers  made  that 
Constitution — and  I  beg  to  assure  the  gentleman  from 
Goochland,  (Mr.  Leake,)  thac  there  is  much  more  in 
that  precedent  than  in  the  one  to  which  he  r  f.-rs — that 
of  the  provision  in  the  old  Constitution  of  Virginia. 
The  old  constitution  was  not  formed  by  delegates  elect- 
ed by  the  people,  and  selected  for  the  purpose  of  ma- 
king a  constitution.  It  was  made  by  an  ordinary  Le- 
gislature, a  house  of  Burgesses,  as  it  was  called.  It 
never  was  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  and 
adoption,  and  in  truth,  was  regarded  as  a  mere  act  of 
Assembly,  and  by  lapse  of  time  and  acquiescence  of 
the  people,  became  to  be  considered  as  a  constitution  or 
form  of  government.  So  the  people  of  Virginia  did  not, 
in  that  case,  adjudge  the  principle.  An  ordinary  legis- 
tive  body  did  adjudge  it — by  what  majority  I  have  been 
unable  to  ascertain.  But  in  relation  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, where  this  provision  does  not  exist,  the  fact  is 
very  different.  Here  were  delegates  from  all  the  States 
in  the  Union,  assembled  there  for  the  purpose  of  ma- 
king a  Federal  Constitution.  That  Convention  was  com- 
posed of  the  best  and  wisest  men  in  the  land,  with  a  man 
at  its  head,  and  presiding  over  its  deliberations,  who  was 
"first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen."  Here  they  determined  that  this  restriction 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people,  should  not  be  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Federal  Constitution.  Here  you  have  the 
judgment  of  that  great  Convention,  the  greatest,  wisest, 
and  best  assembly  of  patriots  ever  convened  in  this  land, 
sanctioning  this  principle  for  which  I  am  contending.  In 
the  next  place,  the  constitution  was  referred  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  different  States  for  ratification  or  rejection. 
Delegates  were  again  elected  by  the  people  here  in  the 
State  of  Virginia,  in  every  county  in  the  commonwealth, 
and  these  delegates,  amounting  to  about  one  hundred 
and  seventy -five  in  number,  composed  of  the  ablest  and 
wisest  men  in  the  State,  assembled  here  in  Richmond, 
on  the  second  of  June,  1788.  Here  the  Constitution,  in 
all  its  parts,  was  gone  over  in  review,  and  undes  dis- 
cussion before  that  Convention.  And  will  my  friend 
allow  me  to  remind  him  that  even  Patrick  Henry,  with 
his  mighty  powers  of  oratory,  with  his  indomitable 
energy,  and  with  every  disposition  to  seek  out  any  flaw 
that  lay  even  under  the  surface  of  the  Constitution, 
even  he,  so  far  as  I  am  able,  from  the  hasty  perusal  of  the 
debates  since  this  discussion  commenced,  never  opened 
his  lips  against  that  provision,  nor  did  a  single  man  in 
the  Convention  of  1788  warn  his  fellows  against  it,  with 
the  single  exception  of  George  Mason,  and  he  did  not 
put  a  very  great  stress  upon  it.  He  only  feared  that 
in  its  practical  operation,  it  would  result  in  an  elective 
monarchy  for  life.  Now,  give  to  George  Mason  all  the 
influence  that  any  gentleman  would  ask  for  him,  as 
a  wise  snd  a  good  man,  and  a  great  man,  and  what, 
after  all,  does  the  prophecy  of  George  Mason  amount 
to  ?  It  is  truly  and  absolutely  falsified  by  experience 
itself,  for  so  far  from  an  elective  monarchy  for  life, 
under  the  operation  of  the  Federal  Government,  I  be- 
lieve that  in  the  last  sixty-one  years  we  have  had  about 
twelve  Presidents,  no  one  continuing  in  office  longer 
than  eight  years,  and  many  of  them  but  for  one  term. 
Then  I  am  sure  that  this  authority  of  George  Mason 
will  not  stand  in  the  way.  Will  my  friend  allow  me  to 
call  his  attention  to  the  opinions  of  some  other  gentle- 
men in  that  Convention,  which  I  am  sure  will  claim  his 
attention  and  respect.  I  v  ill  read  a  very  short  sen- 
tence from  the  speech  of  George  Nicholas  in  that  Conven- 


138 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tion,  not  delivered  upon  tins  very  question,  but  upon  are  seeking  to  put  in  this  constitution.  Here  is 
the  election  of  members  of  Congress,  upon  a  proposition  the  judgment  of  the  American  people  in  their  adoption 
to  limit  their  term  to  t^o  years.  In  his  speech  on  that  and  ratification  of  that  constitution,  sanctioning  the 
oceasi  »a.  he  gives  very  clearly  his  views  of  the  practi-  principle  for  which  we  are  now  contending.  Here  is 
cal  operation  of  it.  "A  short  continuance  in  office,  and  the  opinion  of  George  Nicholas,  of  Edmund  Randolph, 
a  return  of  the  officer  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  there  and  of  James  Monroe — not  one  of  them  ever  had  a  black 
to  depend  solely  on  their  former  good  conduct  for  their  cockade  on  his  hat — the  very  best  of  republicans,  and 
re-election,  is  of  the  highest  security  to  public  lib-  the  most  honorable  of  men.    Here  is  their  authority  re- 


lib 

erty."  Hear  Mr.  George  Nicholas,  that  the  right  of  re- 
eligibility  was  of  the  highest  security  to  public  liberty. 
I  did  make  another  extract  from  his  speech,  but  as  I  do 
not  desire  to  consume  the  time  of  the  Convention  in 
reading  too  much,  I  will  ]  'ass  on  for  the  opinions  of  other 
gentlemen  in  that  Convention.  Now,  I  will  give  to  the 
gentleman  the  opinion  of  Edmund  Randolph,  one  of  the 
first  Governors  of  Virginia,  and  one  of  the  ablest  and 
best,  in  all  probability,  we  ever  had.  He  says,  in  reply 
to  this  argument  of  George  Mason  : 

"  I  will  acknowledge  that  at  one  stage  of  this  business, 
I  had  embraced  the  idea  of  the  honorable  gentleman, 
that  the  re-eligibility  of  the  President  was  improper. 
But  I  will  acknowledge  that  on  a  further  considera- 
tion of  the  subject,  and  attention  to  the  lights  which 
were  thrown  upon  it  by  others,  I  altered  my  opinion  of 
the  limitation  of  his  eligibility.  When  we  consider  the 
advantages  arising  to  us  from  it,  we  cannot  object  to  it. 
That  which  has  produced  my  opinion  against  the  limita- 
tion of  his  eligibility  is  this — that  it  renders  him  more 
independent  in  his  place,  and  more  solicitous  of  pro- 
moting the  interests  of  his  constituents;  for  unless  you 
put  it  in  his  power  to  be  re-elected,  instead  of  being 
attentive  to  then*  interests,  he  will  lean  to  the  augmen- 
tation of  his  private  emoluments.  This  subject  will 
admit  of  high  coloring  and  plausible  arguments ;  but  on 
considering  it  attentively  and  coolly,  I  believe  it  will 
be  found  less  exceptionable  than  any  other  mode.  The 
mode  of  election  here,  excludes  that  faction  which  is  pro- 
ductive of  those  hostilities  and  confusion  in  Poland.  It 
renders  it  unnecessary  and  impossible  for  foreign  force 
or  aid  to  interpose.  The  electors  must  be  elected  by 
the  people  at  large.  To  procure  his  re-election,  Ins  in- 
fluence must  be  co-extensive  with  the  continent.  And 
there  can  be  no  combination  between  the  electors,  as 
they  elect  him  on  the  same  day  in  every  State.  When 
this  is  the  case,  how  can  foreign  influence  or  intrigues 
enter  ?  There  is  no  reason  to  conclude,  from  the  expe- 
rience of  these  States,  that  he  will  be  continually  re- 
elected. There  have  been  several  instances  where 
officers  have  been  displaced  where  they  were  re-eligible. 
This  has  been  the  case  with  the  Executive  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  I  believe  of  New  Hampshire.  It  happens 
from  the  mutation  of  sentiments,  though  the  officers  be 
.good." 

Now  there  is  much  in  this  extract  which  I  have  read 
in  reply  to  George  Mason,  because  the  greatest  objection 
urged  by  him  against  the  re- eligibility  of  the  President 
was  that  it  would  induce  foreign  nations — the  nations  of 
Europe,  to  interpose  and  control  the  government  of  the 
American  people  in  the  election  of  their  President. 
And  he  cited  as  an  instance  the  case  of  Poland,  where, 
by  the  interposition  of  Russia  and  Prussia  the  people  of 
Poland  were  unable  to  dispossess  their  king.  Now  I  will 
read  a  few  short  extracts  from  Mr.  James  Monroe,  one 
of  Virginia's  favorite  sons.  What  did  he  say  on  the 
subject?  "The  President  ought  to  act  under  the  strong- 
est impulse  of  rewards  and  punishments,  which  are  the 
strongest  incentives  to  human  actions.  There  are  two 
ways  of  securing  this  office.  He  ought  to  depend  upon 
the  people  of  America  for  his  appointment  and  contin- 
uance in  office.  He  ought,  also,  to  be  responsible  in  an 
equal  degree  to  all  the  States,  and  be  tried  by  dispas- 
sionate judges,  his  responsibility  to  be  direct  and  im- 
mediate." Now,  here  is  the  opinion  of  an  assembly  of 
the  whole  continent,  when  they  met  in  Philadelphia,  for 
the  purpose  of  forming  a  federal  constitution.  Here 
is  their  judgment  upon  this  subject,  manifested  by 
the  incorporation  of  the  very  provision  which  we 


cognizing  the  principle  for  which  we  are  contending  in 
going  against  this  restriction  of  the  popular  right  of  re- 
electing their  governor.    Next,  in  order  of  time,  I  call . 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  seventy-second 
number  of  the  Federalist,  a  book  of  acknowledged  au- 
thority in  the  exposition  of  the  Federal  constitution. 
The  writer  says  :  "There  are  few  men  who  would  not 
feel  much  less  zeal  in  the  discharge  of  a  duty,  when 
they  were  conscious  that  the  advantage  of  the  station 
with  which  it  was  connected  must  be  relinquished  at  a 
determinate  period  than  when  they  were  permitted  to 
entertain  a  hope  of  obtaining,  by  meriting,  a  continu- 
ance of  them.    This  position  will  not  be  disputed  so 
long  as  it  is  admitted  that  the  desire  of  reward  is  one 
of  the  strongest  incentives  to  human  conduct ;  or  that 
the  best  security  for  the  fidelity  of  mankind  is  to  make 
interest  coincide  with  duty.    Even  the  love  of  fame, 
the  ruling  passion  of  the  noblest  minds  which  would 
prompt  a  man  to  plan  and  undertake  extensive  and  ar- 
duous enterprizes  for  the  public  benefit,  requiring  con- 
siderable time  to  mature  and  perfect    them,  if  he 
could  flatter  himself  with  the  prospect  of  being  allowed 
to  finish  what  he  had  begun,  would,  on  the  contrary,  de- 
ter him  from  the  undertaking  when  he  foresaw  that  he 
must  quit  the   scene  before  he  could  accomplish  the 
work,  and  must  commit  that,  together  with  his  own  rep- 
utation, to  hands  unequal  or  unfriendly  to  the  task." 
I  mii,ht  read  the  whole  number,  for  it  is  emphatically 
"  multum  inparvo ;  "  and  while  upon  general  principles 
of  government,  I  never  concurred  with  the  writer,  (Mr. 
Hamilton.)  yet  upon  this  subject  his  reasons  are  so 
strong  and  convincing  that  to  avoid  tediousness  in  the 
reading  of  extracts  I  have  assumed  some  of  his  posi 
tions,  and  adopted  some  of  his  ideas  in  the  course  of  my 
imperfect  remarks,   already   submitted  to   the  com- 
mittee.   I  trust,  so  far,  then  as  the  precedents  of  the 
past  are  concerned,  they  will  not   stand  in  the  way. 
But,  if  they  did,  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gen- 
tleman who  took  the  view  that  the  acts  of  our  ancestors 
are  sacred  and  that  their  work  should  never  be  undone, 
to  what,  perhaps,  the  most  enlightened  man  who  ever 
lived  in  this  country,  a  man  of  world  wide  fame,  said 
on  this  subject.    Listen  to  him.    "  Some  men  look  at 
constitutions  with  a  sanctimous  reverence,  and  deem 
them  like  the  ark  of  the  covenant  too  sacred  to  touch. 
They  ascribe  to  the  men  of  the  preceding  age   a  wis 
dom  more  than  human,  and  supposed  what  they  did  to 
be  beyond  amendment.    I  knew  that  age  well.    I  be- 
longed to  it,  and  labored  with  it.    It  deserves  well  of 
its  country.    It  was  very  like  the  present,  but  without 
the  experience  of  the  present.    And  forty  years  expe- 
rience in  government  is  worth  a  century  of  abtract 
reason.    And  this  they  would  say  themselves  were  they 
to  rise  from  the  dead ."    This  is  the  opinion  of  a  man 
who  certainly  ought  to  be  entitled  to  a  proper  conside- 
ration at  the  hands  of  this  Convention.    I  mean  Mr. 
Jefferson. 

But  the  gentleman  finds  this  same  proposition  in  the 
existing  constitution  of  Virginia  taken  from  the  old 
constitution,  and  that  adds  one  consideration  -why  it 
should  not  be  amended.  I  have  looked  over  the  debates 
of  1829  and  1830  ;  and  while  I  see  nothing  directly  said 
in  the  debates  of  that  Convention  upon  this  subject  of 
the  re-eligibility  of  the  Governor,  yet  there  was  a  pro- 
position pending  before  that  body,  which  in  terms  freed 
the  election  of  Governor  from  this  restriction,  and  I 
leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  it  on 
page  474  of  the  "  Debates  and  Proceedings"  of  that  Con- 
vention. 

"  The  House  resolved  itself  into  Committee  of  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


139 


Whole,  Mr.  P.P.  Barbour, in  the  chair;  the  question 
being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Doddridge  to  the  first 
resolution  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

'■  The  resolution  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  chief  executive  office  of  this 
commonwealth  ought  to  be  vested  in  a  governor. 

-'Mr.  Doddridge's  amendment  is  in  these  words:  _ 

"  To  be  elected  once  in  every  three  years,  at  the  time 
of  the  general  annual  elections,  by  the  persons  qualified 
to  vote  For  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  general 
Assembly." 

On  page  484  it  will  be  found  stated  that  Mr.  Stanard 
moved  to  strike  out  that  part  which  says  he  shall  be 
•elected  by  the  people,  and  the  motion  was  rejected,  ayes 
43,  noes  43.  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr.  Marshall  voti  g  aye, 
and  Mr.  Madison  no.  On  Mr.  Doddridge's  amendment, 
as  will  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  page  485,  the  vote  was 
ayes  46,  noes  46.  Mr.  Madison  voting  aye,  and  Mr. 
Marshal  and  Mr.  Monroe,  no.  The  casting-vote  of  the 
chairman  decided  the  question  in  the  negative.  Thus 
the  convention  of  1829  was  actually  equally  divided 
upon  a  proposition  which  contained  no  restriction 
whatever  upon  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor.  It  is 
needless  to  refer  to  the  further  proceedings  that  took 
place,  because  the  main  question  involved,  as  I  admit, 
was  the  election  of  the  governor  by  the  people  or  by 
legislature. 

Mr.  LEAKE.    That  was  the  only  proposition. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Ho  sir;  the  gentleman  could  not 
•have  heard  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Doddridge  read,  which 
T  said  was  the  one  upon  which  the  convention  was 
equally  divided,  and  which  contained  no  restriction 
whatever  upon  the  eligibility  of  the  governor. 

Mr.  LEAKE.    The  question  was  on  striking  out. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  know  it  was,  and  it  was  also  on 
inserting  a  proposition  which  contained  no  restriction 
on  the  right  of  re-eligibility.  And  while  no  member  of 
the  convention  made  a  speech  on  the  subject  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  eligibility  or  re-eligibility,  yet  a  provision  was 
actually  pending  on  that  occasion  which  contained  the 
principle  we  now  advocate. 

Mr.  RIVES.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  state,  if  he  has 
the  debates  of  the  convention  of  1829  by  him,  whether 
upon  the  question  whether  the  governor  should  be  elect- 
ed by  the  legislature  or  by  the  people,  the  proposition 
was  not  carried  by  a  vote  of  fifty  to  forty-six,  every  mem- 
ber voting.  And  I  ask  the  gentleman,  also,  if  he  does 
not  find  that  the  question  was  yielded  by  western  mem- 
bers with  the  express  understanding  that  if  the  legis- 
lat  ire  should  be  authoriz  ed  to  elect  the  governor  for  three 
years,  instead  of -annually  as  before,  that  they  would  not 
hold  on  to  the  ground  that  he  should  be  elected  by  the 
people,  but  would  agree  that  he  should  be  elected  by 
the  legislature.  That  is  the  history  of  that  question, 
and  of  that  vote.  A3  for  the  question  of  ineligibility, 
it  had  no  connection  with  the  one  at  issue.  I  have 
studied  the  history  of  those  times,  and  I  know  these  to 
be  the  facts. 

I  have  not  these  debates  by  me,  but  these  facts  will 
be  found  by  a  reference  to  the  journal,  on  pages  709, 
and  822  of  that  publication. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  have  not  the  debates  and  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention  of  '29  here  with  me;  it  is  a 
large  book,  and  I  preferred  to  bring  down  the  written  ex- 
tracts from  it  to  which  I  have  referred.  It  is  at  my 
room,  however,  for  any  gentleman  to  examine  who  may 
thiwk  proper.  'Now,  I  do  not  mean  by  my  allusion  to 
the  Convention  of  '29,  to  say  that  the  question  of  the  re- 
eligibility  of  the  Governor  was  ever  directly  up  for 
consideration,  or  was  ever  adopted  by  that  Convention. 
I  expressly  said  that  that  was  not  the  case,  in  my  open- 
ing remarks.  I  went  further,  and  said  that  no  speech 
was  delivered  upon  that  subject  at  all,  and  then  I  re- 
ferred to  the  extracts  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Con 
vention  of  1829,  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  in  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Doddridge,  there  was  no 
limitation  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  to  re-elect  their 
Governor.    But  I  admit  that  the  main  question  which 


the  Convention  was  called  to  consider  in  relation  to  that 
proposition,  was  the  election  of  the  Governor  by  the 
people,  and  that  all  the  arguments  and  all  the  speeches 
on  that  subject  referred  alone  to  it. 

I  fear  that  I  have  wearied  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention. I  have  endeavored  to  run  along  as  rapidly  as 
I  well  could.  I  have  much  that  I  might  still  say,  but 
no  doubt  other  gentlemen,  who  come  after  me,  will  occu- 
py the  time  much  more  effectually  than  I  can.  All  I 
desired  to  do,  occupying  the  position  I  do  in  this  Con- 
vention, was  to  present  my  views,  in  order  that  my  own 
positions  and  the  considerations  which  went  in  my  own 
mind  to  strengthen  that  position,  might  be  known,  for  I 
am  rather  inclined  to  apprehend,  that  I  shall  be  in  a  very 
lean  minority  in  this  region  of  country,  from  what  I  hear. 
I  am  compelled  to  differ  from  gentlemen  with  whom  I 
have  been  proud  to  act,  and  whose  opinions  I  have  been 
always  willing  to  adopt,  when  they  addressed  my  judg- 
ement and  reached  my  reason,  but  upon  this  subject  as 
upon  all  others,  while  I  desire  to  get  all  the  information 
I  can,  while  I  am  ready  to  consider  and  reflect  upon  the 
opinions  and  reasons  of  others,  the  judgment  which  has 
been  implanted  in  my  own  mind,  is,  at  last,  when  it  is 
duly,  candidly,  and  fully  made  up,  the  only  rule  upon 
which  I  can  act.  Now,  I  admit  that  in  the  various  dis- 
cussions that  took  place  on  this  subject  before  the  peo- 
ple, I  do  not  believe  the  question  of  the  re-eligibility 
of  the  Governor  was  discussed  anywhere.  Gentlemen 
engaged  in  the  canvass  in  my  district,  were  limited  to 
thirty  minutes  in  the  discussion,  and  we  could  not  tell 
all  we  would  do  within  that  time,  and  were  obliged  to 
lay  down  general  principles,  and  tell  cur  constituents 
that  having  understood  what  these  general  principles 
were,  they  must  judge  how  we  could  carry  them  out  in 
detail.  But  about  the  question  of  having  the  election 
of  all  public  officers  put  into  the  hands  of  the  people, 
there  was  but  one  voice  among  them,  and  nothing  was 
said  that  would  except  the  Goverm  r  from  the  operation 
of  that  principle.  I  thank  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tee for  the  attention  wiiich  they  have  paid  me.  I  shall 
not  again  trespass  upon  their  time  and  patience.  I  am 
sorry  that  my  own  situation  has  made  it  necessary  that 
I  should  do  so  now. 

Mr.  CHILTOX.  The  debate  in  which  we  are  en- 
gaged, running  through  some  four  or  five  days,  has  had  a 
range,  and  extent,  and  a  variety  which  I  am  sure  was 
but  little  anticipated  by  any  member  of  this  convention, 
when  it  commenced.  The  subject,  when  first  presented, 
seemed  to  be  one  of  no  considerable  importance,  and 
one  in  regard  to  which  it  was  immaterial  how  the  Con- 
vention might  dispose  of  it.  In  conversation  with  the 
mover  of  the  precise  proposition  now  under  considera- 
tion, of  the  convention  before  any  discussion  upon  it  had 
taken  place,  or  at  most  very  little,  I  expressed  the  in- 
clination of  my  mind  to  vote  for  it ;  but  the  discussion 
and  the  consideration  which  it  has  induced  me  to  give 
the  subject,  have  brought  my  mind  to  a  very  different 
conclusion,  not  only  in  regard  to  the  course  which  I 
shall  pursue,  the  vote  I  shall  give,  but  as  to  the  intrinsic 
importance  of  the  subject  itself.  Its  importance  may 
possibly  be,  in  my  estimation,  mainly  attributed  to  the 
fact  that  from  the  announcement  made  by  two  distin- 
guished gentlemen — the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr. 
Botts,)  the  mover,  and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
(Mr.  Wise,)  who  stands  by  his  side  and  sustains  it— is 
the  breaking  of  ground  upon  a  system  that  is  to  pervade 
the  whole  fabric  of  government  which  this  Convention 
is  now  convened  here  to  frame  and  establish — a  system 
that  I  am  here  especially  to  war  upon. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  stated  that 
there  were  two  classes  of  members  upon  this  floor — rad- 
icals and  conservatives.  I  claim  to  be  one  of  the  latter 
class — a  conservative  in  the  fullest  extent  of  that  term, 
the  precise  import  of  which,  I  may  possibly,  at  least  I 
hope  to  do  so  in  the  further  progress  of  the  remarks  that 
I  shall  now  make,  give  some  understanding  of,  to  this 
Convention.  The  difference  between  these  two  descrip- 
tion of  members,  as  I  learned  before  I  came  here,  and  as 
has  been  made  most  manifest  to  me  since  I  heard  the  dis- 


140 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


\ 


cussions  that  have  taken  place,  seems  to  me  to  be 
this  :  One  class  think  there  is  nothing  good  in  the  exist- 
ing form  of  government  of  this  State  ;  that  those  who 
have  gone  before  us  knew  litttle  or  nothing  of  the  sci- 
ence of  government ;  that  they  were  wise,  patriotic  and 
distinguished  men  ;  that  they  did  some  good  things,  but 
also  a  great  many  bad  ones  ;  that  their  work  has  been 
tested,  tried,  condemned,  and  stands  now  rejected  by  the 
great  body  of  that  portion  of  the  people  of  this  State, 
who  wield  the  political  power  of  the  State.  That,  I  un- 
derstand, to  be  the  position  taken  by  those  gentlemen 
who  occupy  the  radical  platform  in  this  Convention. 
The  conservative  portion,  at  least,  if  I  understand  what 
conservatism  is — I  speak  more  especially  of  my  own 
conservatism — it  is  that  there  is  much  that  is  good 
in  the  existing  form  of  government,  that  we  have  pros- 
pered under  it,  that  we  have  enjoyed  all  the  bless- 
ings of  civil  liberty  in  the  best  form,  and  that  whilst 
there  are  some  defects  that  I  think  ought  to  be  corrected, 
they  are  but  few,  and  that  every  change  that  is  propo- 
sed here — speaking  for  myself — I  shall  approach  with 
caution  and  taking  it  'prima  facia,  unless  some  defect  in  it 
is  made  manifest  to  myself  in  my  own  experience  to  be 
right,  and  waiting  until  conclusive  reasons  why  it  should 
be  discarded  or  why  it  should  be  altered,  are  shown.  This 
position  of  mine  I  understand  to  be  totally  different  from 
the  position  taken  by  the  distinguished  gentleman  from 
Henrico.  That  gentleman,  if  I  recollect  aright,  said  very 
early  in  this  discussion,  that  in  the  legal  phrase,  the  onus 
probandi  rested  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  who  propos- 
ed any  thing  here  ;  that  before  we  had  a  right  to  advo- 
cate the  retention  of  this  feature  of  the  old  constitution 
to  call  upon  the  Convention  to  sustain  it,  we  must  show 
its  advantages.  There  was  another  position,  to  which  I 
shall  have  to  advert  more  at  large  in  the  progress  of  the 
remarks  I  shall  make.  It  was  this  :  that  the  great  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  government  was  the  will  of  the 
majority  ;  that  the  end  of  government  was  to  give  effi- 
cacy to  that  will,  and  that  all  restraints  upon  it  were 
improper,  unless  shown  and  proved  conclusively  to  be 
absol  utely  necessary  to  avoid  some  great  evil  or  some 
improper  end. 

Now,  the  position  I  assume  is,  that  as  this  principle 
which  is  found  in  the  existing  Constitution  of  the  State, 
has  been  tried  and  tested  for  seventy  odd  years,  and 
that  under  its  operation,  no  man  can  lay  his  hand  upon 
the  evil  that  has  resulted;  that  those  gentlemen  who 
propose  the  change,  shall  come  forward  here  and  point 
out  the  great  public  good  that  is  to  be  accomplished, 
before  they  have  a  right  to  demand  our  votes.  That  is 
my  position  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  it  is  my  posi- 
tion in  regard  to  most  of  the  changes  upon  which  this 
Convention  will  be  called  to  determine. 

I  said  I  was  one  of  those  who  thought  that  those  who 
had  gone  before  us  knew  about  as  much  of  government 
as  we  do.  I  believe,  as  confidently  as  I  know  I  stand 
here,  that  the  great  fundamental  principles  of  free  gov- 
ernment were  understood  two  centuries  ago  nearly  as 
well  as  they  are  now,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  they  were 
a  little  better,  according  to  what  I  learn  is  now  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  principles  of  free  government.  I 
think  Locke  and  Milton  and  Hampden  understood  the 
great  principle  of  free  government  just  as  well  as  we 
do,  and  they  understood  it  thoroughly.  And  what  was 
that  principle?  Why,  if  I  understand  it,  it  was  this, 
and  nothing  more:  "  That  all  political  power  emanates 
from  and  resides  in  the  people,  and  does  not  belong 
to  kings  or  to  self-constituted  bodies — that  all  power 
comes  from  and  is  bestowed  by  the  consent  of  the 
people  ;  that  it  is  not  transmitted  by  inheritance,  and 
forms  no  property  in  men  or  any  set  of  men,  but  resides 
with  the  people,  and  is  dealt  out  by  them  according  to 
their  understanding  of  their  best  interests,  and  upon 
those  limitations  which  they  conceive  the  best  calcula- 
ted to  subserve  their  own  interests."  That  is  the  great 
fundamental  principle  of  free  government.  That  the 
fundamental  principle  of  free  government  is,  that  a  ma- 
jority shall  rule;  and  that  all  limitations  upon  the  will 
of  the  majority,  the  uncontrolled  will  of  the  majority, 


are  limitations  upon  free  government,  I  utterly  deny;  that 
doctrine  is  one  of  recent  origin,  and  has  grown  out  of 
the  progressive  spirit  of  the  age,  which  has  not  only 
set  at  naught  these  original  and  fundamental  principles 
of  government,  but  seeks  a  new  and  different  applica- 
tion of  new  and  different  principles. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  in  this  debate  about  de- 
mocracy— democracy.  The  gentleman  from  Henrico 
has  spoken  of  his  democracy,  and  every  gentleman,  al- 
most, who  has  addressed  the  committee  upon  this  sub- 
ject, has  dwelt  somewhat  at  length  upon  the  subject  of 
democracy.  Do  we  intend  here,  and  is  it  the  expecta- 
tion of  any  member  of  this  committee,  that  we  are  to 
establish  a  democratic  government — a  pure  democracy? 
When  your  democracy  comes  out,  it  will  be  found  tem- 
pered with  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  with  the  features 
of  monarchical  and  aristocratical  governments;  for  I 
affirm  that  a  representative  republican  government  has 
existed  nowhere,  andean  exist  nowhere,  in  a  pure  demo- 
cratic form.  France  attests  the  truth  of  my  position. 
Why,  does  not  every  gentleman  within  the  sound  of 
my  voice,  know,  that  immediately  after  the  separation 
of  these  States — the  colonies — from  the  mother  coun- 
try, when  in  every  constitution  that  was  formed,  the 
model  of  the  British  constitution  was  observed,  the 
celebrated  Targot  wrote  to  Dr.  Priestly,  attacking 
our  forms  of  government,  and  maintaining  that  it  was 
not  democratic,  that  it  was  anti-democratic,  and  insisted 
that  in  adopting  the  British  model  of  government,  we 
had  departed  from  the  true  principles  of  democracy. 
And  did  that  not  draw  from  John  Adams  (old  John 
Adams)  that  famous  defence  of  the  American  constitu- 
tions, of  which,  I  suppose,  there  is  no  gentleman  w  th- 
in the  sound  of  my  voice,  a  member  of  this  Convention, 
who  has  not  read,  and  of  which,  whatever  may  be  said 
of  it,  or  however  portions  and  lines  of  it  may  be  torn 
from  the  context,  as  they  have  been,  and  used  in 
party  contests,  I  affirm,  upon  a  careful  reading  and  stu- 
dy of  it,  that  no  book  is  to  be  found  in  the  English  lan- 
guage which  more  fully  develops  the  true  principles  of 
republican  representative  government.  There  are  er- 
rors in  it,  I  do  not  pretend  to  doubt.  Perfection  was 
not  to  be  attained,  and  could  not  be,  because  the  work 
of  man.  But  he  shows  to  my  satisfaction,  and,  I  think, 
to  the  satisfaction  of  every  man  who  will  carefully  stu- 
dy it,  that  these  restraints,  balances,  and  checks  that 
are  found  in  this  mingled  form  of  government — mon- 
archical, aristocratical,  and  democratical — are  essential- 
ly necessary  to  the  protection  of  rational  civil  liberty. 
There  is  not  a  gen'.leman  within  the  sound  of  my  voice, 
who  can  be  brought  to  go  for  a  genuine  democratic  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  WISE.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  avow 
a  declaration  here  in  this  body,  the  proposition  that  in 
order  to  secure  liberty,  we  must  have  an  infusion  of 
aristocratic  and  monarchical  principles?  Is  that  the 
proposition  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  mean  that  very  proposition.  Noth- 
ing more  nor  less.  And  lam  somewhat  surprised  that 
the  question  has  been  put  by  the  gentleman.  What  is 
monachy  ?  What  is  aristocracy  ?  and  what  is  democra- 
cy ?  I  did  not  expect  to  be  drawn  into  a  discussion  of 
these  forms  of  government  ;  but  if  I  understand  what  is 
a  monarchical  principle,  it  is  when  the  executive  power 
of  the  State  is  committed  to  the  hands  of  one  man,  I 
care  not  under  what  limitations  he  is  placed,  or  _  how 
few  the  duties  he  is  to  perform,  it  is  monarchical  in  its 
principle.  / 
Mr.  WISE.  No  sir.  / 
Mr.  CHILTON.  The  gentleman  says  no.  Of  course 
there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  him  and  my- 
self. I  certainly  have  entertained  that  opinion,  and 
have  been  so  taught,  and  I  have  read — and  I  think  the 
gentleman  has  read— the  debates  in  the  convention  that 
framed  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  appeal 
to  the  debates  of  the  convention  that  adopted  the  feder- 
al constitution,  to  the  debates  of  the  convention  of  1829, 
and  of  every  other  convention  that  has  ever  convened 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Ut 


within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  to  establish  fun- 
damental forms  of  government  for  a  State,  if  the  very 
position  that  I  take  here  has  not  been  universally  con- 
ceded. It  is  not  monarchy  in  the  British  sense  ;  it  is 
not  monarchy  in  the  Turkish  sense — Great  Britain  be- 
ing- a  limited  monarchy,  and  Turkey  an  absolute  mon- 
archy or  despotism.  Our  President  of  the  United  States 
is  as  essentially  a  monarch  as  any  that  reigms  upon  the 
face  of  the  habitable  globe,  in  regard  to  ail  the  matters 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  has  committed  to 
be  executed  by  him.  The  senate  of  the  United  States 
is  essentially  an  aristocracy  in  principle,  and  avowed  so 
to  be  in  the  discussions  of  the  convention  that  adopted 
the  constitution.  It  is  not  the  aristocracy  of  Venice  or 
the  aristocracy  of  many  of  the  European  States,  but 
the  aristocratic  principle  infused  into  it  is  one  of  the 
elements  of  checks  and  balances  upon  power  necessary 
to  protect  the  great  interests  of  the  people.  I  have 
learned  in  vain,  I  have  been  taug-ht  and  I  have  read  in 
vain,  if  these  are  not  the  elements  that  make  up  every 
form  of  government,  from  the  government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  down  to  that  of  the  newest  State,  the  very 
last  that  has  come  into  this  Union  and  framed  a  consti- 
tution for  herself. 

I  have  been  led  off  by  this  incidental  discussion,  in  a 
manner  that  I  do  not  know  when  I  shall  get  up,  if  at  all, 
to  the  main  question  on  which  I  propose  to  speak. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  state  that  the  re- 
marks are  rather  irrelevant  to  the  question.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CHTLTON.  I  was  very  well  aware  of  it,  and  it 
is  not  generally  my  habit  to  depart  from  the  question. 
Having  premised  this  much,  I  come  to  consider  the  ob- 
jections against,  or  rather  the  reasons,  for  the  retention 
of  this  feature  of  ineligibility  m  the  Constitution  which 
we  are  now  considering.  The  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land, (Mr.  Leake',)  took  the  position  well,  I  thought, 
and  sustained  it  ably,  that  the  great  end  of  free  repre- 
sentative republican  government,  the  main  one,  was, 
protection  to  the  rights  of  the  minority,  butl  understood 
that  proposition  to  be  scouted  by  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico  as  a  monstrous  heresy.  Well,  probably  my 
friend  who  sits  near  me,  (Mr.  Wise,)  agrees  with  him, 
and  scouts  it  as  a  heresy. 

Mr.  WISE.    Scouts  what? 

Mr.  CHILTON.  That  the  main  end  of  a  Constitution 
with  limitation  of  power,  is  to  protect  the  minority,  and 
not  to  give  efficacy  to  the  will  of  the  majority.  That  is 
the  great  end.  The  majority  can  always  protect  itself, 
the  minority  cannot.  But  when  we  establish  a  Consti- 
tution and  put  limitations  in  it  upon  the  power  of  the 
majority,  restraining  it  within  a  particular  sphere  of  ac- 
tion, beyond  which  they  cannot  go,  we  have  accom- 
plished this  object,  and  put  them  within  an  enclosure  in 
which,  no  matter  what  they  do,  they  cannot  do  mis- 
chief. They  cannot  oppress,  they  cannot  trample  upon 
the  rights  of  the  minority.  Why  limit  the  majority? 
Now  I  agree,  that  in  a  pure  democratic  form  of  govern- 
ment, that  the  position  taken  by  the  gentleman  on  the  other 
side  is  perfectly  sound,  perfectly  proper  and  right.  His- 
tory gives  us  some  examples  of  the  workings  of  a  demo- 
cratic governmenc.  Greece  had  it  at  one  time.  Where 
all  questions  of  public  and  private  right  were  submitted 
to  the  crowd,  and  where  those  who  wanted  to  gain  the 
favor  of  the  crowd  came  before  them,  clothed  in  sack- 
cloth, and  uttering  cries  of  lamentation  and  mourning, 
and  excied  them.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  refer  this 
committee  to  the  results  of  that  form  of  government.  I 
believe  the  universal  concurrence  of  civilized  man  at  the 
present  day,  who  has  any  information  upon  the  subject  is, 
that  it  was  the  very  worst  form  of  government  that  ever 
did  exist,  and  that  there  has  been  no  despotism,  however 
bloody — the  despotism  of  Nero  and  Caligula,  or  any  other 
monster  of  whom  history  furnishes  an  example — but  was 
more  tolerable  than  that  government  of  the  pure  democra- 
cy. There,  numbers  always  prevailed,  and  the  majority 
carried  out  their  will  uncontrolled.  Taking  warning  from 
this  example  and  the  information  of  history,  those  who 
came  to  form  our  government  avoided  it.  There  are  ad- 
vantages and  disadvantages  in  every  form  of  govern- 


ment—some advantages  in  the  democratic  form,  and 
some  in  the  aristocratic  wisdom,  and  some  in  the  monar- 
chical strength  and  power.  They  combined  them  all — 
mixed  them  up  happily — restrained  each  within  its 
proper  and  useful  sphere — they  curbed  the  evil  propen- 
sities of  all  with  the  wisdom  and  power  of  all,  and  they 
thus  establish -d  that  form  of  government — the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  which,  with  some  few  objec- 
tions to  it,  is  tne  most  stupendous  fabric  of  governmental 
wisdom  this  world  has  ever  seen.  It  is  best  in  its  effects 
— best  in  its  influences — promoting  the  end  of  govern- 
ment better  and  more  effectually  than  any  other  of 
which  we  have  any  information.  Now  I  said  that  these 
limitations  were  upon  the  unrestrained  power  of  the 
majority  ;  and  if  any  gentleman  who  has  not  read  tne 
debates  of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution will  take  them  up  and  look  into  them,  he  will 
find  that  Madison  and  every  other  delegate  from  Virgi- 
nia, Franklin*  also,  and  all  that  illustrious  band  of  patriots 
and  sages  contemplated— if  they  contemplated  any  prin- 
ciple with  peculiar  horror — this  unlicensed  democratic 
principle  as  the  one  against  which,  above  all  others,  they 
felt  it  their  duty  to  provide  the  greatest  safe-guards. 
And  operated  upon  by  this  strong  aversion,  they  went 
a  little  too  far,  in  my  judgment,  and  gave  too  much 
power  to  the  executive  head;  and  a  portion  of  that  pow- 
er is  found  in  this  very  right  of  re-eligibility,  which  gen- 
tlemen "here,  on  the  other  side,  so  much  commend.  I 
think  that  if  they  had  had  the  lights  and  the  experience 
wldch  we  have  had,  they  would  have  restricted  it,  they 
would  not  have  made  him  re-eligible.  I  cannot  say,  how- 
ever, that  any  particular  evil  has  resulted  from  it,  be- 
cause whether  by  the  Avisdom  of  tne  man  who  first  held 
it,  or  of  him  who  succeeded  him,  or  to  Mr.  Jefferson — 
for  I  think  some  attribute  to  him  the  establishment  of 
the  two-term  principle — it  matters  not  who  established 
it — the  people  have  sustained  the  man  who  did  estab- 
lish it,  and  it  has  become  an  interpretation  of  the  con- 
stitution that  no  man  shall  be  re-eligible  after  two  terms. 
It  is  just  as  effectual,  so  far  as  the  practice  is  concerned, 
as  if  it  was  made  a  part  of  the  Constitution  itself.  I 
say,  then,  that  this  spirit  which  I  understand  to  be  in- 
voked, and  which  I  understand  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  desire  to  establish  and  carry  out — this  spirit 
of  democracy — this  principle  of  majority  rule,  is  the 
one  against  which  all  who  have  gone  before  us  have  sed- 
ulously guarded.  It  is  a  principle  destructive  of  the 
rights  of  the  minority,  which  rights  can  only  find 
protection  in  the  limitations  upon  these  elements 
of  government,  these  three  fundamental  elements  of  gov- 
ernment that  will  undoubtedly,  because  I  see  it  already 
declared,  make  up  the  form  of  government  which  this 
Convention  shall  adopt.  If  I  understand  any  thing  about 
democratic  principles  under  the  working  of  our  system, 
it  has  been  a  jealousy  of  executive  power.  The  old  fed- 
eralists, Hamilton,  Adams,  and  all  those  men — what  dis- 
tinguished them  ?  Support  of  executive  power,  an  en- 
largement of  executive  power,  claiming  undue  power 
for  the  executive  department  of  the  government.  The 
democracy,  the  democratic  principle  warred  upon  it  as 
a  monarchical  feature,  as  a  feature  necessary,  but  yet 
to  be  distrusted  or  doubted,  guarded  and  looked  to  with 
jealousy.  Is  not  that  the  principle  that  has  introduced  it 
into  our  Constitution— jealousy  of  executive  and  monar- 
chical power,  of  the  power  that  wields  the  sword,  of  the 
power  that  lays  its  hand  upon  the  citizen  ?  We  have 
been  asked,  why  is  no  limitation  proposed  upon  the  le- 
gislative and  representative  power,  the  members  of  Con- 
gress and  of  the  State  legislature  ?  I  respectfully  ask,  if 
there  is  not  a  very  material  difference  between  the  powers 
and  functions  of  the  two  offices,  the  executive  and  the 
legislative  offices  ?  The  executive  is  controlled  by  one 
will,  one  mind  ;  the  legislative  officer  acts  for  himself  it 
is  true,  but  he  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  he  must  get  the 
concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the  body  with  whom  he 
acts,  which  is  generally  a  numerous  one  ;  and  therefore 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  a  good  reason  why  this  limitation 
should  not  be  imposed  upon  him.  It  may  be  that  gen- 
tlemen who  take  other  side  are  perfectly  correct,  that 


142 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


in  regard  to  this  particular  office  of  governor  deprived, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  says,  of  all  power 
—for  he  said  that  gentlemen  did  not  make  a  distinction 
between  the  office  and  the  power  of  the  office ,  and  very 
properly  too — it  may  be  that  it  will  result  in  no  practi- 
cal mischief ;  but  whether  it  will  or  not,  I  cannot  tell, 
and  there  is  no  man  here  that  can  tell.  But  this  much 
we  do  know,  that  under  the  opposite  principle,  tested 
for  seventy  odd  years,  no  mischief  has  been  done,  and 
upon  the  principle  that  I  announced  when  I  commenced, 
when  a  system,  established  by  men  of  experience,  wis- 
dom and  purity,  has  worked  well  through  a  long  succes- 
sion of  years  and  no  practical  mischief,  no  inconvenience 
has  resulted  from  it,  I  am  not  disposed  to  change  it.  1 
will  not  change  it  for  any  theoretically  democratic  prin- 
ciple or  any  other.  I  will  not  change  it  because  it  may 
be  said  to  violate  great  fundamental  principles  ;  and  per- 
mit me  to  say  here,  that  the  fundamental  principles  of 
government  are  very  few,  if  any.  The  one  1  have  stated, 
I  consider  the  only  one,  aud  that  is,  that  power  resides 
with  the  people,  emanates  from  them,  returns  to  them, 
and  can  be  and  should  be  embodied  only  by  their  will, 
whether  it  be  in  the  form  of  a  constitution,  or  in  any 
other  form  in  which  it  may  be  exercised.  I  think  that 
government  itself  is  an  expedient  and  that  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  sole  question  is,  how  shall  it  be  modeled, 
in  what  form,  with  what  limitations  and  under  what  re- 
strictions shall  it  be  modeled  so  as  best  to  accomplish 
its  great  end— protection  to  the  lives,  liberty  and  pro- 
perty of  all  those  who  are  subject  to  it?  These  expedi- 
ents must  be  tested  by  experience.  We  must  look  to 
men  of  wisdom,  to  men  of  purity,  and  to  men  who  have 
no  interests  averse  or  opposite  to  the  interests  of  the 
great  body  of  the  community,  to  ascertain  in  what  form 
this  thing  should  be  accomplished. 

I  have  been  somewhat  surprised  that  the  gentleman 
from  whom  emanates  this  proposition,  has  not  moved  an 
amendment  to  the  scheme  of  an  executive,  reported  by 
the  committee  on  that  subject,  in  another  particular.  If 
I  have  read  that  report  aright,  a  plurality  of  voters  may 
elect  a  governor,  and  it  may  be,  that  through  a  long 
succession  of  years,  the  governor  may  fill  the  executive 
chair,  elected  by  a  meagre  minority,  a  small  minority  of 
the  voters  of  the  State.  Now,  in  this  essential  thing, 
what  becomes  of  this  sacred  majority  principle?  What 
becomes  of  it  ?  I  do  not  propose  myself  to  move  any 
amendment,  for  I  am  satisfied  with  it  as  it  is,  but  sup- 
pose it  were  otherwise — suppose  that  a  majority  were 
actually  to  be  required?  Why,  a  majority  might  keep  a 
man,  offensive  and  objectionable  to  a  large  minority  in 
the  State,  in  office  for  years.  And  is  that  no  objection 
to  it  ?  Whereas,  if  you  make  the  governor  ineligible  and 
let  him  go  out  of  office  and  give  place  to  some  other  man 
who  may  be  before  us,  and  what  was  a  minority  so  far 
as  he  was  concerned,  may  become  a  part  of  the  majori- 
ty in  regard  to  somebody  else;  and  thus  at  some  time  or 
other  no  citizen  of  the  State  can  say  that  he  has  seen  no 
incumbent  in  the  office  who  was  not  a  man  of  his  own 
choice;  and  apart  from  all  principle,  is  this  no  object 
that  ought  to  be  accomplished  ?  Is  it  no  privilege  to 
every  citizen  of  this  State  to  have  the  right  and  the  op- 
portunity, at  some  time  or  other,  to  say  a  man  fills  the 
executive  chair  who  is  the  man  of  my  choice,  and  whom 
I  aided  to  put  there  ?  I  care  not  whether  there  is  any 
practical  benefit  or  advantage  to  result  or  not,  it  is  an 
object  desirable  to  be  accomplished,  and  I  will  vote  for 
no  principle  and  no  provision  to  be  inserted  in  that  con- 
stitution which  might,  in  practice,  produce  the  opposite 
state  of  things,  which  would  deny  this  privilege,  this 
matter  of  feeling,  to  any  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth 
entitled  to  vote.  But.  under  the  constitution  as  it  stands, 
the  minority  of  one  term  may  be  the  majority  of  anoth- 
er; and  thus  he  who  is  put  in  contrary  to  my  wishes, 
may  be  succeeded  by  a  man  whom  I  choose  to  select; 
and  thus,  an  opportunity  afforded  to  every  man  in  the 
State,  at  some  time  or  other,  to  have  his  choice.  I  have 
been  taught  always  as  one  of  the  fundamental,  practical 
principles  of  democracy,  that  long  possession  of  power 
corrupts,  I  care  not  whence  it  comes,  whether  it  be  the 


gift  of  the  people,  or  whether  it  be  permanent — that  the 
possession  of  power  is  corrupting  in  its  nature,  tendency 
and  effects  upon  the  possessor  of  it.  And  it  is  not  so 
much  the  bsiief  that  the  people  would  exercise  their  pow- 
er, would  discharge  the  duty  incumbent  upon  them  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter,  unwisely  and  impartially,  that  I  ob- 
ject to  it,  but  that  the  man  who  long  retains  power,  let 
him  be  ever  so  pure,  will  become  corrupted,  will  be- 
come abusive  in  his  practice  of  the  power  that  he  has — 
and  more  so  of  the  executive  power  than  any  other  de- 
scription of  power. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  in  this  debate  to  which,  of 
course,  I  shall  not  reply.  There  have  been  some  painful 
and  some  amusing  scenes.  They  have  passed  by,  and  I 
hope  that  nothing  has  occurred  here  that  has  marred 
friendship  or  affected  any  relation.  I  feel,  although  I 
have  given  utterance  to  nothing  that  has  provoked  or  is 
calculated  to  provoke  any  personal  altercation,  whether 
it  be  in  the  way  of  argument  or  otherwise,  between  my- 
self and  any  gentlemen  here,  that  I  have  pursued  rather  a 
desultory  and  discursive  train  of  argument;  and  shall 
endeavor  to  come  as  speedily  as  possible  to  a  close. 
There  has  been  a  word  used  in  this  debate  that  has  had 
the  most  extraordinary  repetition  of  any  word  I  think 
I  ever  heard  introduced  iu  any  debate,  and  that  was  the 
word  "the  people,  "  "  the  people,  "  "the  people.'''  Gen- 
tlemen have  spoken  here,  and  have  argued  this  proposi- 
tion before  this  Convention,  as  if  there  was  a  distinct  and 
separate  class  called  the  people,  and  we,  the  members  of 
this  Convention,  were  altogether  seperate  and  distinct 
from  them.  I  have  heard  in  the  progress  of  the  debates 
of  this  Convention  a  great  deal  said  about  classes,  and 
sometimes  we  have  heard  about  poor  men  and  rich  men,-, 
and  an  idea  has  not  been  un frequently  advanced  or  indi- 
cated that  the  poor  men  were  the  people  and  that  the 
rich  men  were  not  the  people  and  their  natural  allies. 

Mr.  WISE.    Who  has  taken  that  position  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  do  not  charge  this  remark  upon 
any  gentleman.  I  hope  that  gentlemen  will  not  interro- 
gate me  unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  because  it  in- 
terrupts the  train  of  my  argument. 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  not  in  order  to  interrupt  gentle- 
men, when  they  have  the  floor,  unless  they  consent  to  it. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  will  now  say,  once  for  all,  that 
now,  and  at  all  times  when  I  shall  oceupy  this  floor  here- 
after, I  shall  not,  intentionally,  violate  the  rules  of  the 
body,  or  say  anything  offensive  to  any  gentlemau ;  and 
if,  in  the  freedom  of  debate,  I  should  indulge  in  free  lan- 
guage, gentlemen  must  apply  it  to  arguments  and  po- 
sitions, and  not  to  persons.  And  another  thing  I  would 
respectfully  request,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  that  if,, 
in  the  progress  of  my  argument  it  occurs  to  a  gentleman 
that  there  is  an  answer  to  the  argument  being  made, 
that  I  shall  not  be  interrupted  fey  an  argumentative  in^ 
terrogatory. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  state  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  committee,  that  one  gentleman  should  not 
interrupt  another  who  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  say  this  in  no  unkind  spirit — none 
in  the  world.  This  is  a  course  that  I  have  always  ob- 
served myself,  and  I  think  it  would  be  much  better  if  it 
was  observed  generally.  But  I  have  heard  this  cry 
of  "the  people,"  "  the  people,"  before  and  since  I  came 
here.  I  claim  to  be  one  of  the  people  myself,  and  I 
doubt  not  that  every  man  in  this  Convention  c  insiders 
himself  one  of  them.  I  have  no  interest  adverse  to  the 
interest  of  my  fellow  men,  in  any  particular,  that  lam 
aware  of — none  earthly.  And  in  consulting  my  oAvn 
interest,  and  my  own  good  in  establishing  a  form  of 
government  that  would  be  best  form0,  I  would  estab- 
lish that  which  would  best  protect  the  interests  of  all, 
not  only  in  my  own  district,  but  those  in  every  portion 
of  the  State.  I  will  state  another  thing,  that  the  peo- 
ple who  sent  me  here,  iu  regard  to  the  details  of  this 
or  any  other  portion  of  the  constitution,  do  not  ex- 
pect or  desire  me  to  consult  them.  They  sent  me  here,, 
because  they  believed  I  understood  these  matters  better 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


143 


than  tbey  could  possibly  do.  Upon  the  principle  in- 
volved they  concur  with  me,  for  I  fully  made  known 
my  sentiments  dur'Dg  the  canvass.  I  am  a  believer, 
as  Veil  as  other  gentlemen,  in  the  capacity  of  man  for 
self-government.  I  am  a  believer,  but  I  believe  it  is  a 
capacity  to  judge  of  the  results  of  government,  rather 
than  its  machinery,  or  its  particular  operations.  ■  •  hey 
must,  of  necessity",  trust  these  things  to  the  judgment 
of  others,  and  they  do  not  trust  them.  I  have  never 
yet  seen  a  man  who  would  go  before  the  people,  and 
frankly  tell  them  that  they  did  not  know  everything 
and  were  not  competent  to  decide  everything,  with 
whom  they  did  not  agree ;  they  are  honest,  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  and  will  acknowledge  that  they  do 
not  know  everything.  Now,  while  I  say,  that  I  am  a 
firm  believer  in  the  capacity  of  man  for  self-government. 
I  confess  that  with  this  faith,  if  faith  it  can  be  called— 
or  rather  I  -hould  say  hope,  and  not  faith — there  is 
not  unmingled  an  apprehension  for  the  future.  The 
problem  of  man's  capacity  for  self-government  is  not, 
in  my  judgment,  fully  solved.  It  is  only  in  the  process 
of  solution.  It  is  only  in  the  process  of  solution,  indeed, 
in  this  State,  in  this  country.  And  if  there  is  one  thing 
that  makes  me  look  to  the  "future  with  apprehension,  it 
is  this  wild  spirit  of  radicalism  that  seems  to  be  spread- 
ing over  this  land.  It  is  this  disposition  to  believe  that 
those  who  have  gone  before  us  knew  nothing  ;  that  their 
lessons,  their  words,  their  teachings,  and  their  instruc- 
tions, do  not  suit  us  ;  because  we  are  in  a  different  age, 
that  we  are  under  new  principles,  and  in  a  state  of  prb- 
i  ress.  The  great  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the 
age  is  speed — speed  in  everything.  The  lightning's 
wing  can  hardly  keep  pace  with  the  desires  of  men  at 
the  present  day  of  progress.  This  may  do  well  in  the 
mechanical  world,  but  it  will  not  do  in  the  moral  and 
political  world.  These  men  who  have  gone  before  us — 
I  shall,  I  hope,  be  pardoned  in  saying — I  think  were 
our  superiors  in  wisdom.  The  only  particular  in  which 
we  claim  to  be  equal  to  them  is,  I  think,  in  experience. 
But  they  had  had  some  experience  too,  in  my  judgment: 
they  had  had  a  fiery  experience  ;  they  had  gone  through 
a  fiery  ordeal ;  and  they  had  lived  in  times  more  pro- 
pitious for  calm  and  wise  and  deliberate  judgment  upon 
this  subject.  It  has  been  said  here  that  we  live  under 
the  influence  of  party — the  demon  of  party.  For  as  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  said  most  im- 
pressively the  other  day,  there  is  a  demon  of  the  north, 
and  a  demon  of  the  south — there  is  a  demon  of  party 
that  is  poisoning  the  very  fountains  from  whence  come 
the  streams  of  governments.  We  are  not  insensible  to 
it.  We  may  abhor  it.  and  may  determine  not  to  be 
bound  by  it,  but  it  will  come  insensibly  over  us  and 
influence  us  in  our  action  here  on  this  floor,  in  this  Con- 
tion.  convened  t  o  f  rm  a  fundamental  government  for  this 
State,  which  for  years  to  come  is  to  spread  its  influ- 
ence alike  over  men  of  every  party — men  entrusted  with 
political  power  and  not  entrusted  with  it,  over  every  age, 
sex  and  condition.  We  have  heard  gentlemen  contend- 
ing who  was  the  best  democrat,  and  who  was  not.  In 
the  sense  in  which  I  have  adverted  to  it,  it  may  well  be 
contended  who  is  the  best  democrat  and  who  is  not,  but 
in  the  party  sense,  I  confess  that  I  was  not  a  little  sur- 
prised to  witness  the  contest,  and  hear  the  discussions 
about  who  was  the  best  democrat,  and  who  was  not  the 
best  democrat.  These  men,  I  said,  who  have  gone  be- 
fore us,  lived  and  acted  before  this  demon  of  party  had 
its  birth.  What  do  we  see  now?  Mobs,  mobs,  where 
men  of  character  and  standing  and  property  perpetrate 
the  foulest  deeds.  We  see  Fanny  Wrights,  Abby  Fol- 
soms  and  vote-yourselves-a-farm  men.  We  see  an  insa- 
tiable thirst  for  office ;  we  see  men  of  v/hom  in  times 
gone  by  we  would  not  have  dreamed,  leaving  those  pure 
pursuits  of  agriculture,  those  noble,  purifying  pursuits 
that  make  a  man  a  man,  and  that  made  our  forefathers — 
we  see  them  giving  up  all  these  things,  and  seeking  a 
livelihood  at  the  public  crib  ;  we  see  parties  controiing 
elections ;  we  see — I  do  not  mean  to  apply  these  remarks 
to  any  gentleman  in  this  body — we  see  demagogues  all 
over  the  land,  and  we  see  them  preaching  up,  and  in- 


sisting upon  the  incorruptibility  and  the  perfectibility  of 
the  public  will  in  all  things.  I  ask  if  this  is  a  time  to 
cut  our  old  vessel  of  State  loose  from  those  moorings 
where  she  has  stood  for  seventy-odd  years,  and  which 
have  enabled  her  to  brave  the  battle  and  the  breeze  ;  and 
which  has  carried  us  (whatever  may  be  said  of  the  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  State)  safely  on,  and  brings,  year 
after  year,  the  incontrovertabie  proof  that  she  is  pro- 
gressing onward  to  a  State  of  actual  prosperity,  which 
has  not  been  found  any  where  else.  Gentlemen  may 
tell  me  what  they  please  about  those  free  states,  of  their 
radical  progress,  their  extraordinary  progress,  their  great 
prosperity  and  all  that,  but  I  would  not  to-morrow  ex- 
change Virginia  for  all  of  them.  I  would  take  her  as 
she  is — take  her  with  her  constitution  ;  with  her  laws, 
her  judiciary,  and  all  that  belongs  to  her,  and  I  would 
go  into  a  comparison  with  any  other  State  in  this  Union, 
for  everything  that  makes  the  character  of  man  noble, 
and  makes  his  condition  desirable.  In  my  judgment, 
I  no  greater  evil  can  befall  this  state — none — than  the 
prevalence  of  these  radical  doctrines  which  have  been 
preached  upon  this  floor.  It  may  be  otherwise.  It  may 
be  that  I  look  with  too  much  apprehension  to  the  fu- 
ture. I  trust  that  I  may  not  be  a  prophet.  I  do  not 
desire  to  be  one,  nor  shall  I  undertake  to  prophecy.  I 
hope  that  in  looking  to  the  future,  with  the  apprehen- 
sion that  I  am  looking  to  it,  that  I  may  be  wholly  mis- 
taken ;  but  in  my  judgment  no  worse  evil  can  befall  any 
people  than  that  those  barrisrs  and  ramparts  which 
are  erected  about  private  rights — the  rights  of  property, 
life  and  liberty — are  broken  down,  and  the  subjects, 
the  great  ends  and  objects  of  government  are  put  into 
the  hands  of  an  uncontrolled  and  licensed  majority. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  state  that  that  is  de- 
parting from  the  question. 

Mr.  CHILTOX.  I  am  aware  of  it,  and  am  endeav- 
oring to  get  back  to  it.  I  am  nearly  through,  however. 
The  gentlemen  from  the  west  have  beheld  these  devel- 
opments here  on  the  part  of  able  eastern  gentlemen, 
with  great  pleasure.  They  see,  and  very  properly,  that 
with  the  principle  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  "stands 
upon,  he  must  go  with  them.  It  makes  no  difference 
with  me  where  the  proposition  originates— whether  it 
be  in  the  east  or  west — I  shall,  I  hope,  consider  it  fairly 
and  candidly,  and  decide  it  upon  its  merits.  But  let  me 
make  an  appeal  to  those  western  gentlemen  :  many  of 
them,  I  believe — some  of  them  I  know — do  think  with 
me  upon  this  great  question  of  conservatism.  Let  them 
reflect  that  if,  by  these  means,  the  results  of  which  I  look 
to  as  so  disastrous,  though  many  look  to  them  otherwise, 
to  obtain  their  most  de-iredends,  whether  the  fruit  so 
much  sought  for,  when  gathered,  may  not  turn  to  ashes 
in  their  grasp ;  whether  they  may  not  be  like  Macbeth , 
forced  to  exclaim :  "We  but  taught  bloody  instructions, 
which,  being  taught,  returned  to  plague  the  inventor." 
I  present  this  subject  to  their  consideration.  Let 
them  look  to  it,  and  see  that  this  question  of  the 
basis — 

The  CHAIR.  That  question  is  not  now  under  con- 
sideration. 

Mr.  CHILTOX.  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  it,  but  I 
think  I  have  a  right  to  introduce  it  as  an  illustration.  I 
humblv  submit  that  the  Chair  is  reining  me  up  a  little 
tighter  than  he  has  any  other  gentleman  who  has  spoken  ; 
probably  because  I  have  made  myself  more  obnoxious. 

I  was  going  to  say  that  there  are  objects  that  may  be 
accomplished  by  this  constitution,  much  more  to  be 
shunned  and  avoided,  in  my  estimation,  than  the  trans- 
fer of  power,  upon  the  principle  of  the  white  basis,  to 
the  western  men — much  more  ;  and  that  object  will  be 
accomplished,  in  my  judgment,  if  there  be  imposed  up- 
on this  constitution ,  which  we  are  now  framing,  the 
principles  indicated  by  the  two  gentlemen — the  one 
from  Henrico  and  the  other  from  Accomac.  I  may 
stand  solitary  and  alone  in  this  opinion,  but  "solitary 
and  alone  I  shall  set  this  ball  in  motion.''  As  a  further 
illustration,  I  think  the  west,  if  they  gain  this  so  much 
desired  end,  at  the  expense  of  a  constitution  framed  up- 


144 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


on  the  principle  indicated,  they  will  have  gaiued  noth- 
ing, or  worse  than  nothing. 

1  know  that  I  have  been  very  irregular,  very  desulto- 
ry. It  is  not  my  habit  to  speak  from  notes — in  fact  I 
cannot  speak  from  them.  Possibly  1  have  not  pursued 
a  very  connected  course  of  discussion.  The  subject  is 
one  which  is  very  large,  one  surely  not  exhausted,  and 
indeed  one  hardly  opened  in  the  feeble  effort  1  ha\  enow 
made.  There  were  these  considerations  that  pressed 
upon  my  mind  and  I  felt  that  it  was  my  duty  to  meet 
the  positions  taken  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  the 
gentieman  from  Accomac  and  other  gentlemen  who  have 
spoken  upon  that  side  of  the  question, — and  whether  I 
thought  it  a  matter  of  importance  or  not,  to  meet  them 
at  the  threshold  and  express  my  opposition  to  them  with 
some  of  the  reasons  which  governed  that  opposition,  1 
have  done  so  very  imperfectly.  I  thank  the  Convention 
most  earnestly  for  the  attention  which  they  have  given 
me,  and  if  I  do  not  say,  like  the  gentleman  who  pre- 
ceded me,  that  I  will  not  trouble  their  attention  again, 
I  will  do  it  as  seldom  as  it  is  possible  fur  me  to  contain 
myself 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  do  not  rise  to  trespass  upon  the  time 
of  the  committee,  but  merely  to  correct  my  friend  from 
Powhatan  (Mr.  Hopkins)  in  the  statement  he  made  in 
reference  to  the  action  of  the  last  Convention  on  this 
subject  The  executive  committee  of  that  Convention 
made  a  report  in  which  nothing  was  said  about  the  in- 
eligibility of  the  Governor.  As  soon  as  that  report  was 
submitted,  Mr.  Giles,  being  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee making  it,  a  substitute  was  offered  by  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  the  Valley,  (Mr.  Powell,)  and 
another  was  offered  by  a  distinguished  gentleman  from 
the  western  portion  of  the  State,  both  recognizing  the 
principle  of  ineligibility  after  the  Governor  had  served 
a  term  or  more.  Both  of  these  gentlemen,  champions 
of  the  extension  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  belonging  to 
the  western  part  of  the  State,  proposed  substitutes  to 
the  proposition  of  the  executive  committee,  which  impos- 
ed no  restraint  upon  the  election  of  the  Governor.  It 
is  true  Mr.  Doddridge  proposed  an  amendment  in  which 
nothing  was  said  about  the  ineligibility,  but  it  was  to  a 
clause  of  that  report  of  the  committee,  which  merely 
said  that  the  chief  executive  should  be  elected  by  the 
Legislature.  Mr.  Doddridge  presented  the  competing 
proposition  that  the  Governor  should  be  elected  by  the 
people.  And  that  was  the  only  question  that  was  up. 
Afterwards  Mr.  Doddridge  offered  this  proposition  : 

"  That  the  Governor  be  elected  by  the  persons  quali- 
fied to  vote  for  members  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  at 
the  several  times  and  places  appointed  to  hold  elections 
for  members  of  the  General  Assembly.  The  Governor 
shall  hold  his  office  for  years,  and  after  the  expira- 
tion of  his  time,  shall  be  ineligible  for  years." 

Now,  so  far  from  Doddridge's  proposition  having 
been  voted  down,  the  proposition  which  he  originally 
submitted,  and  carrying  along  with  it  the  principle  of 
re-eligibility,  the  reverse  was  the  fact.  The  only  com- 
peting propositions  before  the  Convention  were,  whether 
the  election  should  be  by  the  legislature,  or  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan  seeks  to  make 
an  impression  that  he  afterwards  offered  the  proposition 
which  he  did,  because  he  was  constrained  to  do  it  by 
the  action  of  the  Convention  at  a  former  time,  when 
there  was  not  anything  in  the  action  of  the  Convention 
at  that  time  which  could  be  considered  at  all  at  variance 
with  that  restriction.  My  object  was  not  to  trespass 
upon  the  time,  of  the  committee,  for  I  feel  that  I  have 
already  trespassed  upon  it  too  often.  But  I  hope  the 
committee  will  pardon  me  for  correcting  here  another 
error  of  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan.  That  gentle- 
man read  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  to  prove 
that  Mr.  Jefferson  was  opposed  to  this  principle  of  in- 
eligibility. Now,  Mr.  Jefferson  prepared  a  plan  of  a 
constitution  in  the  summer  of  1783,  which  is  directly 
at  variance  with  that  statement.  I  will  read  as  evi- 
dence, the  following  extract  from  Mr.  Jefferson's  Works : 


"In  the  summer  of  the  year  1783,  it  was  expected 
that  the  assembly  of  Virginia  would  call  a  convention 
for  the  establishment  of  a  constitution.  The  following 
draft  of  a  fundamental  constitution  for  the  Common- 
wealth of  Virginia  was  then  prepared,  with  a  design  of 
being  proposed  in  such  convention  had  it  taken  place  : 

4  4  4  The  executive  powers  shall  be  exercised  by  a  gov- 
ernor, who  shall  be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  of  both  houses 
of  assembly,  and  when  chosen,  shall  remain  in  office 
five  years,  and  be  ineligible  a  second  time.'  " 

My  only  object  was  to  correct  the  statement  of  the 
gentleman  from  Powhatan,  made  under  the  impression 
that  he  had  a  correct  view  of  the  matter.  I  think  that 
a  reference  to  the  opinions  of  this  distinguished  man 
will  show  that  I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  views  I  take. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.    Mr.  Chairman  

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  the 
floor  for  a  moment  for  an  explanation  ? 

Mr.  TREDWAY.    If  it  is  a  short  one. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  It  is  a  short  one.  I  only  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact, 
that  the  amendment  referred  to,  offered  by  Mr.  Dod- 
dridge, was  offered  after  the  one  which  I  read  to  the 
Convention.  His  first  proposition  was  to  amend  in  this 
way  : 

44  To  be  elected  once  in  every  three  years,  at  the  time 
of  the  general  annual  elections,  by  the  persons  qualified 
to  vote  for  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  general 
assembly." 

That  is  the  proposition  upon  which  there  was  an  equal 
vote.  Afterwards  he  offered  the  proposition  to  which 
the  gentleman  has  referred.  And  while  I  am  up,  as  the 
gentleman  referred  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  authority,  I  beg 
leave  to  give  some  authority  from  the  same  source. 
The  draft  of  the  constitution  he  (Mr.  Leake)  referred  to, 
was  one  prepared  by  Mr.  Jefferson  at  an  e  .  rly  period. 
Here  we  will  see  what  Mi-  Jefferson  said  of  that  draft  in 
1816: 

"  At  the  birth  of  our  Republic,  I  committed  that  opin- 
ion to  the  world  in  the  draft  of  a  constitute  n  annexed 
to  the  "  Notes  on  Virginia,  "  in  which  a  provision  was  in- 
serted for  a  representation  permanently  equal.  The  in- 
fancy of  the  subject  at  that  moment,  and  our  inexperi- 
ence at  self-government,  caused  gross  departures  in  that 
draft  from  genuine  republican  canons." — A  frank  and 
manly  admission  that  he  was  in  error. — "  In  truth,  "  said 
he,  4'  the  basis  of  monarchy  had  so  much  filled  up  the 
space  of  political  contemplation  that  we  imagined  ev- 
ery thing  republican  that  was  not  monarchical." 

So  that  we  see  here,  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  maturer 
years,  in  1816,  admitting  that  there  were  gross  depar- 
tures from  the  true  republican  canons  in  the  draft  of  the 
Constitution  to  which  my  friend  from  Goochland  refers. 
That  is  all  I  desire  to  say. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  I  do  not  desiie  to  detain  the  com- 
mittee long,  if  I  address  it  ou  the  subject  before  them, 
and  in  making  the  motion  which  I  submit  now,  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  that  I  wish  on  to-morrow  to  de- 
tain them  with  any  elaborate  or  lengthened  argument  on 
the  subject.  But  there  are  considerations  to  present, 
and  which  I  have  not  time  to  present  now,  which  indu- 
ces me  to  submit,  at  this  time,  a  motion  that  the  com- 
mittee now  rise.  * 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

REPORT  OX  THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &C. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  committee  appointed  to  take 
into  consideration  the  subject  of  a  proper  basis  of  repre 
sentation,  and  to  make  a  proper  apportionment  of  re- 
presentation, have  had  the  subject  referred  to  them  un- 
der consideration,  and  have  instructed  me  to  make  a  re- 
port thereon,  which  report  I  am  now  ready  to  make,  or 
at  any  time  at  which  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Con- 
vention to  receive  it. 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.    Let  us  have  it  now. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


145 


Mr.  LETCHER.  I  move  that  the  reading  of  the  re- 
port be  dispeused  with,  and  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table 
an  1  printed. 

MANY  MEMBERS.    Oh  no,  let  us  hear  it  read. 

The  report  was  then  read — Mr.  Letcher's  motion 
being  withdrawn — by  the  Secretary,  as  follows: 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OX  THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESEN- 
TATION". 

The  Committee  appointed  to  consider  and  report  a 
proper  Basis  of  Representation  in  the  two  Houses  of 
the  General  Assembly,  and  to  make  a  proper  appor- 
tionment of  representation  among  the  people  of  the 
commonwealth,  &c,  have,  according  to  order,  had  mi- 
ller consideration  in  part  the  matters  to  them  referred, 
and  respectfully  submit  the  following  report  thereupon: 

Upon  the  question  of  the  basis  of  representation,  the 
Committee  has  found  itself  equally  divided  in  opinion, 
twelve  of  its  members  agreeing  and  adhering  to  one 
principle  of  representation,  and  the  other  twelve  mem- 
bers agreeing  and  adherring  to  another  and  different  prin- 
ciple. Each  moiety  of  the  committee  has  prepared  an 
apportionment  and  distribution  of  senators  and  delegates 
upon  the  principle  of  representation  proposed  by  them 
respectively. 

The  Convention  having,  by  the  resolution  creating  the 
committee,  directed  it  "  to  make  a  proper  apportionment 
of  representation  among  the  people  of  the  Common- 
wealth," we  have  considered  ourselves  as  necessarily 
authorized  to  fix  the  numbers,  of  which  the  two  branches 
of  the  General  Assembly  shall  consist,  inasmuch  as  no 
apportionment  could  be  made  or  proposed,  without  first 
ascertaining  the  whole  number  of  representatives  to  be 
apportioned. 

There  is  a  general  concurrence  of  opinion  in  the  com- 
mittee, that  it  will  be  found  necessary  to  enlarge  the  pre- 
sent number  of  senators  and  delegates,  but  there  is  a  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  increase  which 
should  be  made.  One  moiety  of  the  committee  propose 
that  the  house  of  delegates  shall  consis't  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  members,  and  that  the  senate  shall  consist  ol 
fifty-one  members, — the  other  moiety  of  the  committee 

Kropose  that  the  house  of  delegates  shall  consist  of  one 
undred  and  fifty-six  members,  and  that  the  senate  shall 
consist  of  thirty-six  members,  the  latter  being  an  in- 
crease of  the  senate  in  the  precise  ratio  of  the  increase 
proposed  for  the  house. 

In  this  state  of  divided  opinion,  the  committee,  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  has  determined  to  report  both  these 
plaus  of  representation  and  apportionment  to  the  Con- 
vention, and  to  ask  that  they  be  received  as  competing 
propositions,  to  be  disposed  of  in  such  manner  as  to  the 
wisdom  of  the  Convention  may  seem  best. 

They  are  accordingly  herewith  presented,  the  one  be- 
ing marked  A,  for  the  purpose  of  designation,  and  the 
other  being  marked  B. 

(A.) 

Sec.  1.  The  Legislature  shall  be  formed  of  two  dis- 
tinct branches,  which  together,  shall  be  a  complete  le- 
gislature and  shall  be  called  the  General  Assembly  of 
Virginia. 

2.  One  of  these  shall  be  called  the  House  of  Delegates, 
and  shall  consist  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  to 
be  chosen  biennially  for  and  by  the  several  counties, 
cities  and  towns  of  the  commonwealth,  whereof  the 
counties  of  Charles  City,  New  Kent  and  James  City 
shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of 
Elizabeth  City,  Warwick,  and  York  and  the  city  of 
Williamsburg  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the 
counties  of  Lancaster  and  Northumberland  shall  to- 
gether elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Richmond 
and  Westmoreland  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ; 
the  counties  of  Matthews  and  Middlesex  shall  togeth- 
er elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Prince  George 
and  Surry  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Southampton  and  Greensville  shall  together 
elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Orange  and 
Greene  shall  together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Alexandria,  Amelia,  Amherst,  Appomattox, 
Brunswick,  Buckingham,  Campbell,  Caroline,  Char- 
10 


lotte,  Cuipeper,  Cumberland,  Dimviddie,  Essex,  Fair- 
fax, Fluvanna,  Goochland,  Gloucester,  Hanover,  Hen- 
rico, Henry,  Isle  of  Wight,  King  George,  King  and  Queen, 
King  "William,  Lunenburg,  Louisa,  Madison.  Nansemond, 
Nelson,  Northampton,  Nottoway,  Patrick,  Powhatan, 
Prince  Edward,  Princess  Ann,  Prince  William,  Rappa- 
hannock, Spottsylvania,  Stafford,  Sussex,  and  the  town 
of  Lynchburg  shall  each  elect  one  delegate  :  the  coun- 
ties ©f  Accomack,  Albemarle,  Bedford,  Chesterfield, 
Fauquier,  Franklin,  Halifax,  Mecklenburg,  Pittsylva- 
nia. Norfolk,  and  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Petersburg 
shall  each  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  county  of  Loudoun 
shall  elect  three  delegates,  and  Richmond  city  shall 
elect  four  delegates' :  the  counties  of  Morgan  and 
Hampshire  shall  together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the 
counties  of  Bath  and  Alleghany  shall  together  elect  one 
delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Highland  and  Pendleton  shall 
together  elect  one  delegate  :  the  counties  of  Clarke, 
Hardy,  Page,  Ptoanoke  and  Warren  shall  each  elect  one 
delegatj  :  the  counties  of  Berkeley,  Frederick,  Bote- 
tourt, Jefferson,  Rockbridge  and  Shenandoah  shall  each 
elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Rockingham  «and 
Augusta  shall  each  elect  three  delegates  :  the  counties 
of  Grayson  and  Carroll  shall  together  elect  one  dele- 
gate ;  the  counties  of  Giles  and  Mercer  shall  together 
elect  one  delegate  :  the  counties  of  Logan,  Boone,  Wy- 
oming and  Raleigh  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ; 
the  counties  of  Cabell  and  Wayne  shall  together  elect 
one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Fayette  and  Nicholas 
shall  together  elect  one  delegate  :  the  counties  of  Brax- 
ton and  Gilmer  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the 
counties  of  Wirt  and  Ritchie  shall  together  elect  one 
delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Randolph  and  Pocahontas 
shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Tyler 
and  Wetzel  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Kanawha  and  Putnam  shall  together  elect  two 
delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Doddridge  and  Harrison 
shall  together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Bar- 
bour, Brooke,  Floyd,  Greenbrier,  Hancock,  Jackson, 
Lee,  Lewis,  Marion,  Marshall,  Mason,  Monroe,  Mont- 
gomery, Preston,  Pulaski,  Russell,  S  my  the,  Scott,  Taze- 
well, Taylor,  Wood  and  Wythe  shall  each  elect  one  dele- 
gate, and  the  counties  of  Washington,  Monongalia  and 
Ohio  shall  each  elect  two  delegates. 

3.  The  other  house  of  the  general  assembly  shall  be 
called  tne  Senate  and  shall  consist  of  fifty-one  members, 
for  the  election  ©f  whom  the  counties,  cities,  and  towns 
shall  be  divided  into  fifty-one  districts,  as  hereinafter 
provided  :  Each  county  of  the  respective  districts  at 
the  time  of  its  first  election  of  its  delegate  or  delegates , 
under  this  constitution,  shall  vote  for  one  senator,  and 
the  sheriffs  of  the  county,  city,  or  town,  within  five 
days  at  furthest  after  the  last  county,  city  or  town  elec- 
tion in  the  district,  shall  meet  at  some  convenient  place, 
and  from  the  polls  so  taken  in  their  respective  counties, 
cities  or  towns,  return  as  a  senator  th?  person  who  shall 
have  the  greatest  number  of  votes  in  the  whole  district. 
To  keep  up  the  senate  by  rotation,  the  districts  shall  be 
divided  into  two  classes  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be  and 
numbered  by  lot.  At  the  end  of  two  years  after  the 
first  general  election,  the  members  elected  by  the  first 
division  shall  be  displaced  and  the  vacancies  thereby 
occasioned,  supplied  from  such  class  or  division  by  a 
new  election  in  the  manner  aforesaid.  This  rotation 
shall  be  applied  to  each  division  according  to  its  num- 
ber, and  continued  in  due  order  biennially.  And  for 
the  election  of  senators,  the  counties  of  Accomack, 
Northampton,  Elizabeth  City,  Warwick  and  York  shall 
form  one  district ;  the  counties  of  Matthews,  Glouces- 
ter, Middlesex,  Lancaster  and  Northumberland  shall 
form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Richmond,  West- 
moreland, King  George  and  Stafford  shall  form  anoth- 
er district ;  Richmond  city  shall  form  another  district; 
the  counties  of  Henrico,  James  City  and  Charles  City 
shall  form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of  New  Kent, 
King  William,  King  and  Queen  and  Essex  shall  form  an- 
other district;  the  counties  of  Caroline  and  Spottsylvania 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Hanovtr, 
Goochland  and  Fluvanna  shall  form  another  district  ; 
the  counties  of  Louisa,  Orange  and  Green©  shall  foim 


146 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVEiYliorv. 


another  district ;  the  county  of  Albemarle  shall  form 
another  district  ;  the  counties  of  Madison,  Cuipeper  and 
Rappahannock  shall  form  another  district ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Fauquier  and  Prince  William  shall  form  another 
district  ;  the  counties  of  Fairfax  and  Alexandria  shall 
form  another  district ;  the  county  of  Loudoun  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  county  of  Princess  Ann  and  the 
city  of  Norfolk  shall  form  another  district ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Norfolk  and  Nansemond  shall  form  another  dis- 
trict ;  the  counties  ef  Isle  of  Wight,  Southampton  and 
Sussex  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Sur- 
ry and  Prince  George  and  the  city  of  Petersburg  shall 
form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Dinwiddie, 
Brunswick  and  Greensville  shall  form  another  district  ; 
the  counties  of  Chesterfield,  Powhatan  and  Amelia  shall 
form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Nottoway.  Prince 
Edward  and  Lunenburg  shall  form  another'  district ; 
the  counties  of  Mecklenburg  and  Charlotte  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Campbell  and  Appo- 
mattox and  the  town  of  Lynchburg  shall  form  another 
district ;  the  counties  of  Buckingham,  Cumberland  and 
Nelson  shall  form  another  district ;  the  county  of  Hali- 
fax shall  form  another  district ;  the  county  of  Pittsyl- 
vania shall  form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of  Pat- 
rick, Henry  and  Franklin  shall  form  another  district ; 
the  counties  of  Bedford  and  Amherst  shall  form  anoth- 
er district;  the  counties  of  Roanoke,  Botetourt  and 
Alleghany  shall  form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of 
Rockbridge,  Bath,  Highland  and  Pendleton  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  county  of  Augusta  shall  form  an- 
other district ;  the  county  of  Rockingham  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Page  and  Shenandoah 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Warren 
and  Frederick  shall  form  another  district  ;  the  counties 
of  Clarke  and  Jefferson  shall  form  another  district ; 
the  counties  of  Berkeley  and  Morgan  shall  form  another 
district ;  the  counties  of  Hampshire  and  Hardy  shall 
form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Lee,  Scott  and 
Russell  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of 
Washington  and  Smythe  shall  form  another  district ; 
the  counties  of  Wythe,  Pulaski  and  Tazewell  shall 
form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of  Montgomery, 
Floyd,  Carroll  and  Grayson  shall  form  another  district : 
the  counties  of  Giles,  Mercer  and  Monroe  shall  form 
another  district  ;  the  counties  of  Logan,  Boone,  Wyo- 
ming, Raleigh,  Cabell,  Wayne  and  Fayette  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Kanawha,  Putnam 
and  Mason  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of 
Greenbrier,  Nicholas,  Pocahontas  and  Braxton  shall 
form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of  Jackson,  Wood, 
Wirt,  Gilmer  and  Ritchie  shall  form  another  district  ; 
the  counties  of  Hancock,  Brooke  and  Ohio  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Marshall,  Tyler  and 
Wetzel  shall  form  another  district  ;  the  counties  of 
Doddridge,  Harrison  and  Lewis  shall  form  another  dis- 
trict ;  the  counties  of  Marion,  Monongalia  and  Taylor 
shall  form  another  district,  and  the  counties  of  Pres- 
ton. Randolph  and  Barbour  shall  form  another  dis- 
trict. 

4.  The  General  Assembly  after  the  year  1862,  and  at 
intervals  thereafter  of  not  less  than  ten  years,  shall  re- 
apportion the  representation  of  the  counties,  cities  and 
towns  of  this  commonwealth,  in  both  legislative  bodies, 
according  to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants- contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  raised  by  the  legislature, 
paid  in  each,  deducting  therefrom  all  taxes  paid  on  li- 
censes and  law  process.  In  making  such  re-apportion- 
ment, there  shall  be  allowed  one  delegate  for  every  sev- 
enty fifth  part  of  the  said  inhabitants,  and  one  delegate 
for  every  seventy  fifth  part  of  the  said  taxes,  and  the 
senators  shall  be  distributed  in  like  manner. 

5.  In  every  re-apportionment  of  representation  in 
the  general  assembly  under  this  amended  constitution, 
the  amount  of  taxes  shall  be  estimated  from  the  aver- 
age of  the  ten  preceding  years. 

6.  The  whole  number  of  members  to  which  the  State 
may  at  any  time  be  entitled  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States,  shall  be  apportioned  as  near- 
ly as  may  be  amongst  the  several  cities,  counties  and 


towns,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of 
free  persons,  excluding  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  including  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of 
all  other  persons. 

(B.) 

Sec.  1.  The  legislature  thai!  be  formed  of  two  distinct 
branches,  which  together,  shall  be  a  complete  legislature, 
and  shall  be  called  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia. 

2.  One  of/these  shall  be  called  the  House  of  Delegates, 
and  shall  consist  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  members, 
to  be  chosen  biennially  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
several  counties  and  cities  of  the  commonwealth;  and 
the  other  of  these  shall  be  called  the  Senate,  and  shall 
consist  of  thirty-six  members,  to  be  chosen  in  like  man- 
ner, and  to  continue  in  office  for  four  years. 

3.  The  qualification  necessary  to  confer  the  right  of 
suffrage  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  commonwealth, 
so  that  in  all  elections  of  senators  and  delegates,  the 
same  qualification  shall  confer  the  same  right  of  suf- 
frage ;  and  the  suffrage  of  one  qualified  voter  shall  avail 
as  much  as  that  of  another  qualified  voter,  whatever  may 
be  the  difference  in  value  of  the  property  owned  by 
them  respectively. 

4.  As  individual  suffrage  should  be  equal  without  re- 
spect to  the  difference  of  individual  wealth,  so  an  equal 
number  of  qualified  voters  shall  be  entitled  to  equal 
representation,  without  regard  to  their  aggregate 
wealth. 

5.  Representation  shall  be  equal  and  uniform  in 
this  commonwealth,  and  shall  always  be  regulated 
and  ascertained  by  the  number  of  qualified  voters 
therein. 

6.  In  the  year  1855,  and  in  every  tenth  year  there- 
after, an  enumeration  of  all  the  qualified  voters  within 
the  commonwealth  shall  be  made  ;  at  the  several  ses- 
sions of  the  general  assembly  which  shall  be  held  next 
after  the  making  of  such  enumerations,  the  number  of 
senators  and  delegates  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  districts,  counties  and  cities,  as  near  as  may  be, 
according  to  the  number  of  qualified  voters  in  each  ; 
and  until  such  first  enumeration  and  apportionment  shall 
be  made,  the  number  of  delegates  shall  be  apportioned 
and  distributed  as  follows,  to  wit :  the  city  of  Richmond 
and  the  county  of  Henrico  shall  together  elect  four 
delegates ;  the  counties  of  Loudoun,  Augusta,  Rocking- 
ham and  Ohio,  shall  each  elect  three  delegates ;  the 
counties  of  Accomack,  Norfolk,  Campbell,  Halifax,  Pitt- 
sylvania, Bedford,  Franklin.  Albemarle,  Fauquier,  Berke- 
ley, Jefferson,  Frederick, Hampshire,  Shenandoah,  Rock- 
bridge, Pre-ton,  Monongalia,  Marshall,  Harrison,  Marion, 
Russel,  Washington  and  Kanawha  shall  each  elect  two 
delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Botetourt  and  Alleghany 
shall  together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of 
Greenbrier  and  Pocahontas  shall  together  elect  two 
delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Monroe  and  Mercer  shall 
together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Wood 
and  Wirt  shall  together  elect  two  delegates  ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Gilmer  and  Lewis  shall  together  elect  two  dele- 
gates ;  and  the  counties  of  Wythe  and  Pulaski  shall  to- 
gether elect  two  delegates  ;  the  counties  of  Northamp- 
ton, Princess  Anne,  Nansemond,  Isle  of  Wight,  South- 
ampton, Brunswick,  Dinwiddie,  Chesterfield,  Mecklen- 
burg, Lunenburg,  Prince  Edward,  Appomattox,  Char- 
lotte. Buckingham,  Patrick,  Henry,  Hanover,  Louisa, 
Goochland,  Fluvanna,  Nelson,  Amherst,  Madison, 
Culpeper,  Rappahannock,  Spottsylvania,  Caroline, 
Gloucester,  Matthews,  Prince  William,  Alexandria, 
Fairfax,  Morgan,  Clarke,  Warren,  Page,  Hardy,  Pen- 
dleton, Roanoke,  Hancock,  Brooke,  Wetzel,  Tyler, 
Taylor,  Barbour,  Braxton,  Nicholas,  Randolph,  Jack- 
son, Mason,  Putnam,  Cabell,  Wayne,  Giles,  Montgom- 
ery, Floyd,  Carroll,  Grayson,  Tazewell  and  Smythe, 
and  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Petersburg,  shall  each 
elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Greenesville  and  Sus- 
sex shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of 
Prince  George  and  Surry  shall  together  elect  one  dele- 
gate ;  the  counties  of  Amelia  and  Nottoway  shall  togeth- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


147 


er  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Cumberland  and; 
Powhatan  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties 
of  Warwick,  Elizabeth  City  and  York  shall  together  elect 
one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Charles  City,  New  Kent, 
James  City  and  the  city  of  Williamsburg  shall  together 
elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Orange  and  Greene 
shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  King 
William  and  King  and  Queen  shall  together  elect  one 
delegate  :  the  counties  of  Essex  and  Middlesex  shall 
together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Lancaster 
and  Northumberland  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  : 
the  counties  of  Richmond  and  Westmoreland  shall  to- 
gether elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  King  George 
•and  Stafford  shall  together  elect  one  delegate.:  the  coun- 
ties of  Highland  and  Bath  shall  together  elect  one  dele- 
gate ;  the  counties  of  Doddridge  and  Ritchie  shall  to- 
gether elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties  of  Logan  and 
Boone  shall  together  elect  one  delegate  ;  the  counties 
of  Fayette,  Wyoming  and  Raleigh  shall  together  elect 
one  delegate ;  and  the  counties  of  Scott  and  Lee 
shall  each  elect  one  delegate,  and  shall  together  elect  one 
delegate. 

7  For  the  election  of  senators,  the  several  counties 
and'  cities  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-six  districts,  com- 
posed of  contiguous  territory  and  as  compact  in  form  as 
may  be.  Each  county  and  city  of  the  respective  dis- 
tricts at  the  time  of  its  first  election  of  its  delegate  or 
delegates  under  this  constitution  shall  vote  for  one 
senator,  and  the  sheriffs  or  other  officers  holding  the 
election  for  each  county  and  city  within  five  days  at 
furthest  after  the  last  county  or  city  election  in  the 
district,  shall  meet  at  some  convenient  place,  and  from 
the  polls  so  taken  in  their  respective  counties  or  cities, 
return  as  a  senator  for  the  person  who  shall  have  the 
greatest  number  of  votes  in  the  whole  district.  Imme- 
diately after  the  senators  shall  be  assembled,  in  conse- 
quence of  such  election,  they  shall  be  divided  by  lot 
into  two  classes.  The  seats  of  the  senators  of  the  first 
class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  expiration  of  the  second 
year,  and  of  the  second  class  at  the  expiration  of  the 
fourth  year  after  such  first  election,  and  this  rotation 
shall  be"  continued  biennially,  so  that  one-half  may  be 
chosen  every  second  year. 

And  until  the  first  enumeration  and  apportionment 
herein  before  provided  shall  have  been  made,  the  coun- 
ties of  Ohio,  Brooke,  and  Hancock  shall  form  one  dis- 
trict; the  counties  of  Monongalia  and  Preston  shall 
form  another  district;  the  counties  of  Tyler,  Wetzel, 
Marshall,  and  Doddridge  shall  form  another  district;  the 
counties  of  Harrison,  Taylor,  and  Marion  shall  form 
another  district;  the  counties  of  Randolph,  Barbour, 
Lewis,  and  Braxton  shall  form  another  district ;  the 
counties  of  Wood,  Wirt,  Ritchie,  Jackson,  and  Gilmer 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Kanawha, 
Putnam  and  Mason  shall  form  another  district;  the 
counties  of  Monroe,  Greenbrier,  Nicholas  and  Pocahontas 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Cabell, 
Wayne,  Logan,  Boone,  Fayette,  Raleigh  and  Wyoming 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Floyd, 
Pulaski,  Montgomery,  Giles  and  Mercer  shall  form  an- 
other district  ;  the  counties  of  Wythe,  Carroll  and  Taze- 
well shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Wash- 
ington, Smythe  and  Grayson  shall  form  another  district; 
the  counties  of  Lee,  Scoit  and  Russell  shall  form  another 
district;  the  counties  of  Botetourt,  Roanoke  and  Rock- 
bridge shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Au- 
gusta, Alleghany  and  Bath  shall  form  another  district; 
the  counties  of  Rockingham,  Pendleton  and  Highland 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Shenandoah, 
Hardy  and  Page  shall  form  another  district ;  the  coun- 
ties of  Frederick,  Hampshire  and  Warren  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Berkeley,  Jefferson, 
Clarke  and  Morgan  shall  form  another  district ;  the 
counties  of  Loudoun,  Fairfax  and  Alexandria  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  Fauquier,  Rappahan- 
nock and  Prince  William  shall  form  another  district ;  the 
counties  of  Culpeper,  Spottsylvania,  Madison,  Greene 
and  Orange  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of 


Albemarle,  Nelson  and  Amherst  shall  form  another  dis- 
trict ;  the  counties  of  Hanover,  Goochland,  Louisa,  Flu- 
vanna and  King  William  shall  form  another  district;  the 
city  of  Richmond  and  the  county  of  Henrico  shall  form 
another  district ;  the  counties  of  New  Kent,  Charles 
City,  York,  Elizabeth  City,  vTarwick,  Northampton, 
Accomack,  James  City,  and  the  city  of  Williamsburg 
shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  Stafford, 
King  George,  Yfestmoreland,  Richmond,  Northumber- 
land and  Lancaster  shall  form  another  district;  the 
counties  of  Caroline,  Essex,  King  and  Queen,  Middlesex, 
Gloucester  and  Matthews  shall  form  another  district; 
the  counties  of-  Norfolk,  Princess  Anne,  and  the  city  of 
Norfolk  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of  South- 
ampton, Sussex,  Prince  George,  Surry,  Isle  of  Wight  and 
Nansemond  shall  form  another  district;  the  counties  of 
Nottoway,  Lunenburg,  Brunswick,  Mecklenburg  and 
Greenesviile  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties  of 
Powhatan,  Amelia,  Ch  ^erneld,  Dinwiddie  and  the  city, 
of  Petersburg  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties 
Buckingham,  Appomattox,  Cumberland,  Prince  Edward 
and  Charlotte  shall  form  another  district ;  the  counties 
of  Bedford  and  Campbell  shall  form  another  district; 
the  counties  of  Pittsylvania  and  Halifax  shall  form  an- 
other district ;  the  counties  of  Franklin,  Henry  and 
Patrick  shall  form  another  district ;  and  each  of  said 
districts  shall  be  entitled  to  elect  one  senator. 

8.  When  a  new  county  shall  hereafter  be  created,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  make  pro- 
vision, by  law,  for  securing  to  the  people  of  such  new 
county  an  adequate  representation,  which  provision 
shall  continue  until  the  next  regular  decimal  re-appor- 
tionment ;  but  this  section  shall  not  authorize  an  in- 
crease of  senators  or  delegates  beyond  the  numbers 
hereinbefore  prescribed. 

AN  APPORTIONMENT  FOR  A  SENATE  OF  FIFTY-TWO  MEMBERS, 
TO  ACCOMPANY  B. 

Accomack,  Northampton,  York,  James  City,  Wil- 
liamsburg and  Charles  City  one  district ;  Elizabeth  City, 
Warwick,  Norfolk  city  and  Princess  Anne  another  dis- 
trict ;  Norfolk  county  and  Nansemond  another  district ; 
Isle  of  Wight,  Southampton,  Sussex,  Surry  and  Greenes- 
viile another  district ;  Prince  George,  Petersburg  and 
Chesterfield  another  district  ;  Mecklenburg,  Bruns- 
wick and  Lunenburg  another  district  ;  Dinwiddie,  Not- 
toway, Amelia,  Powhatan  and  Prince  Edward  another 
district ;  Cumberland,  Buckingham,  Appomattox  and 
Fluvanna  another  district ;  Franklin  and  Henry  an- 
other district  ;  Pittsylvania  another  district  ;  Halifax 
and  Charlotte  another  district ;  Bedford  another  dis- 
trict ;  Campbell  and  Amherst  another  district ;  Albe- 
marle and  Nelson  another  district ;  Richmond  city  an- 
other district ;  New  Kent,  Henrico  and  Hanover  an- 
other district  ;  Goochland,  Louisa  and  Spottsylvania 
another  district  ;  Orange,  Greene,  Madison  and  Cul- 
peper another  district ;  Rappahannock  and  Fauquier 
another  district  ;  Loudoun  another  district ;  Alexan- 
dria, Fairfax  and  Prince  William  another  district  ; 
Stafford,  King  George  and  Caroline  another  district ; 
Essex,  Westmoreland,  Richmond,  Northumberland  and 
Lancaster,  another  district  ;  Matthews,  Middlesex, 
Gloucester,  King  and  Queen  and  King  William  anoth- 
er district ;  Botetourt  and  Roanoke  another  district  ; 
Alleghany,  Bath  and  Rockbridge  another  district  ;  Au- 
gusta another  district ;  Rockingham  another  district ; 
Highland,  Pendleton  and  Hardy  another  district ; 
Shenandoah  and  Page  another  district ;  Frederick, 
Clarke  and  Warren  another  district ;  Hampshire  and 
Morgan  another  district ;  Jefferson  and  Berkeley  an- 
other district  ;  Ohio  another  district ;  Brooke,  Han- 
cock and  Marshall  another  district  ;  Monongalia  and 
Wetzel  another  district ;  Marion  and  Tyler  another 
district ;  Preston  and  Taylor  another  district ;  Harri- 
son and  Barbour  another  district  ;  Lewis,  Randolph 
and  Braxton  another  district ;  Doddridge,  Ritchie, 
Wood  and  Gilmer  another  district ;  Mason,  Jackson 
and  Wirt  another  district ;  Kanawha  and  Putnam  an- 
other district ;  Greenbrier,  Nicholas  and  Pocahontas 


148 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


another  district  :  Cabell,  Wayne*  Logan,  Boone  and 
Wyoming  another  district ;  Monroe,  Mercer,  Raleigh 
and  Fayette  another  district  ;  Montgomery,  Pulaski  and 
Giles  another  district  ;  Patrick,  Floyd  and  Carroll  an- 
ether  district ;  Grayson  and  W^the  another  district; 
Smythe  and  Washington  another  district ;  Tazewell  and 
R.ussell  another  district ;  and  Scott  and  Lee  another 
district. 

The  report  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

PRINTING  OF  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  BASIS  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  MARTIN.  I  move  that  five  hundred  extra  copies 
of  the  report  and  accompanying  documents  just  present- 
ed  by  the  Committee  ou  the  Basis,  be  printed  for  the  use 
of  the  Convention. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — ayes 
48,  nays  32. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
at  12,  M. 


FRfDA  Y.  February  7, 1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Empie  of  the  Episcopal  church. 
The,  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

CORRECTION  OF  THE  CENSUS  RETURNS. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  desire  to  bring  to  the  notice  of 
the  Convention  an  error  which  I  have  discovered  in  the 
tabular  statement,  showing  the  population  of  each 
county  in  the  commonwealth,  in  regard  to  my  own 
county.  It  is  an  error  which  I  have  discovered  since 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  and  Appor- 
tionment, and  I  desire  simply  to  correct  it,  in  order 
that  the  true  statement  may  appear  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  body.  I  find  that  the  tabular  statement  re- 
ferred to,  reports  the  county  of  Spottsylvania,  inclu- 
ding the  town  of  Fredericksburg,  as  containing  5,237 
whites.  The  true  statement,  as  proved  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  census  returns,  and  which  I  have  obtained 
from  the  auditor,  and  certified  to  by  him,  is  as  fol- 
lows : 


Free  white. 

F.  col'd. 

Slaves. 

Total. 

County,  4,315 

251 

6,308 

10,853 

Fredericksburg,  2,581 

306 

1,176 

4,062 

6,896 

557 

7,484 

14,915 

This  statement  shows  the  number  of  free  white  in- 
habitants to  be  6,896,  making  a  difference  of  1,659  in 
favor  of  the  county,  as  compared  with  the  statement  in 
the  tabular  statement.  1  call  this  matter  to  the  notice 
of  the  Convention,  not  only  because  I  desire  to  correct 
a  statement  which  is  to  go  forth  to  the  people  at  large, 
but  because  I  think  it  important  that  other  members  of 
this  Convention  should  verify,  by  examination,  the  cen- 
sus returns.  I  understand  fr.un  the  auditor  that  the 
correction  will  appear  in  the  statement  called  for  by 
the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Frederick,  (Mr. 
Byrd,)  which  will  be  furnished  in  a  day  or  two. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  am  instructed  by  the 
Committee  on  Education  and  Public  Instruction,  to 
make  a  report,  which  I  ask  may  be  read,  laid  on  the 
table,  and  printed. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  committee  on  education  and  public  instruction 
make  the  following  report: 

1.  The  Legislature  shall  provide  by  law  for  popular 
instruction. 

2.  The  Legislature  shall  cause  each  county,  city  and 
town,  to  be  laid  off  into  districts  of  convenient  size,  and 
shall  by  law  enable  the  heads  of  families  and  tax-payers 
within  such  districts  to  elect  to  have  common  and  pri- 
mary free  schools ;  shall  provide  for  the  election  of 
commissioners  for  the  same  ;  and  shall  enable  said  dis- 
tricts to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  under  proper  limitations, 
in  such  mode  as  they  for  themselves  may  adopt,  for  the 
support  of  such  schools. 


3.  The  loans  to  the  University,  to  Emory  and  Henry 
College,  to  Richmond  Medical  College,  and  to  other 
colleges  and  schools  in  the  State,  shall  be  cancelled, 
and  the  same  shall  be  donated  to  said  University,  col- 
leges and  schools. 

4.  The  literary  fund  of  the  State  shall  be  increased, 
from  time  to  time,  by  law  ;  shall,  for  the  future,  be 
safely  invested  in  the  bonds  of  this  State  ;  and  the  rev- 
enue arising  therefrom-  shall  in  no  wise  be  diverted 
from  the  purposes  of  education,  but  s-hall  be  appropri- 
ated to  that  object  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature 
may  direct. 

5.  All  lands  and  other  property  which  have  been,  or 
may  hereafter  be,  given,  granted,  or  bequeathed  to  the 
State,  to  coui'ties,  cities,  towns,  colleges,  academies, 
schools,  school  districts,  individuals,  or  communities, 
for  the  purposes  of  education  or  the  promotion  of  the 
arts  and  sciences,  and  the  proceeds  thereof,  shall  be 
consecrated,  held,  invested,  and  applied  lor  such  ob- 
jects, and  in  accordance  with  such  gifts,  grants,  or  be- 
quests, and  for  no  other  purpose. 

The  report  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to' 
be  printed. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  desire  simply  to  say,  in  sub- 
mitting the  substitute  which  I  now  do  for  the  report 
just  handed  in  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Education,  that  the  committee  were  very  far  from 
being  unanimous  in  the  adaption  of  that  report.  I  diff  er 
from  it  myself,  almost  entirely  ;  and  I  beg  leave  to  sub- 
mit the  following  proposition,  and  ask  that  it  may  be 
read,  laid  on  the  table,  and  printed  ;  and  to  give  notice 
that  I  will,  at  a  proper  time,  offer  it  as  a  substitute  for 
the  report  on  education. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  it  a  minority  report,  or  your 
own  proposition  ? 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  It  is  my  own.  It  is  simply  a 
proposition  which  I  wish  to  substitute  for  the  report  of 
the  committee. 

The  proposition  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows: 

EDUCATION. 

1.  The  fund  now  called  and  known  as  the  literary 
fund,  (except  such  part  thereof  as  may  have  been  loaned 
to  the  University,  and  other  colleges  of  the  State,  which 
said  loans  shall  be  released  and  donated  to  the  Univer- 
sity and  other  colleges  respectively,)  shall  be  hence- 
forth called  and  known  as  the  "  common  and  free  school 
fund,"  which  may  be  increased,  from  time  to  time,  by 
taxation  or  otherwise.  The  legislature  shall  provide 
by  law  for  the  safe  investment  of  the  principal,  and  the 
payment  of  the  interest  thereon,  and  for  a  fair,  just, 
and  equitable  distribution  of  such  interest  (or  other 
revenue  arising  from  said  fund)  among  the  several 
counties,  cities,  towns,  and  school  districts,  to  be  ap- 
plied and  appropriated  in  aid  of  common  and  free 
schools,  but  for  no  other  purpose  whatever  ;  and  if  not 
called  for  by  such  county,  city,  town,  or  school  district 
within  two  years,  for  that  purpose,  the  proportion  of 
such  county,  city,  town,  or  school  district  shall  be  re- 
invested for  the  benefit  of  said  fund. 

2.  The  legislature  shall  cause  the  several  cities, 
counties,  and  towns  to  be  laid  off  in  districts  of  conve- 
nient size,  and  shall  enable  the  tax-payers  and  heads  of 
families  within  such  districts  to  elect  to  have  either 
common  or  free  schools  therein,  and  to  elect  commis- 
sioners for  the  same,  and  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  with- 
in such  district,  under  proper  limitation  of  law,  in  such 
mode  as  they  themselves  may  adopt,  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  any  additional  sum  necessary  for  the  support  of 
such  common  or  free  school,  after  first  applying  for 
that  purpose  the  proportion  of  the  aforesaid  common 
and  free  school  fund  to  which  such  school  district  may 
be  entitled. 

3.  All  the  funds  which  shall  hereafter  accrue  to  the 
State  from  escheats,  forfeitures,  or  fines,  (except  militia 
fines,)  or  from  the  estate  of  a  decedent  of  which  there 
is  no  other  distributee j,  or  from  any  other  property  as. 
derelict  and  having  no  other  owner,  together  with  any 
sum  which  may  be  added  thereto  by  taxation  or  other- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


149 


wise,  shall  be  held  inviolate  for  the  promotion  of  learn- 
ing. The  principal  shall  be  safely  invested,  and  all 
revenue  arising  therefrom  shall  be  by  the  legislature 
(under  such  provisions  as  it  may  require  and  provide) 
applied  and  appropriated  in  aid  and  support  of  the  Uni- 
versity, and  such  colleges,  academies,  common  and 
free  schools  as  now  are,  or  may  hereafter  be,  estab- 
lished :  Provided,  That  in  no  case  shall  the  aforesaid 
fund,  hereby  called  the  common  and  free  school  fund, 
be  diverted  from,  or  applied  to,  any  purpose  other  than 
in  aid  and  support  of  the  aforesaid  common  or  free 
schools. 

The  report  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Having  been  absent  for  the  last  ten 
days,  I  have  had  no  means  of  knowing  what  report  the 
Committee  on  Education  might  make  to  the  Conven- 
tion. I  take  this  occasion  merely  to  say,  that  I  en- 
tirely disapprove  of  all  the  substantial  features  em- 
braced not  only  in  the  report,  but  in  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Essex.  1  shall,  at  the  proper  time, 
offer  such  amendments  as  in  my  opinion  ought  to  be 
adopted  on  the  subject. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  The  committee  appointed  to  take 
into  consideration  so  much  of  the  present  constitution 
as  relates  to  the  Supreme  Court  ot  Appeals,  and  the 
Superior  Court ,  and  the  mode  of  appointment  and  tenure 
of  tlie  office  of  the  officers  and  the  judges  of  said  courts, 
other  than  sheriffs,  have  had  the  subject  under  conside- 
ration, and  have  directed  me  to  make  a  report.  Before 
the  report  is  read,  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  remark  in  ex- 
planation. The  committee  on  the  Judiciary  did  not 
consider  that  they  were  appointed  for  the  mere  purpost- 
of  reporting  a  judiciary  system  to  this  Convention  in 
order  that  such  a  system  might  be  acted  upon  de  novo 
in  this  body.  They  were  deeply  impressed  with  the  im- 
portance and  the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  they  were 
resolved  to  devote  all  their  best  efforts  in  order  that 
they  might  digest  and  report  to  the  Convention  the  best 
judiciary  system  in  their  power.  They  have  performed 
that  office.  They  have  devored  a  month  of  pretty  close 
labor  to  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  and  the  paper  which 
I  have  just  submitted  is  the  result  of  their  labors.  The 
committee  were  unanimous  in  one  thing,  and  that  is. 
that  the  end  and  object  of  the  judiciary  system,  is  the 
steady,  certain,  and  pure  administration  of  justice.  They 
were  unanimous  in  another  thing,  that  the  judges  in- 
vested with  the  judiciary  power,  should  be,  so  far  as 
possible,  men  of  the  greatest  wisdom,  learning  and  judi- 
cial qualifications,  and  integrity  in  the  land  ;  that,  while 
in  office,  while  in  the  discharge  of  th  ir  duties,  they 
should  be  independent ;  that  their  minds  should,  a*> 
much  as  possible,  be  undisturbed  by  undue  influences; 
that  they  should  bring  to  the  decision  of  the  importaut 
subjects  which  come  before  them,  a  mind  as  pure  as  pos- 
sible, unbiased,  and  impartial ;  that  they  should  not  be 
led  into  temptation,  but  as  much  as  possible  be  guarded 
againsr  it ;  and  that  they  should  be  duly  responsible  for 
their  fidelity  in  the  execution  of  their  duties.  The  com- 
mittee were  unanimous  in  another  thing,  that  the  mode 
of  electing  the  judges,  and  the  tenure  of  office  was  best 
which  was  best  calculated  to  attain  these  great  ends,  of 
exalting  such  men  to  the  judicial  stations,  and  of  secu 
ring  such  a  pure  and  unadulterated  administration  of 
justice.  Thus  unanimous,  the  committee  set  about  the 
discharge  of  their  important  duties.  But  in  the  selec- 
tion of  the  means  for  attaining  these  great  ends,  1 
regret  to  say,  that  though  thus  unanimous  as  to  the 
ends,  and  though  thus  unanimous  as  to  the  character  oi 
the  machinery  by  which  those  ends  were  to  be  reached 
they  were  not  so  fortunate  in  the  selection  of  the  meam 
for  attaining  those  ends.  It  soon  appeared  that  there  was- 
a  great  diversity  of  views  on  some  important  points 
connected  with  our  duty.    Some  five  or  six — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  feels  bound  to  state  to 
the  gentleman  that  any  statements  of  the  proceedings 


in  the  committee  are  not  in  order.  These  explanations 
have  been  permitted,  where  it  is  necessary  for  the  pur- 
pose of  information  in  guiding  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  MONCURE.   I  did  not  wish  to  be  out  of  order, 
but  I  thought  it  due  to  the  committee  to  state  to  the 
Convention  how  far  they  were  unanimous,  in  the  report 
which  you  hold  in  your  hand,  in  order  that  the  report 
may  be  received  -by  the  Convention  with  just  so  much 
weight  as  it  is  entitled  to.    I  wish  merely  to  state  to 
the  Convention,  that  with  this  unanimity  of  feeling  as 
to  the  ends  in  view,  when  we  came  to  make  our  report, 
there  was  a  diversity  of  views  in  the  committee ;  that 
these  different  views  were,  by  their  different  advocates, 
presented  and  urged  and  considered  by  the  committee ; 
and  that  after  the  most  patient  and  laborious  conside- 
ration of  them,  the  committee  finally  settled  down  upon 
the  report  which  you  hold  in  your  hand — that  is,  a  ma- 
jority of  the  committee.    And  while  the  report  is  not 
precisely  as  any  member  of  the  committee  would  have 
had  it ;  while  it  is  perhaps  not  such  a  report  as  would,  at 
the  commencement  of  our  labors,  have  been  taken  as  a 
whole,  yet  at  the  end  of  their  labors,  it  was  a  report 
which  a  majority  of  the  committee  agreed  to  adopt  as 
a  whole,  and  which  they  consider  as  the  very  best  sys- 
tem on  which  they  could  agree.    They  have  recom- 
mended it  to  this  body  ;  and  while  I  agree  with  the 
committee  in  general,  perhaps  not  one  of  us  will  say 
that  it  is  precisely,  in  all  respects,  such  as  we  would 
have  had  it  to  be.    While  we  know  it  is  not  free  from 
objections  ;  while  we  know  and  desire  that  it  should  be 
amended  so  far  as  it  requires  amendment,  yet  we  verily 
believe  that  it  will  effect  this  great  object  which  we  all 
have  in  view,  and  secure  to  the  State  an  enlightened  and 
independent  judiciary,  and  a  good  and  safe  judiciary 
system.    I  have  no  further  comments  to  make,  except  to 
say,  that  the  committee,  not  having  been  unauimous  in 
favor  of  the  report,  I  understand  that  some  of  our  mem- 
bers will  present  minority  reports,  embodying  their  pe- 
culiar views  on  the  subject.  . 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as  fol- 
lows : 

1  he  committee  "  appointed  to  take  into  consideration 
so  much  of  the  present  con>titution  as  relates  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  and  the  Superior  Courts — 
the  mode  of  appointment  and  tenure  of  office  of  the 
judges  and  officers  of  said  courts,  (except  sheriffs,)  and 
of  the  Attorney  General,"  have,  according  to  order,  had 
under  consideration  the  subjects  referred  to  them,  and 
make  the  following  report  thereon  : 

the  judicial  department. 

1.  There  shall  be  a  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals,  Dis- 
trict Courts,  and  Circuit  Courts.  The  jurisdiction  of 
these  tribunals,  and  of  the  judges  thereof,  shall  be  regu- 
lated by  law,  except  so  far  as  the  same  is  prescribed  in 
this  constitution. 

judicial  divisions. 

2.  The  State  shall  ba  divided  into  five  sections,  each 
section  into  two  districts,  and  each  district  into  two 
circuits  ;  which  sections,  districts  and  circuits  shall  be 
bsuuded  by  county  or  corporation  lines. 

3.  The  Legislature  may  at  the  end  of  years  after 

the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  and  of  every  term  of 

 years  thereafter,  re-arrange  or  re-organize  the  said 

sections,  districts  and  circuits,  and  place  any  number  of 
circuits  in  a  district,  and  districts  in  a  section:  Provided, 
that  the  number  of  sections  shall  not  be  increased  or 
diminished;  that  there  shall  not  be  less  than  two  dis- 
tricts and  four  circuits  in  a  section  ;  and  that  each  cir- 
cuit shall  be  altogether  in  one  district, and  each  district 
in  one  section.  But  when  anew  county  is  formed  of 
parts  of  counties  composing  different  circuits,  it  may  be 
added  to  either  of  such  circuit*,  and  shall  thenceforth, 
form  a  part  of  the  district  and  section  to  which  sucb, 
circuit  belongs. 


150 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


COUET  OF  APPEALS. 

4.  For  each  of  the  said  sections,  a  judge  shall  be  elect- 
ed by  the  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. He  shall,  during  his  continuance  in  office,  re- 
side in  the  section  for  which  he  is  elected.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  Appeals  shall  consist  of  the  five  judges  so 
elected,  a  majority  of  whom  may  hold  a  court. 

5.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  shall  have  appel- 
late jurisdiction  only.  It  shall  not  have  jurisdiction  in 
civil  causes  where  the  matter  in  controversy  is  of  no 
greater  value  or  amount  than  five  hundred  dollars,  ex- 
clusive of  costs  ;  except  in  a  controversy  concerning  the 
probate*  of  a  will,  the  appointment  or  qualification  of  a 
personal  representative,  guardian,  or  committee,  or  con- 
cerning a  mill,  road,  way  or  ferry,  or  the  right  of  a  cor- 
poration or  a  county  to  levy  tolls  or  taxes ;  and  except 
in  cases  of  habeas  corpus  or  mandamus,  and  cases  involv- 
ing freedom,  or  the  constitutionality  of  a  law. 

6.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Judge 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  who  is  not  at  the 
time  of  the  election  at  least  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and 
a  resident  of  the  section  for  which  the  election  is  made : 
Nor  shall  any  person  be  eligible  to  such  office  during 
the  term  for  which  he  may  have  been  elected  Governor 
or  a  member  of  the  general  assembly. 

7.  The  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  shall 
hold  their  offices  for  the  term  of  fifteen  years  from  the 
date  of  their  commissions,  and  until  their  successors 
shall  be  duly  qualified  ;  or  until  removed  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  this  constitution :  Provided,  that  no  Judge 
of  the  said  Court  shall  remain  in  office  after  he  shall 
have  attained  the  age  of  seventy  years. 


CIRCUIT  COURTS. 

8.  For  each  of  the  said  circuits,  a  judge  shall  be  elect- 
ed by  the  persons  therein  qualified  to  vote  for  members 
of  the  General  Assembly.  He  shall,  at  the  time  of  his 
election,  be  at  least  thirty  years  of  age  ;  and  shall,  du- 
ring his  continuance  in  office,  reside  in  the  circuit  of 
which  he  is  Judge. 

9.  No  election  of  a  circuit  Judge  shall  be  held  within 
thirty  days  of  the  time  of  holding  any  general  election  in 
the  circuit,  or  any  part  of  it,  of  electors  of  President  and 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  Governor,  mem- 
bers of  Congress  or  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  any 
other  officer. 

10.  The  Judges  of  the  circuit  courts  shall  hold  their 
offices  for  the  term  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  their 
commissions,  and  until  their  successors  shall  be  duly 
qualified;  or  until  removed  in  the  manner  prescribed 
by  this  constitution.  ~Ro  judge  of  a  circuit  court  shall 
be  re-eligible  to  the  same  office  until  his  immediate 
successor  shall  have  ceased  to  hold  the  office. 

11.  A  circuit  court  shall  be  held  by  the  judge  of  each 
circuit  at  least  twice  a  year  in  each  county,  and  eor- 

E oration  of  such  circuit  wherein  a  circuit  court  is  now 
eld,  or  may  hereafter,  by  law.  be  directed  to  be  held. 
A  judge  of  one  circuit  may  hold  a  court  in  another, 
whether  in  or  out  of  his  district,  when  required  or  au- 
thorized by  law  to  do  so  ;  and  the  Judges  in  the  same 
district  may  be  required  by  law  to  hold  the  courts  of 
their  respective  circuits  alternately. 

DISTRICT  COURTS. 

12.  A  district  court  shall  be  held  at  least  once  in 
every  year,  in  each  of  the  said  districts,  by  the  Judges 
of  the  circuits  composing  the  district,  and  the  Judge 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  who  may  reside  in  the 
section  of  which  said  district  forms  apart;  any  two  of 
whom  may  hold  a  court.  But  instead  of  the  Judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  residing  in  such  section, 
a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  residing  in  an 
adioining  section  may  sit  in  the  said  district  court  when- 
ever required  or  authorized  by  law  to  do  so ;  and  the 
circuit  judges  of  one  district,  or  either  of  them,  may  be 
authorized  or  required  by  law  to  sit  in  the  district  court 
of  another  district,  in  the  same  section,  or  to  alternate 


with  the  circuit  Judges  of  that  district,  or  either  of 
them,  in  holding  such  district  court. 

13.  The  district  courts  shall  have  no  original  jurisdic- 
tion, except  in  cases  of  habeas  corpus  and  mandamus, 
and  in  such  chancery  cases  as  may  be  removed  to  them 
from  a  circuit  court  by  consent  of  parties. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS. 

14.  The  said  Judge  shall  be  commissioned  by  the 
Governor,  and  shall  receive  fixed  and  adequate  salaries, 
which  shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  continuance 
in  office.  The  annual  salary  of  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  shall  not  be  less  than  three  thousand  dollars  ; 
and  of  a  Judge  of  a  circuit  court  not  less  than  two  thou- 
sand dollars ;  besides  a  reasonable  allowance  to  each 
for  necessary  travel. 

15.  The  said  Judges,  while  in  office,  shall  holdno  other 
office,  appointment  or  public  trust,  and  the  acceptance 
of  such,  by  either  of  them,  shall  vacate  his  judicial  office. 
And  no  judge  while  in  olfice,  or  within  one  year  alter 
he  shall,  have  ceased  to  hold  the  same,  shall  be  elected 
to  any  political  office  under  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  this  State. 

18.  Judges  may  be  removed  from  office  by  a  concur- 
rent vote  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  each  of 
the  houses  of  the  General  Assembly ;  but  the  cause  or 
causes  of  removal  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of 
each  house,  and  the  Judge,  against  whom  the  legislature 
may  be  about  to  proceed,  shall  have  notice  thereof, 
accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  causes  alledged  for  his 
removal,  at  least  twenty  days  before  either  house  of 
the  General  Assembly  shall  act  thereupon. 

17.  The  present  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Appeals  and  of  the  circuit  courts,  and  their  successors 
who  may  be  appointed  under  the  existing  constitution, 
shall  remain  in  office  until  six  months  after  the  ter- 
mination of  the  first  legislature  elected  under  this  con- 
stitution, and  no  longer. 

18.  A  special  and  temporary  Court  of  Appeals,  to 


consist  of  three  judges,  may,  if  necessary,  be  consti- 
tuted by  law  out  of  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Appeals  and  circuit  courts,  or  any  of  them,  to  try 
the  cases,  or  any  of  them,  which  may  remain  on  the 
docket  on  the  present  Ceurt  of  Appeals,  when  the 
Judges  thereof  shall  cease  to  hold  their  offices  as  herein 
before  provided ;  or  to  try  any  case  which  may  be 
on  the  docket  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  hereby  con- 
stituted, which  a  majority  of  the  Judges  thereof  may, 
from  interest,  relationship,  or  having  been  counsel  in 
the  case,  be  unable  to  try. 

19.  When  a  judgment  or  decree  is  reversed  by  an 
appellate  court,  the  reasons  for  such  reversal  shall  be 
stated  by  the  court,  in  a  written  opinion,  to  be  filed 
and  preserved  with  the  record  in  the  case. 

20.  All  the  officers  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals 
and  of  the  district  courts,  except  sheriffs,  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  said  courts  respectively,  or  by  the  Judges 
thereof,  in  vacation.  The  duties  and  compensation  of 
said  officers,  their  tenure  of  office,  and  the  mode  of  re- 
moving them  from  office,  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

21.  The  clerks  and  attorneys  for  the  commonwealth 
of  the  circuit  courts,  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  counties  or  corporations  for  which  said 
courts  are  held  respectively ;  and  shall  hold  their  offices 
for  the  term  of  seven  years  from  the  date  of  their  elec- 
tion, and  until  their  successors  shall  be  duly  qualified. 
Their  duties  and  compensation,  and  the  mode  of  remov- 
ing them  from  office,  shall  be  prescribed  bylaw. 

22.  Whenever  a  vacancy  shall  occur  in  the  office  of 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals,  or  of  Judge, 
clerk  or  attorney  of  the  commonwealth  of  a  circuit  court, 
his  successor  shall  be  elected  for  the  full  term  pre- 
scribed by  this  article. 

23.  The  legislature  shall  prescribe  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting and  making  the  returns  of  elections,  and  of  de- 
termining contested  elections  of  Judges  and  other  offi- 
cers under  this  article  of  the  constitution. 

24.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  appointed  by  joint 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


151 


vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  vided  in  this  constitution,  and  shall  receive  for  his  ser- 
comuiissioned  by  the  Governor  ;  shall  hold  his  office  for  vises  such  compensation  as  may  be  provided  bylaw, 
the  term  of  four  years,  but  be  removable  at  the  pleasure  |  v\  hich  shall  not  be  increased  or  diminished  during  his 
of  the  General  Assembly ;  and  shall  perform  such  duties  j  continuance  in  ofiice. 

and  receive  such  compensation  as  may  be  prescribed  !  9.  The  judge  of  the  court  of  appeals  shall  hold  office 
by  law.  'for  eight  years,  and  of  the  circuit  court  for  six  years 

25.  Writs  shall  run  in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth 


of  Virginia,  and  bear  teste  by  the  clerks  of  the  several 
courts.  Indictments  shall  conclude  against  the  peace 
and  dignity  of  the  commonwealth. 

The  report  wa9  then  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  am  very  sorry  that  the  committee 
could  not  agree  in  their  report.  And  although  it  may 
be  unimportant,  yet  I  feel  that  it  is  proper  that  I  should 
say  that,  as  one  of  the  humble  members  of  that  commit- 
tee, I  cannot  and  do  not  concur  in  the  report  they  have 
just  submitted.  I  believe  that  report  to  be  based  on 
principles  fundamentally  erroneous.  I  cannot  but  re- 
gard it  as  violative  of  those  great  principles  upon  which 
rest  our  institutions.  I  couid  not,  therefore,  sanction 
such  a  report  which  seemed  to  me  to  be  in  violation  of 
these  principles.  I  also  differ  very  much  from  the  ma- 
jority of  the  committee  in  regard  to  the  details  of  that 
report,  and  I  will  simply  suggest,  at  this  time,  those 
reasons  based  on  the  principles  of  the  report,  and  its 
details,  as  those  that  induce  me  to  hazard  my  own  hum- 
ble opinion  before  this  Convention  in  the  form  of  a 
separate  plan.  I  will  send  it  to  you,  and,  at  a  proper 
time,  move  it  as  a  substitute  for  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

At  the  present  time  I  will  merely  ask  that  it  may 
be  read,  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  proposition  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as 
follows: 

JUDICIAL  DEPARTMENT. 

All  the  judicial  power  of  the  Commonwealth  shall  be 
vested  in  the  courts  established  or  authorized  by  this 
article. 

1.  There  shall  be  a  court  of  appeals,  to  be  composed 
of  five  judges,  a  majority  of  whom  shall  constitute  a 
quorum.  The  senior  of  said  judges  shall  preside  in 
court.  No  judgment  or  decree  shall  be  reversed  by  the 
court  of  appeals  without  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  all 
the  judges  concurring  therein. 

2.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  five  judicial  dis- 
tricts, and  each  district  into  three  circuits,  which 
said  districts  and  circuits  shall  be  bounded  by  county 
lines. 

3.  For  each  of  the  said  districts  one  judge  of  the 
■court  of  appeals  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  elec- 
tors therein,  who  shall,  during  his  continuance  in  office, 
reside  in  the  district  for  which  he  was  elected. 

4.  The  court  of  appeals  shall  have  appellate  juris- 
diction in  all  civil  causes,  where  the  matter  in  contro- 
versy is  of  the  value  of  two  hundred  dollars  and  upwards, 
or  where  the  title  or  possession  of  real  estate  is  in 
question,  and  likewise  in  all  criminal  causes. 

6.  The  sessions  of  the  court  of  appeals  shall  be  held 
at  such  places,  within  each  of  the  said  districts,  as  may 
be  provided  by  law. 

6.  For  each  of  the  said  circuits  herein  provided  for, 
a  judge  of  the  circuit  court  shall  be  elected  by  the 
qualified  electors  therein,  who  shall,  during  his  contin- 
uance in  office,  reside  in  the  circuit  for  which  he  was 
elected. 

7.  There  shall  be  a  circuit  court  held  by  the  judge 
of  each  circuit  at  least  twice  a  year  in  each  county  and 
corporation  of  such  circuit  in  which  a  circuit  court 
is  now  held,  or  may  hereafter  by  law  be  directed  to  be 
held.  And  the  judges  in  the  same  district  may  be  re- 
quired by  law  to  hold  the  courts  of  their  respective 
circuits  alternately.  The  jurisdiction  of  said  courts 
shall  be  fixed  by  law. 

8.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  elected  by  the  qual- 
ified electors  in  the  State  at  large.  He  shall  hold  office 
for  six  years,  unless  sooner  removed  in  the  manner  pro- 


unless  sooner  removed  in  the  manner  provided  in  this 
constitution.  They  shall,  during  their  continuance  in 
office,  hold  no  other  office,  appointment,  or  public  trust, 
under  the  State  or  general  government,  or  any  foreign 
State  or  government  whatever;  and  the  acceptance 
thereof  by  either  of  them  shall  vacate  his  judicial  office. 
And  they  shall,  during  their  continuance  in  office,  re- 
ceive adequate  compensation,  to  be  fixed  by  law,  which 
shali  not  be  increased  or  diminished  during  their  contin- 
uance in  office. 

10.  The  clerk,  messenger,  and  tipstaff  for  the  court 
of  appeals  shall  be  appointed  by  said  court.  The  du- 
ties and  compensation  of  said  officers,  and  also  their 
tenure  of  office,  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

11.  A  clerk  and  Commonwealth's  attorney  for  the  cir- 
cuit court  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  electors  in 
the  counties  and  corporations  respectively  in  which  a 
circuit  court  is  now  held,  or  may  hereafter  be  directed 
by  law  to  be  held.  They  shall  hold  their  respective 
offices  for  six  years,  unless  sooner  removed.  The 
duties  and  compensation  of  said  officers,  and  also  the 
mode  of  their  removal  from  office,  shall  be  prescribed 
by  law. 

12.  A  judge  of  the  court  of  appeals,  or  of  the  circuit 
court,  or  of  the  attorney  general,  may  be  removed  from 
office  by  a  concurrent  vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the 
general  assembly;  but  two-thirds  of  the  members  of 
each  house  must  concur  in  such  vote,  and  the  cause  or 
causes  of  such  removal  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal 
of  each  house  ;  and  the  judge  or  attorney  general, 
against  whom  the  legislature  may  be  about  to  proceed, 
shall  have  notice  thereof,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of 
the  causes  alleged  for  his  removal,  at  least  twenty  days 
before  either  house  of  the  general  assembly  shall  act 
thereon;  when  he  shall  be  heard  in  person  or  by  coun- 
sel, and  shall  be  allowed  every  reasonable  facility,  by 
process  and  otherwise,  to  enable  him  to  make  his  de- 
fence. 

13.  A  special  and  temporary  court  of  appeals,  to  con- 
sist of  five  judges,  may,  if  necessary,  be  constituted 
by  law,  out  of  judges  of  the  court  of  appeals  and  cir- 
cuit courts,  or  either  of  them,  to  try  the  causes,  or  any 
of  them,  which  may  remain  on  the  docket  of  the  pre- 
sent court  of  appeals,  when  the  judges  thereof  shall 
cease  to  hold  their  offices,  or  try  any  cause  or  causes 
which  may  be  on  the  docket  of  the  court  of  appeals 
hereby  constituted,  which  the  judges  thereof,  or  a  ma- 
jority of  them  may,  from  interest,  relationship,  or  hav- 
ing been  counsel  in  the  cause,  be  unable  to  try. 

14.  The  present  judges  of  the  court  of  appeals  and 
of  the  circuit  courts,  and  their  successors,  who  may  be 
appointed  under  the  existing  constitution,  shall  remain 
in  office  until  the  judges  under  this  constitution  provi- 
ded for,  shall  be  elected  and  commissioned,  but  no 
longer. 

15.  The  judges  of  the  court  of  appeals  and  of  the 
circuit  courts,  and  the  attorney  general,  shall  be  com- 
missioned by  the  governor. 

16.  The  general  assembly  shall,  at  their  first  session 
after  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  arrange  the  seve- 
ral districts  and  circuits  provided  for  in  this  article,  and 
also  designate  the  time  for  the  election  of  the  various 
officers  herein  provided  for,  and  also  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting and  deciding  the  same. 

17.  In  case  the  office  of  any  judge  of  the  court  of 
appeals,  or  circuit  court,  or  of  the  attorney  general, 
shall  become  vacant  before  the  expiration  of  the  regu- 
lar term  for  which  he  was  elected,  the  vacancy  may  be 
filled  by  appointment  by  the  governor  until  the  next 
general  election,  when  it  shall  be  filled  by  election  for 
the  residue  of  the  unexpired  term. 

18  The  general  assembly,  at  their  first  session  after 
every  census,  may  re-arrange  the  judicial  districts  and 


152 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


circuits  of  the  State,  and  may  then,  if  necessary,  in- 
crease the  number  of  circuits  and  of  the  judges  there- 
of;  provided,  however,  such  increase  shall,  at  no  one 
time,  exceed  one  in  each  district. 

19.  Writs  shall  run  in  the  name  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Virginia,  and  bear  teste  by  the  clerks  of 
the  several  courts  respectively.  Indictments  shall 
conclude  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. 

The  proposition  was  then  laid  on  the  table,  and  or- 
dered to  be  printed. 

Mr.  BOWDEN.  As  one  of  the  minority  referred  to 
by  the  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee,  I  beg 
leave  to  present  my  own  views  iu  the  form  of  a  substi- 
tute. At  the  proper  time  I  will  offer  it  to  the  Conven- 
tion in  lieu  of  the  plan  proposed  by  the  committee.  At 
present  I  will  merely  ask  that  it  be  read,  laid  on  the 
table,  and  printed. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  see  no  necessity  for  reading  these 
substitutes,  and  I  move  to  dispense  with  their  further 
reading. 

Mr.  BOWDEN.  I  withdraw  so  much  of  the  motion 
as  relates  to  the  reading:,  and  simply  move  that  it  be 
laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

THE  JUDICIAL  DEPARTMENT. 

Sec.  1.  There  shall  be  a  Supreme  Court,  District 
Courts,  and  Circuit  Courts.  The  jurisdiction  of  these 
tribunals,  and  of  the  judges  thereof,  shall  be  regulated 
by  law,  except  so  far  as  the  same  is  prescribed  in  this 
constitution. 

JUDICIAL  DIVISIONS. 

2.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  five  sections,  each 
section  into  two  districts,  and  each  district  into  two 
circuits:  which  sections,  districts,  and  circuits  shall  be 
bounded  by  county  or  corporation  lines. 

3.  The  legislature  may  ,  at  the  end  of  years  after 

the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  and  of  every  term  of 

 years  thereafter,  re-arrange  or  re-organize  the  said 

sections,  district  and  circuits,  and  place  any  number  of 
circuits  in  a  district,  and  of  districts  in  a  section  ;  Pro- 
vided, That  the  number  of  sections  shall  not  be  increased 
or  diminished  ;  that  there  shall  not  be  less  than  two 
districts  and  four  circuits  in  a  section  ;  and  that  each 
circuit  shall  be  altogether  in  one  district,  and  each  dis- 
trict in  one  section.  But  when  a  new  county  is  formed 
of  parts  of  counties  composing  different  circuits,  it  may 
be  added  to  either  of  such  circuits,  and  shall  thence- 
forth form  a  part  of  the  district  and  section  to  which 
such  circuit  belongs. 

SUPREME  COURT. 

4.  For  each  of  said  sections  a  Judge  shall  be  elected 
by  the  joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  general  assembly. 
He  shall,  during  his  continuance  in  office,  reside  in  the 
section  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected.  The  Su- 
preme Court  shall  consist  of  five  Judges  so  elected,  a 
majority  of  whom  may  hold  a  court. 

5.  The  Supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdic- 
tion only.  It  shall  not  have  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes 
where  the  matter  in  controversy,  exclusive  of  costs,  is 
of  no  greater  value  or  amount  than  $1,000  ;  except  that 
the  legislature  may  extend  its  jurisdiction  so  as  to  em- 
brace generally  controversies  concerning  the  probate  of 
wills,  the  appointment  or  qualification  of  personal  rep- 
resentatives, guardians  or  committees,  or  concerning 
mills,  roads,  ways,  or  ferries,  or  the  right  of  a  corpora- 
tion or  county  to  levy  tolls  or  taxes  ;  and  except  in  cases 
.of  habeas  corpus  or  mandamus,  and  cases  involving  free- 
dom, or  the  constitutionality  of  a  law. 

•6.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  judge 
.of  the  Supreme  Court  or  of  a  circuit  court,  who  shall 
not  be,  at  the  time  of  his  election,  at  least  twenty-one 
years  of  age  ;  and,  if  elected  as  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  j 
Court,  he  shall  be,  at  the  time  of  his  election,  a  resident 
of  the  section  for  which  the  election  shall  be  made. 

7.  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  hold  their 
jPfSces  for  the  term  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  their 


commissions,  and  until  their  successors  shall  be  duly 
qualified,  or  until  removed  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
this  constitution. 

CIRCUIT  COURTS. 

8.  For  each  of  said  circuits  a  judge  shall  be  elected 
by  the  persons  therein  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of 
the  general  assembly.  He  shall,  during  his  continuance 
in  office,  reside  in  the  circuit  of  which  he  shall  be  judge. 

9.  The  judges  of  the  circuit  courts  shall  hold  their 
offices  for  the  term  of  seven  years  from  the  date  of  their 
commissions,  and  until  their  successors  shall  be  quali- 
fied, or  until  removed  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  this 
constitution. 

10.  A  circuit  court  shall  be  held  at  least  twice  a  year 
in  each  county  and  corporation  of  such  circuit  wherein 
a  circuit  court  is  now  held,  or  may  hereafter  by  law  be 
directed  to  be  held.  A  judge  of  one  circuit  may  hold  a 
court  in  another,  whether  in  or  out  of  his  district,,  when 
required  or  authorized  by  law  to  do  so  ;  and  the  judges 
in  the  same  district  may  be  required  by  law  to  hold  the 
courts  of  their  respective  circuits  alternately. 

DISTRICT  COURTS. 

11.  A  district  court  shall  be  held  at  least  once  m 
every  year,  in  each  of  the  said  districts,  by  the  judges 
of  the  circuits  comprising  the  district,  and  the  judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  who  may  reside  in  the  section,  of 
which  said  district  forms  a  part  ;  any  two  of  whom  may 
hold  a  court.  But  instead  of  the  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  residing  in  such  section,  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  residing  in  an  adjoining  section  may  sit  in  the 
said  district  court  whenever  required  or  authorized  by 
law  to  do  so  ;  and  the  circuit  judges  of  one  district,  or 
either  of  them,  maybe  authorized  or  required  by  law  to 
sit  in  the  district  court  of  another  district  in  the  same 
section,  or  to  alternate  with  the  circuit  judges  of  that 
district,  or  either  of  them,  in  holding  such  district 
court. 

12.  The  district  courts  shall  have  no  original  juris- 
diction, except  in  cases  of  habeas  corpus  and  mandamus, 
and  in  such  chancery  causes  as  may  be  removed  to  them 
from  the  circuit  courts  by  consent  of  parties  ;  and  ex- 
cept in  the  decision  of  such  points  of  law,  as  by  consent 
of  parties,  may  be  adjourned  to  them  from  the  circuit 
courts. 

13.  The  judges  shall  receive  fixed  and  adequate  sala- 
ries, which  shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  contin- 
uance in  office.  While  in  office,  they  shall  hold  no  oth- 
er office,  appointment,  or  public  trust,  and  the  acccept- 
ance  of  such  by  either  of  them  shall  vacate  his  judicial 
office. 

14.  The  present  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  and  of 
the  circuit  courts,  and  their  successors  who  may  be 
appointed  under  the  existing  constitution,  shall  remain 
in  office  six  months  after  the  termination  of  the 
first  legislature  elected  under  this  constitution,  and  no 
longer. 

15.  A  special  and  temporary  court  of  appeals,  to  con- 
sist of  five  judges,  may,  when  necessary,  be  constituted, 
by  law,  to  try  such  causes  on  the  docket  of  the  present 
court  of  appeals,  or  of  the  supreme  court  hereby  consti- 
tuted, as  a  majority  of  the  judges  thereof  may,  from  in- 
terest, relationship,  or  having  been  counsel  in  the  case, 
be  unable  to  try. 

16.  The  clerks  and  attorneys  for  the  commonwealth 
in  the  circuit  courts  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  counties  or  corporations  for  which  said 
courts  shall  be  held  respectively  ;  and  shall  hold  their 
offices  for  the  term  of  four  years,  and  until  their  suc- 
cessors shall  be  duly  qualified. 

17.  Their  duties  and  compensation,  and  the  mode  of 
removing  them  from  office,  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

18.  The  legislature  shall  prescribe  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting and  making  due  returns  of  elections,  and  the 
mode  of  determining  contested  elections  of  judges  and 
other  officers  under  this  article  of  the  constitution. 

19.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  elected  by  the  qual- 
ified wtera  of  the  State ;  shall  hold  his.  office  for  tha 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


153 


term  of  four  years,  removable  by  the  vote  of  two-thirds 
of  each  branch  of  the  general  assembly.  He  shall  per- 
form such  duties  and  receive  such  compensation  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr  CHAMBLISS.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  and  regret  exceedingly  that  it  is  my  misfor- 
tune to  differ  with  the  majority  of  so  enlightened  a  body. 
I  differ  with  them  in  two  or  three  extremely  important 
particulars.  Differing  from  tVem  as  I  do,  I  feel  bound, 
injustice  to  myself,  not  to  permit  a  day  to  puss  that  any 
human  being  should  suppose,  however  little  important 
may  be  my  opinions,  that  I  concur  with  that  report.  I  do 
not 'design  that  what  I  shall  presently  present  shall  be 
read  at  present,  but  that  it  shall  be  printed.  I  prefer  to 
state  at  this  time  one  or  two  of  the  most  important  par- 
ticulars in  which  I  differ  with  a  majority  of  the  commit- 
tee. The  most  important  is,  an  indomitable  aversion  to 
the  election  of  any  judge  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
Virginia.  Another  important  particular  in  which  I  dif- 
fer, is  the  tenure  of  office,  and  the  opposition  to  the  re- 
eligibility  of  judicial  offices.  Another  and  extremely 
important  matter  in  which  I  differ  from  the  committee 
is,  that  they  have  multiplied  intermediate  courts  of  ap- 
peals, to  a  number  for  which  you  cannot  command  the 
best  talents  of  the  State.  I  concur  with  the  chairman 
•of  the  committee  in  the  views  which  he  expressed  as  to 
the  great  ends  and  designs  which  not  only  the  Judicial 
Committee,  but  the  Convention,  must  have  in  view  in 
the  organization  of  the  judiciary.  If  there  is  one 
department  of  the  government  more  important  than 
another,  it  is  the  judiciary.  It  is  mare  imp  >rtant 
than  all  the  rest  combined,  for  it  stands  alone  as  the 
great  shield  and  bulwark  behind  which  the  humblest 
citizen  can  come  for  protection.  I  feel  much  more  in- 
terest in  a  proper  organization  of  this  department  of 
•the  government,  than  I  do  in  all  other  departments  of 
-government  combined  It  may  result  from  the  fact,  that 
■my  connection  in  life  has  always  been  with  the  judicia- 
ry, but  it  is  the  department  which  throws  its  broad  aegis 
over  the  humblest  citizen  of  the  land  and  protects  his 
rights  against  violation.  I  have  embodied  my  views, 
and  I  have  in  many  of  the  detai  s  of  the  plan  which  he 
proposed  to  submit,  followed  precisely  the  plan  of  the 
committee.  But  I  prefer  that  these  important  particu- 
lars in  which  I  differ  from  the  committee,  shall  go  along 
with  that  plan,  and  be  printed  altogether,  so  that  the 
plan  I  proposed  may  be  seen  all  at  once,  and  not  dis- 
jointedly,  in  the  form  of  a  particular  amendment.  There- 
fore, I  move  that  the  plan  I  now  propose  be  laid  rn  the 
table,  and  printed  along  with  the  report  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  necessity  for  its 
being  read.    The  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

JUDICIAL  DEPARTMENT. 

L  The  judicial  power  of  this  commonwealth  shall  be 
vested  in  the  supreme  court,  district  courts,  circuit 
courts,  and  county  courts,  and  in  justices  of  the  peace. 
The  jurisdiction  of  these  tribunals,  and  the  judges  there- 
of, shall  be  regulated  by  law,  except  so  far  as  the  same 
is  prescribed  in  this  constitution.  The  legislature  may 
also  vest  such  jurisdiction,  as  shall  be  deemed  necessary, 
in  corporation  coui  ts,  and  in  the  magistrates  who  may 
belong  to  the  corporate  body. 

JUDICIAL  DIVISIONS. 

2.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  five  sections,  and 
each  section  into  four  circuits  ;  which  sections  and  cir- 
cuits shall  be  bounded  by  county  or  corporation  lines. 

3.  Ti.e  legislature  may,  at  the  end  of  eight  \  ears  after 
the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  and  of  every  eigh 
years  thereafter,  re-arrange  the  said  sections  and  cir- 
cuits; provided  that  the  number  of  sections  shall  not 
be  increased  or  diminished,  that  there  sh:dl  not  be  less 
than  four  circuits  in  a. section. 

SUPREME  COURT. 

4.  For  each  of  the  said  sections,  a  judge  shall  be 
«lected  by  the  persons  therein  qualified  to  vote  for  mem- 
bers of  the  general  assembly.  Ee  shall,  during  his  eon- 


[tinuance  in  office,  reside  in  the  section  f<r  which  he  is 
elected.  The  supreme  court  shall  consist  of  the  fi«  e 
judges  so  elected,  a  majority  of  whom  may  hold  a  court. 

5.  The  supreme  court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdic- 
tion only.  It  shall  not  have  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes 
when  the  matter  in  controversy  is  of  less  value  than 
one  thousand  dollars,  except  in  controversies  concern- 
ing wills,  mills,  roads,  fences,  and  the  like — cases  of 
habeas  corpus  and  mandamus,  and  cases  involving  free- 
dom, or  the  constitutionality  of  a  law.  It  shall  possess 
the  sole  power  of  granting  writs  of  error  in  criminal 
cases. 

6.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  judge  of 
the  supreme  court,  who  is  not,  at  the  time  of  the  election, 
at  least  thirty  years  of  age,  and  a  resident  of  the  section 
for  which  the  election  is  made  ;  nor  shall  any  person  be 
eligible  to  such  office  during  the  term  for  which  he  may 
have  been  elected  governor  or  a  member  of  the  general 
assembly. 

7.  The  judges  of  the  supreme  court  shall  hold  their 
offices  for  the  term  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  their 
commissions,  or  until  removed  in  the  manner  prescribed 
in  this  Constitution. 

CIRCUIT  COURTS. 

8.  For  each  of  the  said  circuits,  ajudge  shall  be  elect- 
ed by  the  qualified  voters  therein.  He  shall,  at  the 
time  of  his  election,  be  at  least  twenty-five  years  of  age  ; 
shall  hold  his  office  for  the  term  of  eight  years  from  the 
date  of  his  commission,  unless  sooner  removed  in  the 
manner  prescribed  in  this  Constitution;  and  shall,  du- 
ring his  continuance  in  office,  reside  in  the  circuit  of 
which  he  is  judge. 

9.  A  circuit  court  shall  be  held  by  the  judge  of  each 
circuit  at  least  twice  a  year  in  each  county  and  corpo- 
ration of  such  circuit  wherein  a  circuit  court  is  now 
held,  or  may  hereafter,  by  law,  be  directed  to  be  held. 
A  judge  of  one  circuit  may  hold  a  court  in  another 
within  the  same  section,  when  required  or  authorized  by 
law  to  do  so. 

DISTRICT  COURTS. 

10.  A  district  court  shall  be  held  at  least  once  in  ev- 
ery year  in  each  of  the  said  sections,  by  the  judges  of 
the  circuits  comprised  in  the  section,  and  the  judge  of 
the  supreme  court  who  may  reside  in  the  section— any 
three  of  whom  may  hold  a  court ;  but,  instead  of  the 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  residing  in  such  section,  a 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  in  an  adjoining  section,  may- 
sit  in  the  said  district  court  whenever  required  or  au- 
thorized by  law  to  do  so. 

11.  The  district  courts  shall  have  no  original  jurisdic- 
tion, except  hi  cases  of  habeas  corpus  and  mandamus, 
and  in  such  chancery  cases  as  may  be  removed  to  them 
from  the  circuit  courts  by  consent  of  parties. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS. 

12.  No  election  of  ajudge  shall  be  held  within  thirty- 
days  of  the  time  of  holding  any  general  election  in  the 
section  or  circuit,  or  any  part  of  either,  of  electors  of 
President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  Go- 
vernor, members  of  Congress,  or  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, or  any  other  officer. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS. 

13.  The  said  judges  shall  be  commissioned  by  the  Go- 
vernor, and  shall  receive  fixed  and  adequate  salaries, 
which  shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  continuance 
in  office.  The  annual  salary  of  a  judge  of  the  supreme 
court  shall  not  be  less  than  three  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars  ;  and  of  a  judge  of  a  circuit  court  not  less  than 
two  thousand  dollars  ;  besides  a  reasonable  allowance 
fo  each  for  necessary  travel. 

14.  The  said  judges,  while  in  office,  shall  hold  no  other 
office,  appointment  or  public  trust,  and  the  acceptance 
of  such,  by  either  of  them,  shall  vacate  his  judicial  office. 
And  no  judge,  while  in  office,  or  within  one  year  after 
he  shall  have  ceased  to  hoid  the  same,  shall  be  elected 
to  any  political  office  under  the  constitution  and  law* 
of  this  State. 


154 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


15.  Judges  may  be  removed  from  office  by  a  concur- 
rent vote  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  each 
of  the  houses  of  the  General  Assembly  ;  but  the  cause 
or  causes  of  removal  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of 
each  house,  and  the  judge  against  whom  the  Legislature 
may  be  about  to  proceed,  shall  have  notice  thereof,  ac- 
companied by  a  copy  of  the  causes  alledged  for  his  re- 
moval, at  least  twenty  days  before  either  house  of  the 
General  Assembly  shall  act  thereupon. 

16.  The  present  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  ap- 
peals and  of  the  circuit  courts,  and  their  successors,  who 
may  be  appointed  under  the  existing  Constitution,  shall 
remain  in  office  until  six  months  after  the  termination  of 
the  first  Legislature  elected  under  this  Constitution,  and 
no  longer. 

17.  A  special  and  temporary  court  of  appeals,  to  con- 
sist of  five  judges,  may,  if  necessary,  be  constituted  by 
law  out  of  judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  circuit 
courts,  or  any  of  them,  to  try  the  cases,  or  any  of  them, 
which  may  rema'n  on  the  docket  of  the  present  court 
of  appeals,  when  the  judges  thereof  shall  cease  to  hold 
their  offices  as  herein  before  provided ;  or  to  try  any 
case  which  may  be  on  the  docket  of  the  supreme  court 
hereby  constituted,  which  a  majority  of  the  judges  there- 
of may,  from  interest,  relationship,  or  having  been  coun- 
sel in  the  case,  be  unable  to  try. 

18.  When  a  judgment  or  decree  is  reversed  by  an  ap- 
pellate court,  the  reasons  for  such  reversal  shall  be  sta- 
ted by  the  court,  in  a  written  opinion,  to  be  filed  and 
preserved  with  the  record  in  the  case. 

19.  All  the  officers  of  the  supreme  court  and  of  the 
district  courts,  except  sheriffs,  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
said  courts  respectively,  or  by  the  judges  thereof  in  va- 
cation. The  duties  and  compensation  of  said  officers, 
their  tenure  of  office,  and  the  mode  of  removing  them 
from  office,  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

20.  The  clerks  and  attorneys  for  the  Commonwealth 
of  the  circuit  courts,  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  counties  or  corporations  for  which  said 
courts  are  held  respectively  ;  and  shall  hold  their  offices 
for  the  term  of  eight  years  from  the  date  of  their  elec- 
tion, and  until  their  successors  shall  be  duly  qualified. 
Their  duties  and  compensation,  and  the  mode  of  remo- 
ving them  from  office,  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

21.  Whenever  a  vacancy  shall  occur  in  the  office  of 
judge  of  the  supreme  court,  or  of  judge,  clerk  or  attor- 
ney for  the  commonwealth  of  a  circuit  court,  his  succes- 
sor shall  be  elected  for  the  full  term  prescribed  by  this 
article. 

22.  The  Legislature  shall  prescribe  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting and  making  due  returns  of  elections,  and  of  de- 
termining contested  elections  of  judges  and  other  offi- 
cers under  this  article  of  the  Constitution. 

23.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  appointed  by  joint 
vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
commissioned  by  the  Governor;  and  shall  hold  his 
office  for  the  term  of  four  years,  but  be  removable  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  General  Assembly ;  and  shall  per- 
form such  duties  and  receive  such  compensation  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

24.  Writs  shall  run  in  the  name  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Virginia,  and  bear  teste  by  the  clerks  of  the  several 
courts.  Indictments  shall  conclude  against  the  peace 
and  dignity  of  the  Commonwealth. 

The  proposition  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  order- 
ed to  be  printed. 

RESTRICTION   OF  DEBATE. 

'  Mr.  FULKERSON.  I  desire  that  the  resolution  which 
I  offered  yesterday,  be  now  taken  up  from  the  table,  and 
as  I  desire  the  country  to  know  who  is  responsible  for 
all  unnecessary  delay,  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
that  question. 

The  resolution  was  read  by  the  Secretary  as  follows : 

.  Resolved,  That  the  5th  rule  of  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Convention  be  adopted  to  govern  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 
The  rule  is  as  follows  : 

"  5th.  No  member  shall  speak:  more  than  twice  to  the 


same  question,  without  leave,  nor  more  than  once,  until 
every  other  member  intending  to  speak,  shall  have 
spoken." 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  appeal  to  the  gentleman  to  dis- 
pense with  his  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  this  mere 
question  of  taking  up  the  resolution. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  any  of  these 
rules.    Are  they  proposed  now  for  action  % 

The  PRES 1DENT.  The  question  is  on  taking  up  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Scott,  and  on  that  ques- 
tion he  has  demanded  the  veas  and  navs. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  At  the  suggestion  of  several 
members  around  me,  I  agree  to  withdraw  the  ca?I  for 
the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  motion  to  take  up  the  resolution  was  then  agreed 

to. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.    I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 
Mr.  WISE.    I  would  like  the  question  taken  seperate- 
ly  on  the  two  rules. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  only  one  rule  referred  to 
in  the  resolution. 

Mr.  WISE.  There  are  two  clauses  then,  sir,  and  that 
is  the,  same. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  is  not  divisible, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  can  attain  his  end  by 
moving  to  confine  the  application  of  the  resolution  to 
either  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  clauses  of  the  rule. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  move  to  amend,  then,  by  striking  out 
the  first  clause,  or  rather  to  adopt  that  part  of  the  rule 
which  compels  a  gentleman  who  has  once  addressed  the 
committee,  to  defer  speaking  again,  until  other  gentle- 
!  men  who  have  not  spoken,  shall  have  had  an  opportu- 
nity to  do  so.  I  would  not  compel  members  to  obtain 
the  consent  of  this  body  to  speak,  except  under  such 
circumstances. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac 
proposes  to  amend  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from 
Scott,  so  that  it  shall  read — 

Resolved?  That  so  much  of  the  5th  rule  of  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  this  Convention,  as  prescribes  that 
no  member  shall  speak  more  than  once  on  the  same 
question,  until  every  other  member  intending  to  speak, 
shall  have  spoken,  be  adoDted,  to  govern  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to,  a  count  being  had — 
Ayes  45,  Noes  44. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  on  the  adop- 
tion of  the  resolution  as  amended.  On  this  question  the 
yeas  and  nays  have  been  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken,  there  were  yeas  82,  nays 
25,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  J.  Y.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Arthur,  Banks, 
Barbour,  Beale,  Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Bland,  Blue,  Bo- 
cock,  Botts,  Bowles,  Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Lou- 
doun, Chambers,  Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cocke, 
Conway,  Cox,  Davis,  Douglas,  Edwards,  Faulkner, 
Flood,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Fuqua,  Garland,  M.  R. 
H.  Garnett,  M.  Garnett,  Goode,  Hall,  Hoge,  Hill  Hop- 
kins, Hunter,  Janney,  Jones,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Leake, 
Ligon,  Lionberger,  Lynch,  McCamant,  McCandlish, 
McComas,  Martin  of  Henry,  Moncure,  Moore,  Morris, 
Nees©n,  Pendleton,  Price,  Saunders,  Scoggin,  Scott  of 
Caroline,  Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Norfolk 
county,  Smith  of  King  and  Queen,  Smith  of  Green- 
brier, Southall,  Stewart  of  Morgan,  Straughan,  Stuart 
of  Patrick,  Summers,  Taylor,  Trigg,  Turhbull,  Wal- 
lace, Watts  of  Norfolk  county,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  White, 
Whittle,  Williams  of  Shenondoah,  Wise  and  Wysor — S2. 

Nats — Messrs.  Armstrong,  Bowden,  Braxton,  Brown, 
Surges',  Claiborne,  Edmunds,  Gaily,  Jacob,  Letcher, 
Lucas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Meredith,  Miller,  Newman, 
Purkins,  Rives,  Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Sloan,  Stephen- 
son, Tredway,  Tunis,- Will ey,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  and 
Wingfield — 25. 

So  the  resolution  as  amended  was  adopted. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


155 


THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  STEWART,  of  Morgan,  the  Con- 


vention resumed  the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  (Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk  county,  iu  the  Chair,) 
of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  De- 
partment of  the  Government, 

R.E -ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR,  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  first  article  of  that  report,  and  the  amend- 
ments pending  thereto. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  I  have  had  some  doubt  whether, 
under  the  rule  as  adopted  by  the  Convention  to-day,  it 
is  proper  for  me  now  to  claim  the  floor,  having  already 
addressed  the  committee  once  upon  this  question. 

The  CHAIR.    The  rule  does  not  apply  to  the  case  of 
the  gentleman. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.    I  did  not  think  it  did.  However, 
I  preferred  to  obtain  the  opinion  of  the  Chair  and  of  the 
committee  in  relation  to  it.    I  had  no  intention  to  speak 
again  on  this  subject,  although  I  now  feel  it  incumbent 
on  me  to  say  something.    And  I  must  say  that,  during 
the  progress  of  this  debate,  I  have  almost  regretted 
that  I  occupied  the  position  of  being  the  author  of  the 
proposition  which  has  produced  so  much  discussion. 
While  I  do  not  regard  it  as  a  question  of  so  much  mo- 
ment as  to  occupy  eight  or  ten  days  of  the  time  of  this 
Convention  ;  nor  as  equal  to  other  questions,  which  will 
have  to  be  discussed  and  decided  by  this  body  ;  I  not- 
withstanding regard  it  as  a  proposition  of  some  import- 
ance.   I  do  believe  that  to  incorporate  into  the  Consti- 
tution, which  we  are  called  upon  to  reform,  the  amend- 
ment or  proposition  suggested  in  the  amendment  I  sub- 
mitted, would  be  to  make,  f®r  the  people  of  Virginia,  a 
better  Constitution,  in  that  respect,  than  if  a  different 
feature  was  there  incorporated.    I  have,  too,  some  de- 
sire that  it  should  be  known  that  after  the  very  pro- 
tracted discussion  which  has  been  had  upon  the  propo- 
sition, of  which  I  am  the  author,  I  have  not  been  in- 
duced, by  the  arguments  which  I  have  heard,  to  aban- 
don that  proposition.    I  have  not  been  made — although 
distinguished  gentlemen  have  argued  in  favor  of  the 
propositions  adverse  to  mine — to  falter  in  my  convic- 
tions of  the  propriety  of  the  amendment  which  I  have 
moved,  and  which  is  before  the  Convention.    1  -little 
expected,  when  I  moved  that  proposition,  that  we  were 
to  have  a  discussion  upon  the  various  questions  which 
have  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  committee.  I 
did  not  expect  that  democracy  or  aristocracy,  or  mon- 
archy would  have  been  discussed  in  this  committee.  I 
did  not  expect  that  I  should  have  been  called  on,  in  the 
progress  of  this  discussion,  to  vindicate  my  democracy  ; 
nor  shall  I  undertake  to  do  it.    But  I  shall,  upon  this 
occasion,  because  I  believe  there  are  a  few  conclusive 
reasons  why  that  amendment  should  be  adopted,  add 
something  in  addition  to  what  I  have  said  before. 
While  I  must  return  my  thanks  to  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,)  who  addressed  us  yesterday 
in  so  able  and  interesting  a  manner,  for  the  ability 
which  he  brought  to  bear  on  this  question — for  the 
weight  of  character  which  he  has  brought  with  him  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  that  I  have  submitted,  I  must 
notwithstanding,  ask  the  Convention  not  to  regard  this 
amendment  as  one  which  should  be  characterized  as  a 
conservative  proposition,  as  opposed  to  the  popular  idea 
of  radicalism.    I  occupy  the  position  of  a  radical ;  and 
have  been  elected  by  those  who  sent  me  here  as  a  radi- 
cal ;  I  came  here  to  carry  out  the  prominent  measures 
that  are  advocated  by  those  who  are  called  radical,  and 
intend  to  advocate  the  great  and  important  changes  that 
are  to  give  the  people  power  in  the  government.  Oc- 
cupying that  position,  I  did  not  intend,  for  one,  to  be 
drawn  into  the  discussion  of  either  the  radicalism  or 
the  conservatism  of  the  proposition,  or  of  those  who 
advocated  it.    But  I  will  here  remark  to  my  friend  from 
Fauquier,  that  while  I  agree  in  much  that  he  has  said, 
and  while  the  speculative  views  he  advanced  coincide 
generally  with  the  theories  of  government,  as  laid  down 
in  the  books,  yet  I  must  dissent  from  him  when  he  ap- 


plies these  theories  to  the  form  of  government  under 
which  we  live,  and  to  their  incorporation  in  the  Con- 
stitution which  we  may  make.  I  do  not  consider  my- 
self as  enrolled  under  the  banner  of  conservatism.  I 
am  a  radical ;  but  while  I  have  ever  felt  admonished 
that  there  were  dangers  even  in  radicalism,  while  I 
have  desired  to  see  the  fundamental  changes,  which  I 
believe  have  been  indicated  by  the  popular  voice  ;  and 
while  I  have  not  been  considered  as  a  conservative,  yet 
I  have  always  thought,  and  still  feel,  that  to  have  along 
with  me  in  company  one  who  is  a  conservative,  will  be 
no  detriment  to  me  ;  for  while  I  go  for-radical  changes, 
I  am  impressed  by  all  my  observation,  and  by  all  the 
lessons  taught  me  by  history,  that  there  is  danger,  great 
danger,  in  rash  and  reckless  innovation.  I  am,  there- 
fore, willing  to  hear  the  admonitions  of  a  conservative. 
I  am  willing  to  heed  his  suggestions.  I  am  willing  that 
he  should  go  with  me,  that  I  may  profit  by  the  associa- 
tion. 

All  I  mean  to  say  is,  that  the  amendment  which  I  have 
offered  is  radical,  and  not   inconsistent   with  those 
changes  which  are  incumbent  oh  me  as  a  radical  to 
make.    I  do  not  think  there  are  many  arguments  that 
can  be  urged  either  pro  or  con  upon  the  proposition, 
and  I  did  not  expect,  when  I  introduced  it  in  this  com- 
mittee, that  it  would  be  the  subject  of  so  much  discus- 
sion.   I  am  sure,  with  the  view  wilich  I  take  of  it,  I 
cannot  inflict  a  long  speech  on  the  committee,  without 
wandering  very  far  from  the  real  subject  under  consid- 
eration.   To  meet  the  position  wrhich  is  taken  by  this 
amendment,  there  have  been  various  arguments  used, 
which  are  entitled  to  very  great  respect,  and  to  which 
I  should  be  walling  to  give  a  respectful  consideration, 
were  it  proper,  under  the  circumstances,  that  I  should 
occupy  so  long  the  time  of  this  body.    Most  of  these 
arguments  have  been  met  by  the  gentlemen  who  are  as- 
sociated with  me  in  the  support  of  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  my  amendment,  and  that  renders  it  unneces- 
sary that  I  should  allude  to  all  ;  I  will  only  advert  to 
one  or  two  of  them.    The  gentleman  from  Powhatan, 
(Mr.  Hopkins,)  who  addressed  us  at  length  yesterday, 
on  the  subject,  and  who,  in  a  very  able  argument  against 
the  proposition,  commenced  by  the  declaration  that  the 
proposition  to  make  the  Governor  eligible  longer  than 
one  term,  or  re-eligible  as  long  as  the  people  might 
choose  to  make  him  so,  had  been  met  by  those  who  op- 
posed it,  by  throwing  odium  upon  it,  and  by  stigma- 
tizing it  as  a  proposition  to  elect,  for  life.    I  am  very 
sure,  from  the  attentive  consideration  I  have  given  to 
this  discussion,  that  no  gentleman  intended  so  to  char- 
acterize it  ;  and  if  terms  were  used  which  imported 
any  such  imputation  on  the  proposition:  they  were  used 
unintentionally,  and  were  designed  only  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  Governor  was  to  be  re-elected  at  stated 
periods,  so  long  as  the  people  might  think  proper. 
While  there  has  been  no  attempt,  I  think  certainly  no 
intention,  on  the  part  of  any  gentleman  who  advocates 
the  proposition  I  maintain,  to  throw  any  such  dead 
weight  on  the  adverse  proposition,  I  feel  I  have  a  right 
to  complain  that  nearly  all  the  gentlemen  have  thrown 
upon  the  proposition  which  I  maintain  a  weight  as  dead 
as  that  which  they  think  has  been  attempted  to  be 
thrown  on  theirs.    When  the  proposition  was  first  sug- 
gested, and  when  I  had  not  expected  to  make  a  single 
remark  in  advocacy  of  it,  and  when  I  supposed  that  all 
the  debate  that  would  arise  would  be  merely  a  short 
conversational  explanation  with  regard  to  it,  the  very 
first  gentleman  who  opposed  it  characterized  it  as  an 
assault  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.    All  the  gentle- 
men who  have  followed  him,  on  that  side,  have  charac- 
terized it  as  being  a  restriction  on  popular  rights.  And 
I  know  of  no  character  that  could  be  given  to  a  propo- 
sition which,  at  this  day,  would  be  more  likely  to  oper- 
ate as  a  cead  weight,  than  that. 

I  wish  to  inquire,  is  this  a  restriction  on  popular 
rights — or  rather,  is  it  such  a  restriction  on  them  as 
ought  not  to  be  put  in  the  Constitution?    Before  I  in- 


quire to  what  an  extent  it  is  a  restriction,  1  beg  leave 
to  say,  that  when  I  came  here  to  co-operate  with  oth= 


156 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ers  in  forming  a  Constitution,  I  never  dreamed  of  ma- 
king a  Constitution  that  would  not  be  a  restriction,  in 
some  respects,  on  the  power  of  the  people.  I  should 
feel  that  J  came  here  for  no  purpose,  and  that  it  was 
wholly  unnecessary  for  the  people  of  Virginia  to  send 
delegates  here  to  make  a  Constitution,  in  which  the 
powers  of  the  people  were  not  to  be  restricted.  This 
is  the  first  purpose  of  Government.  We  put  restrictions 
on  the  majority  who  operate  through  the  legislature  in 
making  laws.  Every  Constitu  ion  will  have  some  re- 
strictions of  that  sort.  Therefore  I  do  not  fear  the  as- 
saults which  have  been  made  on  this  proposition,  even 
if  it  were  a  restriction  on  popular  rights,  because  I  feel 
sure  that  the  people  of  Virginia  will  assent  to  the  pro 
priety  of  the  proposition.  They,  as  a  wise  people,  a 
people  who  have  sent  us  here  t.6  enter  into  asocial  com- 
pact— consented  that  in  that  compact  restrictions  should 
be  put  upon  their  power — or  rather  on  the  powers  of 
the  majority  of  the  people.  1  need  not  say  why  this  is 
so.  I  will  go  further.  I  will  say,  I  believe  this  ought 
to  be  done,  upon  the  avowed  ground  that  I  am  not 
among  those  who  believe  the  p  eople  cannot  err.  1  have 
as  much  confidence  in  them  as  most  men.  I  believe 
they  will  always  act  from  proper  motives;  but  we  know, 
from  past  experience,  that  the  people  have  erred.  And 
I  believe,  judging  from  the  past,  that  they  will  err  in 
future,  unless  the;  e  at  e  restrictions  upon  them.  N ay, 
I  believe  that  they  err  sometimes  under  the  impulse  ol 
the  moment,  or  under  a  delusion,  which  may  exist 
through  ftlse  impressions  ;  and  they  will  err,  all  the  re- 
strictions which  you  can  throw  around  them  by  consti- 
tutional provisions,  notwithstanding.  Then,  if  this  pro- 
position is  a  restriction,  I  maintain  that  it  is  no  more 
objectionable  than  many  which  we  are  obliged  to  im- 
pose on  the  exercise  of  any  right  in  the  government, 
be  it  popular  or  otherwise- 

But  to  what  extent  is  this  a  restriction?  Gentlemen 
say  you  restrict  popular  rights,  because  you  do  not  pro- 
vide that  the  Governor,  who  has  served  for  one  term  of 
four  years — for  that  is  the  time  proposed  in  the  report, 
and  there  is  no  amendment  before  the  committee  to 
change  it— shall  not  be  re-elected  at  the  end  of  four 
years,  thereby  taking  that  one  individual  from  the  num- 
ber of  those  who  will  be  eligible — of  whom  there,  will 
be  a  multitude  in  the  State  of  Virginia.  Do  this  and 
it  is  said  that  you  thereby  restrict  popular  rights.  What 
is  the  extent  of  that  restriction?  I  have  not  made  any 
calculation  of  the  number  of  persons  in  Virginia  who 
would  be  eligible,  looking  to  age  or  to  their  being  na- 
tives and  residents  of  the  State,  to  which  restrictions  I 
have  heard  no  objection — under  the  Constitution,  if 
adopted,  as  we  propose.  I  suppose,  however,  f.'iat  I 
shall  not  be  in  error,  if  I  say  that  there  are  a  hundred 
thousand  in  the  State  who  would  be  eligible.  I  believe 
if  I  should  take  the  number  at  a  hundred  thousand  I 
should  err  very  far  against  myself — well,  now,  there  is 
a  restriction  upon  popular  rights  complained  of,  which 
goes  only  tG  this  extent,  that  it  restricts  the  people  in 
the  exercise  of  their  right  of  selecting  a  candidate  for 
the  office  of  Governor,  by  removing  from  the  range  of 
their  selection  one  man  out  of  a  hundred  thousand  ! 
Now,  is  that  a  restriction?  Is  that  a  restriction  of 
which  anv  man  in  the  State  would  complain,  so  far  as 
his  individual  right  is  concerned  ?  I  am  sure,  it  is  not 
less  reasonable  than  a  restriction  which  says  he  shall 
be  a  native  of  your  State,  or  thirty  or  forty  years  of 
age,  before  he  shall  be  eligible.  I  ask  if  we  are  in  this 
proposition  urging  a  restriction  which  goes  beyond 
those  to  which  gentlemen  who  are  so  much  enamored 
of  popular  rights  are  willing  to  agree?  It  seems  to  me 
most  certainly  not.  And  gentlemen,  when  they  argue 
against  a  restriction,  in  this  respect,  argue  against  the 
very  object  and  purpose  of  forming  a  government.  I 
was  a  little  surprised  yesterday  at  a  remark  which  fell 
from  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  when  he  dec'ared 
that  this  was  a  question  of  popular  rights,  and  asked  if 
we  did  not  object  to  the  re  eligibility  of  the  officer  be- 
cause the  people  might  abuse  their  power,  if  they 
were  not  prohibited.    Why,  as  I  have  said  before,  lam 


not  unwilling  to  say  that  I  believe  the  people  will  err. 
They  will  not  abuse  the  power  designedly,  because 
they  have  no  motive  to  do  so.  But  I  would  restrict  it 
because  there  is  some  reason  to  suppose  the  people 
might  be  led  into  error  by  the  intervention  of  those  men 
who  the  gentleman  said  in  his  speech  Avere  more  liable 
to  be  corrupt — the  office-holders.  That  is  the  princi- 
pal reason  why  I  am  willing,  if  this  be  a  restriction 
on  popular  rights,  to  put  it  upon  them.  Then,  I  here 
take  the  position,  and  will  repeat  the  argument  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Halifax,  some  days  ago,  that  if 
this  be  a  restriction,  the  restriction  as  to  age,  the  re- 
striction as  to  residence,  and  all  other  restrictions, 
many  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  our  Constitution, 
ought,  in  consistency,  on  the  part  of  the  gentlemen,  to 
be  stricken  from  your  Constitution. 

But  is  it  really  a  restriction  upon  popular  rights?  The 
great  and  leading  question  which  the  people  of  Virginia, 
as  I  understand,  from  the  expression  of  opinion  in  my 
own  quarter  of  the  State,  and  from  the  expression  of 
opinion  in  all  parts  of  the  otate,  from  the  addresses  of 
gentlemen  who  were  candidates,  was,  that  the  people, 
in  order  to  secure  their  rights,  desired  the  right  of  elect- 
ing their  governor,  their  judges,  and  other  officers. 
These  were  the  great  demands  of  the  people.  And  in 
sustaining  them  on  this  floor,  any  man,  I  had  supposed, 
would  be  considered  radical  enough  for  any  part  of  the 
State  of  Virginia.  I  maintain  their  rights  in  these  par- 
ticulars. I  am  for  that  change  in  the  constitution 
which  will  secure  them.  And  it  seems  to  me  tho.t,  while 
we  advance  thus  far,  while  we  secure  to  the  people 
these  rights,  we  should  be  anxious  to  do  that  which  I 
have  been  (a  ight  by  all  history  and  by  ali  experience 
in  our  own  governments,  federal  and  State,  was  wise 
and  prudent — impose  restrictions  upon  those  who  have 
the  power — upon  those  who,  in  the  language  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Powhatan,  are  more  apt  to  be  corrupt  and 
to  abuse  their  power.  I  am  for  imposing  upon  them  re- 
strictions, and  not  for  putting  them  on  the  people.  And 
the  purpose  of  my  amendment,  however  it  may  appear, 
is  not  to  limit  popular  rights,  but  the  power  of  the  office- 
holder. If  it  operates  in  the  slightest  degree  to  restrict 
the  rights  of  the  people,  it  operates,  in  my  opinion,  a 
hundred  fold  in  restricting  the  power,  and  ability  to 
abuse  the  power,  on  the  part  of  office-holders.  I  think 
that  any  man  who  will  look  at  the  lessons  which  have 
been  taught  us  on  this  subject,  must  view  it  as  an  object 
of  primary  importance,  and  admit  that  a  great  deal  will 
be  accomplished  in  owe  government,  if  you,  can  save  the 
people  from  the  imposition,  the  mischief,  which  will 
follow  to  them  from  the  abuse  of  power  by  those  who 
have  the  power. 

The  other  day  I  introduced,  merely  by  way  of 
allusion,  and  not  that  I  considered  the  Executive  of 
the  United  States — the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States — had  any  relation  to  that  of  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia, or  was  like  it — not  that  I  believed  in  all  re- 
spects the  same  arguments  which  would  apply  to  th3 
one  would  apply  to  the  other — but  simply  to  illustrate 
the  danger,  or  at  least  the  inconveniences,  which  have 
resulted  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  from  an 
abuse  of  executive  power,  or,  if  you  choose,  from  a 
suspicion  that  the  executive  power  has  been  abused. 
And  I  think  the  exercise  of  the  patronage  merely  pre- 
sents an  analogous  case,  in  this  respect,  because,  while 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  infinitely  ahead 
of  the  fovernor  in  the  extent  of  power  and  patron- 
age which  he  possesses,  yet  the  governor  of  Virginia, 
under  any  system  which  you  may  adopt,  so  long  as  he  is 
your  executive  officer,  so  long  as  he  will  have  the  power 
to  execute  your  laws,  mu?t  have  considerable  power. 
And  reduce  it  as  much  as  you  can,  consistently  with  the 
public  interests,  you  must,  notwithstanding,  put  into  his 
hands  a  great  deal  of  power.  I  shall  not  stop  to  enume- 
rate all  the  descriptions  of  power,  or  to  point  out  their 
extent,  for  it  is  sufficient  to  say  he  is  to  execute  the 
law,  and  a  refusal  to  execute  the  law  might  involve  us 
in  the  most  serious  consequences.  If  it  be  an  important 
office,  as  we  must  admit  it  to  be,  though  not  so  import- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


157 


ant  as  th-i  President  <>f  the  United  States,  it  is  an  office!  say  to  those  who  are  to  fill  your  pub  ic  offices  that  we 
which  may  be  abased,  and  I  maintain  it  to  be  wise  on  have  very  litt  e  confidence  in  vou.  that  we  will  reward 
our  pari,  that  we  take  from  that  officer,  who  must  have  you  if  you  do  well,  and  punish  you  if  you  do  not  do 
power  to  some  extent,  at  least  the  motive  to  abuse  that;  well.  Moreover,  if  that  is  to  be  thedocrriiie — and  it  will 
I  reason  on  this  subject,  supp  sing  the  manj  be  regarded  in  that  light,  whether  gentlemen  avow  it 

.    „1  ~  Pli  „  C  „»>^»,    mill   ko    lilra  ntknn  m&n  •  •  .1  ..  . 


elected  to  the  office  of  governor  will  be  like  other  men, 
will  be  liable  to  the  frailties  to  which  all  men  are  lia- 
ble, and  believing  that  there  is  nothing  which  operates 


or  not — in  my  view,  the  very  fact  that  you  make  a  man 
re-eligible,  and  that  it  will  be  considered,  if  you  fail  to 
re-elect  him,  that  he  is  punished  and  disgraced,  will  op- 


mire  powerfully  upon  men  to  keep  them  right,  or  to  erate  verv  t0  restriet  in  its  effects,  the  exercise  of 


make  them  err,  than  to  put  before  them  a  motive  which 

will  lead  them  to  do  one  or  the  other.  I  therefore  wish!  individual  who  is  to  be  selectee 
to  pat  your  executive  in  a  condition  in  which  he  shall 
have  no  motive  to  err,  no  inducement  to  prostitute  his 


offi 


the  public  judgment  in  looking  to  qualifications  in  the 

You  have  a  man  a 
candidate  who  has  been  Governor  for  four  years.  He 
mav,  iu  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  be  free  from  auv  cor- 


Ise  for  the  purpose  of  being  re-elected,  and  thereby  I  rupCion>  an  i  vet  in  some  great  emergmcv  have  failed 
instated  m  the  office  which  he  has  once  hidd,  and,|„T;rh  ;„,{„mi„t  onri  nomo  f^-i™  „„j  *  dis- 


rei 

folding,  may  have  fallen  in  Jove  with, 
in  this  country,  the  love  of 

sources  of  evil^that  it  is  a  source  of  corruption,  and 
that  it  produces,  in  all  our  elections,  more  excitement 
than  almost  any  one  thing.  The  intrigues  and  scram- 
bles, arising  no  doubt  from  the  great  mania  which 
exists  to  procure  oifice,  is  a  most  prolific  source  of 
evil.    Then  1  wish  the  executive  to  be  placed  in  a  posi-, 

"  es  operating  upon  him  |  ™il  Pi;«nounc_e  th^judg.nenr.  upon  him  that  he  is  guil 


,  '  with  judgment  and  uerv|  t  •  execute  the  laws  and  to  < 
We  know  that  ch  gume  hi  h  exeC,uire  tm,t.  m  may  have  d 
office  is  one  of  the  great!  this  °aaJ  yet  b|  a  mor  a  aad  excellent  man  in  his  mo- 
lives  and  purposes.  "What  then  will  take  place?  You 
will  fin  I  that  the  sympa  hy  of  the  public  will  operate 
in  his  favor  ;  that  from  the  mere  fact  that  lie  is  re-eli- 
gibie.  the  people  will  say,  we  must  re-elect  him  though 
lie  is  incompetent,  for  if  we  fail  or  refuse  to  do  it,  we 


tion  where  he  would  not  have  oi  >n 

to  electioneer  for  a  second  term.  Now  here  is  my  pro 
p  )sition  :  1  wish  to  p  it  the  officer  who  has  power — who 
may  abase  that  po  ver  in  mi  i.y  ways,  who  may  abuse 
it  in  the  appointment  of  directors  of  banks,  if  we  are  to 
let  him  have  it,  as  under  the  present  constitution,  and 


_  ty,  and  that  will  disgrace  him  and  his  posterity.  The 
effect  of  this  would  be  to  restrict  the  people  in" the  ex- 
ercise of  a  proper  discrimination  in  the  selection  of 
Governor ;  and  in  my  view,  that  is  one  reason  why  we 
should  sav,  bv  constitutional  limitation,  that  he  shall 


in  many  other  appointments,  and  who  may  abuse  it  in  llot  hec  re-ehgihie— that  the  people  may  be  free  tose.ect 
executing  the  laws— in  a  position  in  which  he  will  not|  °&  of  tbe  *****  mas*  °}  tne  citize  is— with  the  excep- 
have  a  motive  like  this  to  prostitute  and  abuse  the  pow-i  tloQ  of  one^-their  candidate,  uninfluenced  by  sympathy 
ers  of  his  oifi  ^e.  I  ask  if  any  man  can  say,  where  a  man  |  or  h'f  the  consideration  that  they  are  condemning  or  re- 
is  thus  elected  and  thus  situated,  without  a  motive  to  do|  probating  him  who  has  oceuped  the  office, 
wronz:,  without  a  strong  motive  t)  do  wrong,  as  we  know      J        0nlv  notice  one  other  matter  which  has  been 


has  always  operated,  judging  from  past  facts,  if  he  is  not 
more  likely  to  do  right  than  when  we  put  him  in  a  situ- 
ation in  which  he  will  be  controlled  by  causes  which 
may  lead  him  to  do  wrong,  and  which  may  operate  upon, 
him  as  a  pjwer  to  induce  him  to  err.  Geuciemen  talk 
of  rewards  artel  punishments,  and  say  that  the  Governor 
ought  to  be  te-eligib'e,  because  by  his  re  election  you  re- 
ward an  hones!:  public  officer,  who  has  proved  faithful 
to  his  trust.  Now  it  does  seem  to  me  that  that  sort  of 
reward  is  not  the  proper  one  to  put  before  a  pubuc  offi 


much  discussed  in  this  body.  Gent  emen  have  reded 
very  much  upou  the  weight  of  authority  here.  In 
looking  at  the  course  pursue  I  and  the  opinions  of  the 
fathers  of  the  government — whose  course  as  well  as 
whose  reasons  in  favor  of  any  particular  measure,  can- 
n  >t  but  be  entitled  to  great  respect  and  deference,  and 
to  whom  I  fe  d  it  my  duty  to  look  when  i  have  to  act 
upon  any  sub'ect  having  reference  to  that  on  which  they 
acted — gentlemen  have  said  that  the  weight  of  authori- 
ty was  against  the  iue.igibiiitv  of  the  executive  offi- 


up- 

gOV- 


cer;  looking  to  the  character  and  respectability  of  j  Cer,  or  rather  in  favor  of  his  re-eligibility.  While  I 
th  »se  who  are  to  be  taken  from  the  great  body  of  the  Illu6t  sav  that  we  cm  not,  in  my  opinion,  go  back  to  the 
penpU  to  be  iuveste  I  with  the  power  and  diguity  of  UonventYm  wh  ch  formed  the  Yjonstitu  ion  of  the  Uni- 
the  chief  executive  office  of  your  Stare.  Is  it  true  that)  ted  States,  an  1  in  which  the  re-e'dgibiiitv  of  the  Presi- 
you  cannot  rely  upon  the  Govern  >r  of  Virginia,  unless  j  jent  of  the  United  States  was  discussed" and  voted 
you  offer  to  reward  him  if  he  is  faithful,  or  punish  him  ODj  to  nn  [  aB  exict  pirallel  bv  which  we  mav  b.  5 
if  he  is  unfaithful  to  his  trust  1  VVdl  those  geutlemen  |  erned  iu  a  restriction  to  be  imposed  upon  vour  Govern- 
wh)  clam  >r  so  loudly  for  popular  rights,  aud  popular  OFj  I  believe  that  if  vou  will  look  at  the  authorities, 
rights  unrestricted,  say  that  is  the  stan  lard  by  which  v0ll  wm  nnei  that  their  weight  goes  stronglv  in  favor  of 
you  are  to  select  those  who  are  to  rill  your  office  of  Go-  making  him  ineligible.  In  the  ConventionVhich  formed 
vernar  ?  I  have  too  high  an  opinion  of  the  character  of  j  tne  fe.Jeral  Constitution.  1  will  undertake  to  say,  that 
the  great  mass  and  body  of  those  from  whom  we  are  toj  Virginia,  in  that  Convention,  was  in  favor  of  the"  Presi- 
select  our  Governors,  to  say  that  motives  such  as  these  I  Jent's  being  ineligible.  I  know  that  the  first  proposi- 
are  to  operate  on  the  man  to  make  him  true  to  the  great  I  tion  which  was  presented  to  that  Convention  through 


interests  of  the  Commonwealth.  I  go  for  making  a! 
Constitution  based  on  the  supposition,  at  least,  that  wej 
have,  among  the  citizens  of  the  State,  men — the  excep- ' 
tions  may  be  ra'-e — who  may  be  operated  upon  by  differ 


Governor  Randolph,  as  coming  from  the  delegation  from 
Virginia,  contained  the  provision  that  the  President 
should  not  be  re-eligible  after  his  first  term.  There 
was  afterwards  another  proposition  in  the  course  of  the 


ent  motives.    And  if  we  get  such  a  man,  who  is  to  be  Jebate  upon  the  subject,  in  which  the  \  irginia  delega 


selected  by  the  people,  as  enlightened  as  they  are,  b\ 
the  people  of  whom  some  gentlemen  are  willing  to  sav 


tion  were  divided.    Mr.  Blair  and  Mr.  Mason  voted  for 
proposition  that  he  should  not  be  re-eligible,  and  Ge- 


they  cannot  err— when  we  get  a  man  thus  elected  in!neral  Washington  and  Mr.  Madison  voted  that  he  should 


office,  he  will  have  to  influence  him  his  oath  of  office 
and  hat  spirit  of  patriotism  which  the  people  will  dis 
cern  iu  any  man,  before  they  give  him  their  sud'rages 
And  he  will  have  the  good  of  the  Commonwealth  at  heart 
wall  feel  that  he  himself  is  a  part  of  this  greit  Common 


be  re-eligible.  Gov.  Randolph  was  absent,  but  had  avowed 
himself  for  ineligibility.  But  if  gent  lemen  will  loo'-  at  the 
arguments  of  Mr.  Madison,  if  they  will  look  into  the  de- 
bates-upon  that  subject,  they  will  see  that  Mr  Madison 
was  influenced  in  his  vote  bv  the  fact  that  in  the  reso- 


wealth,  and  that  his  administration  is  identified  with  itsj  lution  was  incorporated  the  proposition,  that  he  be 
glory  These  are  considerations  which  will  always  operate;  elected  bv  the  national  legislature.  His  argument  upon 
upon  any  man  who  is  worthy  to  be  selected  to  be  the!  the  proposition  is  directed  against  the  provision  in  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  I  therefore  think  that  gentlemen  article  which  ma  le  the  President  ineligible,  bv  the 
err  when  they  get  up  and  muke  a  proclamation  that  they)  aational  legislature,  and  I  think  that  the  fact' that 
are  for  forming  a  Constitution  for  Virginia  which  will)  ne  wa3  to  be  chosen  by  the  legislature,  was  the- 


158 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


main  objection  to  the  proposition  when  he  voted  against 
it.  And  if  you  will  look  through  the  debates,  you 
will  hud  in  the  discussion  upon  that  subject,  the  great 
question,  there,  was,  whether  the  President  should  be 
elected  by  the  people  or  by  electors  selected  by  the  peo- 
ple, or  whether  he  should  be  elected,  as  was  the  first 
proposition,  by  the  national  legislature.  There  is  no 
weight  of  authority  on  the  subject  to  be  found  against 
the  ineligibility  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
even  if  the  office  was  like  the  office  of  the  Governor  of 
Virginia  in  the  respect  which  I  maintain  it  is  not. 

Gentlemen  have  appealed  to  their  authorities, 
and  among  others  they  have  referred  to  Mr.  Jefferson. 
Now,  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions  upon  the  subject  about 
that  period — at  least  in  1783 — cet'tamly  were,  that  the 
office  of  Governor  of  Virginia  ought  not  to  be  re-eligible, 
as  expressed  in  a  draft  of  the  constitution  which  he 
prepared  to  submit  to  the  people  when  they  met  in 
convention.  In  that  draft  of  a  constitution  which  was| 
drawn  by  himself,  he  expressly  makes  the  provision  that 
the  Governor  of  Virginia  should  not  be  re-eligible,  al- 
though he  might  have  entertained,  and  for  very  good 
reasons,  perhaps,  in  regard  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  a  very  different  opinion.  I  might,  if  I 
thought  proper,  here  give  reasons  why  the  President  of 
the  United  States  ought  to  be  re-eligible,  which  would 
not  apply  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia.  I  think  there  j 
are  manifest  and  strong  reasons ;  but  I  do  not  intend 
to  urge  that  question,  or  to  say  whether  lie  ought 
or  ought  not  to  be.  I  am  arguing  the  question  now,] 
whether  the  Governor  of  Viiginia  ought  or  ought  not 
to  be  re-eligible  after  his  first  term. 

"We  come  down  to  the  convention  of  1829,  which 
formed  the  constitution  under  which  we  now  live,  and 
in  which  several  of  the  most  distinguished  statesmen, 
not  only  of  Virginia,  but  of  the  nation,  participated,  j 
And  if  gentlemen  mean  to  decide  that  question  by 
weight  of  authority,  I  think  they  will  see  from  a  refer-! 
ence  which  I  shall  make,  that  the  weight  of  authority 
is  in  favor  of  the  proposition  which  I  now  advocate. 
The  report  which  cam«  from  the  executive  committee  j 
in  that  convention  contained  a  provision  that  the  Gov-j 
ernor  should  be  elected  by  the  legislature.  Mr.  Dodd- 
ridge  offered  an  amendment  to  thai,  proposition  which  | 
was  to  make  him  elected  by  the  people  and  not  by  the  j 
Legislature.  After  that,  Mr.  Fitzhugh  offered  another' 
proposition  which  embraces  somewhat  the  proposition 
now  before  the  committee.  He  moved  the  following 
amendment : 

"That  the  executive  office  of  this  Commonwealth 
ought  to  be  vested  in  a  Governor,  to  be  elected  by  the 
General  Assembly  for  three  years  and  to  be  ineligible 
for  three  years  thereafter." 

Here  was  a  proposition  to  have  the  Governor  elected 
by  the  legislature,  and  to  be  ineligible  three  years  after 
the  first  term  of  service.  Upon  that  proposition  Mr.  Mar- 
shall and  Mr.  Monroe  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  Mr. 
Madison  in  the  negative.  Mr.  Marshall  and  Mr.  Monroe 
were  for  making  him  ineligible  even  by  the  Legislature. 
Mr.  Madison  voted  against  it  no  doubt,  as  I  shall  show 
afterwards  by  another  vote  of  the  convention,  for  the 
reasons  which  he  advanced,  and  which  operated  upon 
him  in  the  federal  constitution — that  is,  because  the 
resolution  contained  a  proposition  not  only  that  the  Gov- 
ernor should  be  ineligible,  but  that  he  should  be  elected 
by  the  Legislature ;  a  provision  to  which  Mr.  Madison 
seems  to  have  been  opposed  in  the  formation  of  the  federal 
constitution.  After  that,  another  vote  was  taken  on 
another  proposition  submitted  by  Mr.  Doddridge,  who 
moved  farther  to  amend  the  report  of  the  executive* 
committee,  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Governor  shall  be  elected  by  the 
persons  qualified  to  vote  for  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Delegated  at  the  several  times  and  places  appointed 
for  holding  elections  of  the  General  Assembly.  The 

Governor  shall  hold  his  office  for  the  term  of  years 

and  after  the  expiration  of  his  term,  be  ineligible  for 
 veara." 


Ail  that  is  recorded  upon  that  proposition  is  that  Mr . 
Madison  voted,  aye  !  I  beg  the  committee  to  remember 
if  any  here  are  to  be  governed  by  authority  on  this  sub' 
ject,  or  influenced  by  the  course  taken  by  Mr.  -Madison, 
that  whatsoever  he  might  have  done  in  the  federal  con- 
vention, when  called  upon  to  vote  on  a  proposition 
which  contained  not  only  the  feature  of  ineligibility,  but 
also  the  feature  that  the  Governor  should  be  elected  by 
the  people,  the  proposition  that  is  contained  in  this 
amendment  I  have  offered  and  which  gentlemen  have 
characterized  and  denounced  as  warring  upon  popular 
rights,  Mr.  Madison,  according  to  this  record,  voted  in 
favor  of  that  provision.  Mr.  Marshall  and  Mr.  Monroe 
voted  for  it,  when  the  Governor  was  to  be  elected  by  the 
Legislature.  Mr.  Madison  voted  for  it  when  the  other 
feature  was  embraced,  which  seemed  to  have  been  a 
favorite  one  with  him,  in  direct  violation,  as  those  gen- 
tlemen would  say,  of  popular  rights.  Upon  the  score  of 
authority,  I  think  I  may  conclusively  claim  that  the 
weight  of  argument  is  in  favor  of  there-eligibility  of  the 
Governor. 

I  may  go  further.  I  have  taken  occasion  to  look  a 
little  into  the  book  of  all  the  various  constitutions  now 
in  existence  of  all  the  States  in  this  Union,  and  I  find 
from  a  review  of  them,  that  only  eleven— embracing 
some  of  the  newer  States  of  the  northwest,  and  only 
one  southern  State — have  adopted  the  provision  such 
as  is  contained  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts.)  In  seven  of  these  States,  Louisi- 
ana, Illinois,  Missouri,  Florida,  Delaware,  Kentucky, 
and  Arkansas,  the  term  is  four  years,  which  is  the  term 
proposed  in  the  report  of  our  Executive  Committee, 
and  the  incumbent  is  ineligible  thereafter  for  four  years, 
which  would  make  just  the  proposition  I  have  embraced 
in  my  amendment.  This  is  true  of  six  of  these  States. 
In  Arkansas  he  is  elected  for  four  years — may  hold  his 
office  for  eight  years  out  of  twelve — that  is,  may  be 
elected  for  two  terms,  and  then  is  ineligible  for  four 
years.  In  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  and  Virginia,  his 
term  is  three  years,  and  ineligible  for  three  years 
thereafter.  In  Indiana  ana  Pennsylvania  his  term  is 
three  years  and  he  may  hold  his  office  six  years  out 
of  nine. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  will  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
whether  the  Maryland  constitution  was  not  amended 
in  1837.  and  the  ineligibility  clause  stricken  out  ?  I 
think,  by  reference  to  the  Book  of  Constitutions,  you  will 
find  that  to  be  the  fact. 

Mr.  T RED  WAY.  I  will  say  that  my  impression  i\ 
that  such  is  not  the  case.  But  in  regard  to  the  state- 
ment I  am  making,  I  do  not  see  that  there  are  any  er- 
rors in  it.  If  there  are,  I  do  not  know  of  it,  and  I  de- 
signed it  to  be  correct. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  The  gentleman  will  allow  me  to 
make  one  further  inquiry.  Does  the  gentleman  recol- 
lect what  the  provision  on  this  subject  is,  in  the  new, 
constitutions  lately  adopted  in  Louisiana  and  California? 
Neither  of  these  are  in  the  Book  of  Constitutions  to 
which  he  refers,  nor  is  the  new  Constitution  of  Ken- 
tucky. I  shall  be  much  obliged  to  the  gentleman — if 
it  is  in  his  power  to  do  so — to  give  us  information  on 
this  subject.  I  will  say  to  him,  that  I  understand  from 
a  gent  leman  who  knows  the  fact  in  relation  to  the  Mary- 
land constitution,  that  it  has  been  altered — that  the 
election  there  is  regulated  by  districts,  and  that  there  is 
no  restriction  of  ineligibility. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  I  am  unable  to  answer  the  gen- 
tleman. In  response  to  his  inquiry,  I  will  say  that  this 
statement  is  one  which  I  have  taken  from  the  last  edi- 
tion of  the  constitutions  of  those  States  to  which  I 
have  had  access.  I  understand,  in  relation  to  the  con- 
stitution of  Kentucky,  from  a  gentleman  who  is  no 
doubt  correctly  inf  >rmed  upon  the  subjest,  that  there 
is  the  same  provision  there  that  I  have  submitted  here. 
In  regard  to  the  California  constitution  I  am  not  in- 
formed. I  have  only  taken  those  of  the  constitutions 
that  I  could  find  in  the  book  containing  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  States,  published  in  1850 — the  latest  edi- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


J  59 


tion,  I  believe,  published  before  the  convening  of  this 
body — and  with  a  view,  no  doubt,  to  furnish  this  body 
with  facts  to  aid  them  in  their  investigations.  I  was 
going  to  say,  that  in  Pennsylvania  and  Indiaua,  the  term 
of  service  was  three  years,  eligible  six  years  out  of 
nine,  and  ineligible  after  the  two  terms.  In  Mississippi 
the  term  is  two  years  ;  and  the  governor  can  hold  his 
office  far  four  years  out  of  six.  In  Alabama,  Texas, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Tennessee  a 
term  of  two  years,  and  eligible  for  six  years.  There  is 
the  same  provision  in  the  Ohio  constitution.  There  are 
eleven  States  :  Michigan,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Maine,  Mass- 
achusetts, New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  JSTcw  York,  and  Georgia,  embracing  only 
one  southern  State,  in  which  the  office  of  governor  is  re- 
eligible  after  his  first  term,  or  re-eligible  without 
any  restriction.  I  think,  therefore,  that  looking 
at  the  various  constitutions  of  the  States,  we  may 
claim  that  the  weight  of  authority  derivable  from 
their  example,  as  well  as  from  the  opinions  and  acts  of 
the  distinguished  men  who  had  the  principal  agency  in 
the  formation  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  well  as  of 
the  constitution  of  Virginia,  is  with  us. 

I  shall  not  dwell  long  upon  this  question.  I  have  got 
through  with  about  all  I  had  to  say  to  the  committee 
on  this  subject,  and  I  have  really  taken  much  more  time 
than  I  supposed  I  would  when  I  began.  I  must  here, 
in  conclusion,  say  that  when  we  are  thus  standing  by 
the  opinions  and  the  acts  of  distinguished  men  who 
have  been  referred  to  in  this  debate,  and  fey  the  consti- 
tutions adopted  by  the  various  States  in  this  Union, 
where  popular  rights  are  as  much  regarded,  doubtless, 
asjn  any  constitution  on  earth,  gentlemen  ought  to 
cease  arguing  against  this  amendment,  as  warring  on 
popular  rights,  and  that  we  who  advocate  this  propo- 
sition ought  to  be  permitted  to  occupy  the  position  of 
being  as  strong  advocates  of  popuLar  rights  as  those 
gentlemen  Who  are  opposing  it.  I  think  that,  looking  at 
the  reasons  which  should  operate  on  us  in  deciding  this 
question,  that  they  are  of  a  character  which  should  in- 
duce us  to  make  the  governor  of  Virginia  re-eligible  for 
one  term  only,  and  that  he  shall  be  at  least  out  of  office 
for  a  term  of  four  years  before  he  can  come  again  before 
the  people,  rather  than  that  he  should  be  permitted  to 
"come  before  them  again  with  all  his  power,  and  patron- 
age, and  influence  ;  or  if  he  is  one  who  has  acted  im- 
properly, to  excite  the  sympathies  of  the  people  and 
secure  his  re  election.  It  is  wiser  to-  make  a  constitu- 
tion in  which  you  put  in  that  condition,  than  to 
have  one  which  will  allow  the  office  to  be  re-eligible, 
either  during  his  whole  life,  at  stated  periods,  or  to 
come  before  the  people  at  any  time  immediately  after 
his  term  shall  have  expired.  But  i  repeat,  I  have  de- 
tained the  committee  too  long,  longer  than  I  intended 
to  when  Hook  the  floor  this  morning.  I  regret  that  I 
have  contributed  to  protract  this  debate.  I  feel  that 
I  cannot  complain  of  it  in  others  because  I  have  been 
guilty  of  it  myself.  I  might  not,  perhaps,  have  found 
it  necessary  to  have  taken  the  floor  if  I  had  not  been  in 
a  position  in  the  front  rank,  in  offering  the  amendment 
to  the  report  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

Mr.  TPJGG-.  I  regret  that  I  find  myself,  under  a 
sort  of  necessity,  compelled  to  mingle  thus  early  in  the 
discussions  of  this  body.  I  regret  it  for  more  reasons 
than  one.  1  regret  it  for  at  least  two  reasons.  I  am 
here  in  the  discharge  of  the  first  high  political  duty 
which  it  has  ever  been  my  fortune  to  have  conferred 
upon  me,  and  I  come  with  the  embarrassment  which  I 
suppose  gentlemen  who  are  just  entering  upon  such  a 
high  and  important  trust,  must  feel.  I  know  that  I  am 
surrounded  by  gentlemen  of  intelligence,  commanding 
intellect,  and  the  greatest  experience  in  all  parliament- 
ary proceedings*  and,  therefore,  I  feel  in  my  own  per- 
son a  sort  of  rigidity,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  which 
I  suppose  to  be  common  to  every  man  in  a  like  position. 
To  express  very  fully  the  feeling  which  I  have  on  this 
subject,  it  may  be  illustrated  in  this  way  :  The  robe  of 
office  to  one  just  entering  upon  its  duties,  is  like  a,  new 


coat,  it  must  be  endured  for  a  time  before  it  becomes 
easy  to  the  wearer.  Bnt  I  have  a  duty  to  perform,  not 
only  to  myself,  but  to  my  immediate  constituents,  and 
to  the  people  oi  the  Commonwealth  at  large.  And  no 
matter  how  inexperienced  I  may  be,  no  matter  how 
untaught  in  the  details  of  parliamentary  proceedings, 
I  have  come  here  determined,  in  my  own  mind,  to  dis- 
charge that  duty  according  to  the  very  best  of  my  abil- 
ity. But  before  I  proceed  to  state  the  question  now  be- 
fore the  committee,  and  my  position  in  relation  to  it,  I 
beg  leave  to  say  that  when  I  come  to  that  point,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  confine  myself  to  the  main  question,  and 
shall  not,  if  I  know  myself,  depart  from  it.  But  there 
are  some  matters  Avhich  have  been  thrown  in,  in  the 
course  of  this  debate,  to  which  I  beg  leave,  humble  as 
I  am — inexperienced  as  I  am — to  call  the  attention  of 
this  committee. 

We  have  more  than  once  heard  allusions  to  parties 
made  upon  this  floor;  that  gentlemen  occupying  certain 
positions  in  relation  to  the  question  we  are  now  discus- 
sing were  either  federal  or  democratic  ;  and  they  have 
had  it  thrown  in  their  teeth  rather  significantly  that 
they  are  conservatives  or  radicals,  or  black  cockade 
federalists,  in  their  views. 

Now,  I  feel  proud  to  say  that  I  can  come  up  into  this 
hall,  as  a  representative  of  my  own  district,  feeling  my- 
self a  representative  of  the  people,  untrammeled  by 
any  party.  I  am  glad  that  i  can  feel  that  on  this  sub- 
ject I  can  throw  off  all  party  trammels,  and  do  my  ut- 
most for  the  Commonwealth  at  large.  The  principles 
we  are  now  discussing  are  not  purely  democratic  or 
whig,  or  federal.  They  are  the  principles,  in  my  opin- 
ion, of  a  republican  government,  which  we  are  about 
to  establish.  And  upon  these  principles  I  intend  to 
plant  myself  throughout  the  whole  progress  of  this 
Convention.  Let  the  members  of  this  Convention  dis- 
card all  these  party  allusions.  Let  them  feel  that  they 
are  the  people's  representatives,  and  not  the  tools  of  a, 
party  anywhere  in  the  Common  wealth.  That  is  the 
feeling  with  which  I  have  come,  and  that  is  the  position 
which  I  mean  to  maintain  and  carry  out  as  long  as  I  sit 
within  these  walls.  When  upon  the  hustings  in  my  own 
district,  I  there  unfurled  the  banner  of  popular  rights,  a 
banner  not  decorated  with  stars  and  stripes,  because  I  was 
not  advocating  a  constellation  of  republics;  but  it  was  a 
pure  white  banner,  With  the  sole  words  "  Republican 
Liberty"  written  in  letters  of  gold  upon  its  silken 
folds  ;  or,  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac 
(Mr.  Wise)  old  Virginia's  motto,  "  Sic  semper  tyrannis" 
I  have  brought  that  same  plain  banner  with  me,  and  I  in- 
tend to  plant  it  within  the  very  walls  of  this  buiiding.  I 
intend  to  plant  it  here,  and  in  its  defence  the  broad  and 
glittering  sword  of  justice,  wielded  by  the  right  arm  of 
truth,  shall  be  constantly  seen  gleaming  in  the  sunbeams 
of  its  glorious  blessings.  And  I  hope  every  gentleman 
will  come  up  in  the  same  spirit.  Never  mind  the  terms 
of  reproach  that  may  be  cast  upon  you  by  gentlemen 
who  are  advocating  other  principles  ;  let  them  call  you 
radicals  or  conservatives,  or  what  they  will,  but  be  sure 
that  in  your  action  here  you  conform  to  and  carry  out 
those  republican  doctrines  which  the  people  themselves 
expect  at  your  hands. 

And  still  diverging  from  the  main  question  at  issue, 
I  propose  to  inquire  somewhat  into  the  meaning  of  these 
terms,  conservatism  and  radicalism.  As  often  as  1  have 
heard  the  term  conservative  applied  to  gentlemen  in  this 
Convention,  I  have  never  yet  seen  or  heard  a  definition 
of  the  term  until  I  heard  it  given  yesterday  by  a  sensi- 
ble, intelligent  gentleman — one  who,  in  debate,  posses- 
ses talent,  and  no  doubt  has  much  influence  in  the  region 
from  which  he  comes.  But  he  and  I  differ  as  wide  as 
the  poles — as  wide-  as  the  two  extremes  from  which 
we  come — he  from  the  normeast,  and  I  from  the  south- 
west. Extremes,  it  is  true,  do  sometimes  meet,  but  I 
fear  that  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,) 
and  the  gentleman  from  Washington  will  never  meet. 
Conservatism!  What  is  it,  according  to  the  definition 
which  we  have  from  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  ?  His 
definition  of  it  is,  that  the  constitution  under  which  we 


160 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


now  iiv^,  an  J  the  principles  .vhich  were  advocated  and 
placed  there  by  the  sages  of  seventy-dx,  and  which  have 
been  c  mtinued  in  the  present  constitution,  are  good 
enough. 

Mr.  WiSE.  The  gentleman  makes  a  mistake  as  to 
the  definition  of  conservatism  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier.  That  gentleman's  definition  of  conservatism — 
a  definition  that  has  now  become  a  fixed  fact,  for  we 
have  yet  to  hear  its  disavowal  from  any  conservative — 
ii  this:  that  pure  democracy  is  to  be  scouted,  and  that 
we  are  to  form  what  he  calls  a  constitutional  republi- 
canism. And  his  definition  of  constitutional  republi- 
canism is  this  :  that  it  must  have  within  itself  an  in- 
fusion of  monarchical  and  aristocratic  principles  in 
order  to  check  your  pure  democracy.  That  is  the  defi- 
nition of  conservatism,  and  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
q  tier  saved  me  a  great  deal  of  trouble,  because  before 
the  adjournment  1  promised  to  find  out  what  it  was. 
But  he  told  the  world,  and  relieved  me  from  all 
labor  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  The  gentleman  has  understood  me 
precisely,  and  happily  expressed  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WISE.  1  beg  leave  to  say  that  whenever  I  am 
asked  for  an  honest  politician,  a  man  without  fear — a 
man  who  is  no  political  hypocrite,  I  shall  point  to  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier.  Though  I  cannot  say  that 
his  principles  are  without  reproach,  yet,  as  long  as  I 
live — and  I  shall  always  live  to  war  against  his  princi- 
ples—  1  will  do  honor  to  the  man.  There  is  scarce  a 
man  in  the  land  who,  at  this  day,  would  have  dared,  even 
entertaining  the  sentiment,  who  would  have  had  the 
moral  courage  to  have  avowed  it. 

Mr.  TRIGG.  If  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  had 
allowed  me  to  proceed,  I  think  he  would  have  found  in 
the  end  that  he  and  I  did  not  differ  materially  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  term  conservatism,  as  rendered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier.  I  was  about  to  say,  and  shall 
still  say  it,  unless  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  disavows 
it,  that  he  did  refer  to  the  present  constitution,  and  that 
he  did  say  he  would  stand  by  that  constitution,  with  very 
little  alteration.  Did  I  understand  the  gentleman 
ari  i;ht  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TiilGG.  Well,  I  propose  to  examine  into  the 
conservatism  of  the  exiting  constitution,  and  show  to 
what  poi  nt  the  gentle  nan's  conservatism  is  likely  to  bad 
him.  And  what  is  the  conservatism  of  the  gentleman  as 
it  is  expo  inded  in  the  present  constitution?  Is  it  that 
feature  which  withholds  the  power  from  the  people  to 
elect  their  own  officers  ?  Is  it  the  conservative  princi- 
ple which  denies  to  the  people  the  election  of  their 
agents,  and  withholds  from  them  the  direct  control  over 
the  government?  If  this  is  conservatism,  i  can  tell 
the  gentleman  he  has  it  in  the  present  constitution  with 
avengence.  What  officer  within  the  circumference  of 
the  Commonwealth  is  now  the  officer  of  the  people? 
Who,  I  ask  you,  have  the  sovereign  people  put  into 
office  under  this  government?  The  legislators  alone; 
they  have  that  power,  and  they  have  no  voice  in  the 
election  of  any  other  officer.  Then  it  is  conservatism 
under  the  existing  constitution,  to  withhold  these  privi- 
leges from  the  people.  And  to  what  does  your  con- 
servatism lead  you?  It  carries  you  to  this  point,  that 
the  more  power,  the  more  original  power,  that  you 
withhold  from  the  people,  in  forming  a  government,  the 
purer  your  conservatism.  If  it  is  conservative  only  to 
entrust  the  people  with  the  little  power  they  now  pos- 
sess, it  would  be  more  conservative  to  take  it  away  al- 
together. Is  that  not  so  ?  Then  to  make  conservatism 
still  stronger  than  it  is  under  the  present  constitution, 
let  the  gentleman  withhold  from  the  people  the  little 
power  they  now  have  under  it,  and  say  that  they  shall 
not  elect  a  solitary  officer  within  the  whole  Common- 
wealth, not  even  a  member  of  the  legislature.  Do  that 
and  what  kind  of  government  have  you  ?  An  oligarchy — 
a  gcvernmer  t  in  the  hands  of  a 'few  men;  and  an  oligar- 
chy, according  to  the  reasoning,  would  be  a  little  more 
conservative  than  the  conservatism  under  our  present 
constitution. 


But  carry  the  principle  a  little  further.  If  it  is 
wrong  to  trust  the  great  body  of  the  people  with  the 
powers  of  government,  it  is  equally  wrong  to  trust  any 
number,  large  or  small,  and  it  would  be  better  to  re^ 
strict  or  to  concentrate  the  powers  of  the  government 
into  the  hands  of  a  single  man.  Thus  the  very  same 
mode  of  reasoning  would  drive  the  gentleman  from  the 
republican  form  of  government  into  an  oligarchy,  and 
from  an  oligarchy  he  would  be  obliged  to  take  shelter 
under  a  monarchy  or  a  despotism;  because, to  carry  out 
the  reasoning,  it  would  be  better  and  more  conservative 
to  concentrate  the  whole  power  in  a  single  man,  than 
to  dispense  it  among  many,  no  matter  how  few  or  how 
large  the  number.  This,  I  say,  is  where  the  reasoning 
which  would  sustain  the  conservatism  of  the  present 
constitution  would  carry  the  gentleman.  Fully  carried 
out,  its  principles  can  end  only  in  the  establishment  of 
a  despotism.  That  is  my  definition  of  the  conserva- 
tism of  the  present  day,  and  that  is  the  point  to  which 
the  conservatism  of  this  day,  in  my  opinion,  will  lead 
gentlemen. 

Weli,  now,  what  is  my  radicalism,  and  the  radical- 
ism of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac?  It  is  just  this  : 
The  people  themselves  are  the  sovereigns  of  the  land; 
the  people  themselves  have  the  right  to  wield  the  sov^ 
ereignty  of  the  land,  and  it  is  upon  the  people  that  we 
desire  to  confer  all  those  rights  which  they  are  proper- 
ly and  duly  entitled  to  exercise.  And  this  is  repub- 
lican. 

Now,  let  us  reason  a  little  from  the  present  constitu- 
tion down  to  the  radicalism  of  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac and  myself.  If  the  present  constitution  is  con- 
servative in  withholding  power  from  the  people,  and  if 
the  concentration  of  the  powers  of  government,  so  far 
as  may  be,  in  the  hands  of  the  people  is  radicalism* 
then  every  step  you  take  towards  radicalism,  in  depart- 
ing from  our  present  form  of  government,  and  in  dis- 
pensing this  power  and  these  privileges  into  the  hands 
of  the  people,  you  come  nearer  and  nearer  a  republi- 
can government. 

Now,  I  hold  it  as  a  principle — the  people  holding  the 
government,  and  the  people  being  the  government  in 
fact — that  the  people  have  a  right  to  exercise  all  the 
powers  which  can  be  confided  to  them,  with  any  sort 
of  reference  to  the  public  convenience.  That  is  my 
radicalism. 

Now,  what  is  conservatism?  It  is  the  preserving  of 
established  forms.  And  what  is  radicalism  ?  It  is  to 
reform  and  amend  the  government;  not  to  pull  down 
and  destroy  the  government  under  which  we  live,  in 
toto,  but  to  reform  it.  The  gentleman's  conservatism 
of  withholding  power  from  the  people  practically  leads 
him,  by  a  like  course  of  reasoning,  to  an  oligarchy  and  a 
monarchy,  and  my  radicalism  leads  me  from  the  point 
where  the  powers  of  government  are  exercised, by  one 
man,  to  where  these  powers  are  wielded  by  the  mass. 
That  is  my  radicalism,  I  say,  and  I  am  for  reforming 
the  government  in  this  particular.  I  am  so  radical  that  I 
wish  to  blot  out  from  Virginia  polity  the  stain  which 
has  been  fixed  upon  it  by  the  present  constitution — I 
hardly  know  how  to  characterize  it — under  which  we 
live,  and  by  which  the  people  are  denied  the  powers 
and  privileges  to  which  they  are  rightfully  entitled.  If 
I  were,  myself,  to  give  a  name  to  the  principles  I  hold, 
as  contra-distinguished  from  those  advocated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  would  merely  say  that  he 
was  conservative,  but  that  I  was  radically  conserva- 
tive. He  may  be  conservative  in  preserving  the  pre- 
sent system — in  securing  from  the  people  their  just 
rights.  I  am  radically  conservative  in  dealing  out  to 
tke  people  whatever  they  are  justly  entitled  to.  That 
is  the  difference  between  us. 

Perhaps  this  departure  of  mine  from  the  main  question 
has  been  sufficiently  long,  and  I  will  now  c  mie  to  the 
question  which  the  committee  have  in  hand,  and  which 
is  now  under  discussion.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  to 
this  committee,  notwithstanding  it  may  regard  my  posi- 
tion as  rather  a  curious  one,  that  every  gentleman  who 
has  preceded  me  on  this  floor  is  radically  wrong  in  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


161 


position  which  he  has  assumed.    [Laughter.]  Now, 
what  are  the  propositions  we  have  submitted  to  us  ? 
First,  we  have  the  proposition  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee, which  is,  that  your  governor  shall  be  elected  for 
four  years  and  be  ineligible  after  his  second  term. 
Then  by  that  provision  you  may  elect  him  for  four  years, 
and  for  another  term,  and  he  shall  be  afterwards  ineli- 
gible.   The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsyl- 
vania, (Mr.  Tredway,)  is,  that  he  shall  be  elected  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  that  he  shall  not  be  again  eligi- 
ble till  after  the  expiration  of  another  term  of  four 
years.    The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
(Mr.  Boris,)  1  understand  to  be,  that  he  shall  be  elected 
for  a  term  of  four  years,  and  be  re-eligible  indefinitely. 
These  are  the  propositions  before  the  committee,  and 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  I  am  in  favor  of  none  of  them. 
I  am  against  them  all,  and  why  ?    I  believe  in  my  con- 
science that  in  a  republican  government  there  are 
certain  principles  by  which  we  are  to  be  guided  and 
directed.    I  believe  that  these  principles  are  the  very 
foundation  of  our  republic.    I  believe  that  they  are 
principles  which  should  be  looked  to  in  every  act  in 
the  formation  of  a  constitution  or  government  for  our 
State.    What  are  they?    What  are  these  republican 
principles — those  which  were  inscribed  on  that  white 
banner  I  spoke  of,  beneath  whose  folds  I  planted  myself, 
and  by  which  I  mean  to  be  guided  and  directed  through- 
out the  sessions  of  this  body  ?    They  are  simply  these : 
The  first  and  great  principle  of  all  is,  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people.    The  second  is,  the  responsibility  of  their 
agents  or  officers.    There  is  another  not  less  important, 
in  my  opinion,  to  be  regarded  in  forming  this  constitu- 
tion, and  that  is,  rotation  in  office.    Now,  in  forming 
your  constitution,  in  providing  certain  officers  for  your 
government,  and  in  prescribing  the  terms  for  which 
these  officers  shall  be  elected,  you  should  be  guided  by 
these  three  great  principles:  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people — responsibility  of  the  officer — and  rotation  in 
office.    Now,  while  we  may  have  these  three  things,  to 
a  certain  extent,  recognized  in  all  the  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  the  gentlemen — yet  we  have  them  not  in  the 
pure  form  in  which  I  desire  them.    And  my  great 
objection  to  the  various  propositions  which  have  been 
submitted  by  gentlemen,  has  arisen  from  the  fact,  that 
they  give  to  us  a  term  too  long  for  the  office  of  Gov- 
ernor.   Four  years  is  the  term  which  they  prescribe.  1 
say  that  four  years  is  long  enough  for  any  man  to  hold 
the  office  of  Governor,  and  I  desire,  in  order  to  carry 
out  these  various  principles,  to  divide  the  term  of  four 
years,  and  then  I  secure  all.    I  will  have,  by  securing 
the  election  of  the  governor  for  two  years,  to  be  re-eligible 
for  a  second  term,  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  asserted 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  officer  on 
the  other ;  and  at  the  same  time  secure  the  other  prin- 
ciple of  rotation  in  office,  and  that  is  what  I  wish.  Gentle- 
men may  say  those  who  advocate  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Henrico,  that  you  have  the  rotation  in 
office  if  you  make  him  re-eligible  ever  after.    But  I  say, 
that  while  you  have  the  rotation  in  the  election,  you 
have  no  security  as  to  rotation  in  office.   Now,  I  con- 
sider the  three  great  principles  to  which  I  have  refer- 
red as  absolutely  necessary  to  be  established  in  this 
•constitution.    .1  desire  them  as  constitutional  provisions. 
I  desire  them  to  be  written  on  the  parchment  which  we 
shall  send  out  from  this  body,  and  I  wish  the  people  to 
be  fully  secured  in  these  three  great  rights.    But  I 
would  not  make  this  rotation  in  office  occur  at  such  long 
intervals  of  time.    Four  years,  as  I  said  before,  is  enough 
for  any  one  man  to  hold  the  office  of  governor.    I  wish 
this  rotation  in  office,  but  I  do  not  want  a  great  wheel 
constructed,  which,  in  its  revolutions,  will  take  an  age  to 
turn  but  once.    I  desire  a  rotation  of  smaller  wheels, 
which  will  turn  rapidly,  and  often,  so  that  this  officer 
may  be  brought  down  to  his  original  starting  point — 
into  the  presence  of  the  majesty  of  the  people.    That  is 
what  I  desire.    Then  I  cannot,  under  the  opinions  which 
I  hold  on  this  question,  unless  you  cut  down  the  length 
of  term  of  this  office  of  governor — and  tbia  length  of 


term  I  consider  just  as  important  as  anything  else — sup- 
port either  of  the  pending  propositions.  I  desire  to  pre 
serve  those  great  principles  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  which 
have  been  reported  on  by  the  committee  on  that  subject, 
and  I  wish  to  see  them  carried  out  in  every  act  which 
this  Convention  shall  do.  They  are,  first,  that  all  power 
inherent  in  the  people.  That  is  one.  That  the  legis- 
lative, judicial,  and  executive  departments  shall  be  kept 
separate  and  distinct.  That  is  two.  The  third  is — and 
it  is  embraced  in  the  very  same  section  of  that  instru- 
ment— that,  in  order  to  prevent  oppression  by  these  dif- 
ferent officers,  they  should,  at  stated  periods,  be  re- 
duced to  a  private  station,  that  they  should  return  into 
the  body  from  which  they  were  originally  taken,  and 
the  vacancies  should  be  supplied  by  frequent,  certain 
and  regular  elections.  Yes,  that  is  the  word,  by  fre- 
quent, certain  and  regular  elections.  That  single  section 
in  our  Bill  of  Rights,  as  proposed  to  be  amended  by  the 
Committee  upon  the  Bill  of  Rights,  contains  the  whole 
sum  and  substance  of  the  principle  upon  which  I  shall 
act,  so  long  as  I  continue  a  member  of  this  body. 

It  seems  to  me  that  gentlemen  in  arguing  this  ques- 
tion need  not  have  gone  beyond  the  limits  of  this  coun- 
try, or  indeed  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  Common- 
wealth for  illustration.  They  might  have  saved  them- 
selves the  trouble  of  citing  the  federal  constitution  for 
any  thing  to  guide  them  in  this  matter,  for  we  are  making 
a  constitution  for  our  own  State,  one  by  which  the  peo- 
ple of  Virginia  are  to  be  regulated,  and  to  which  their 
conduct  is  to  be  squared.  The  manner  of  the  election 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  would  not  weigh  a 
feather  in  deciding  the  question  we  now  have  before  us. 
Have  the  people  of  the  United  States  ever  elected  their 
President  in  theory,  no  matter  what  they  may  do  in 
practice  ?  Have  the  people,  I  ask,  under  the  federal 
government,  any  right  to  vote  for  a  President  or  Vice 
President  ?  None  under  the  heavens.  All  the  right 
they  do  have — all  the  rights  they  can  claim,  is  that  the 
people  of  all  the  different  States,  shall  vote  for  a  certain 
number  of  intelligent  gentlemen,  who  are  to  meet  at 
some  point  within  the  State  and  select  a  President  for 
them.  There  is  the  whole  power  of  the  people.  The 
practice  may  be,  that  the  people  instruct  those  electors 
at  the  polls,  but  in  theory  the  constitution  provides  no- 
thing of  the  kind.  The  men  who  formed  that  constitu- 
tion, and  our  own  original  constitution,  were  all  regu- 
lated and  guided  by  the  very  same  principles  of  action. 
They  were  not  then— I  say  it  with  all  deference — as 
well  skilled  in  the  carrying  out  of  republican  principles 
as  the  people  of  the  present  day.  As  Mr.  Jefferson  has 
said,  as  was  read  by  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  (Mr. 
Hopkins,)  yesterday  :  "  The  abuses  of  monarchy  had  so 
filled  all  the  spaces  of  political  contemplation,  that  that 
which  was  not  monarchy,  we  supposed  to  be  republi- 
can. Monarchy  was  so  mixed  up  with  all  the  political 
concerns  of  that  day,  that  it  was  the  uppermost  theme 
in  the  mind  of  every  man,  so  that  whatever  was  not 
monarchy,  the  people  from  that  fact  alone,  received  in- 
stantly as  republicanism.  I  must  say  that  they  also  re- 
tained a  slight  tinge  of  this  monarchy  in  the  constitu- 
tion which  they  gave  us.  They  retained  it  also,  those 
who  have  gone  before  us,  in  the  constitution  of  1776, 
and  those  who  came  after  them,  retained  it  in  the  con- 
stitution of  1829,  and  it  is  to  blot  out  this  monarchical 
tinge,  as  much  as  any  other,  that  this  Convention  has  been 
convened  by  the  people  of  Virginia.  I  was  saying  that 
there  was  nothing  to  be  argued  from  the  question  as  to 
what  manner,  and  for  what  term,  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  under  the  federal  constitution,  is  elected. 
Why,  that  constitution  was  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  the  people  themselves  were  to  have  no  voice  in  the 
choice  of  the  man,  and  that  the  people  themselves  would 
only  be  called  upon  to  select  some  intelligent  men  with- 
in their  own  State,  who  would  meet  at  a  certain  point, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  intelligence  and  expe- 
rience, select  the  men  whom  they  thought  to  be  the  best 
to  preside  over  the  destines  of  the  country.  Then  you 
can  draw  nothing  from  that  source  of  illustration,  either 
in  favor  of  the  argument,  for  ineligibility  or  re-eligibil- 


162 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ity  to  office.    It  is  all  mere  nothing.    It  is  a  spider's 
web  which  may  be  torn  into  pieces  almost  by  the 
weight  of  a  featner.    But,  gentlemen  may  tell  me  that  n 
in  advocating  this  proposition,  I  forget  that  this  prin-  c 
ciple  of  independence,  is  one  that  should  be  looked  to.  h 
I  do  not  regard  this  matter  of  independence  as  a  prin-  \ 
ciple  which  is  incorporated  into  those  elements  which  s 
go  to  make  up  a  republic.    I  regard  it  as  a  principle 
which  must  be  seated  in  the  heart  of  every  public 
officer,  and  when  the  man  is  called  to  fill  any  high  sta-  s 
tion,  whether  it  be  the  gubernatorial  office  or  any  other  ; 
when  he  is  called  to  discharge  these  high  duties,  he 
must  come  with  that  principle  engrafted  upon  his  very 
life  ;  he  must  come  imbued  with  that  principle  of  inde-  i 
pendence  which  results  from  the  very  integrity  of  the  r 
man.    Why,  what  good  is  your  independence  going  to  i 
do  you  if  you  have  happened  to   put  a  man  into  the  1 
office  of  Governor,  who  is  disposed  to  do  wrong,  whether  t 
you  elect  him  for  two  or  four  years?    Suppose  you  r 
put  a  bad  man  in  office  who  is  disposed  to  pervert  the  i 
powers  which  the  people  have  conferred  upon  him;  1 
who  is  disposed  to  exercise  them  for  his  own  profit  and  ] 
his  own  seifish  purposes  ;  will  you  do  any  good  by  i 
throwing  this  wall  of  independence  around  him  ?    It  is  i 
the  inclination  of  the  heart  when  he  goes  wrong,  and  \ 
you  cannot  stop  the  current  of  evil  when  it  once  breaks  1 
forth  and  determines  to  carry  the  points  of  selfish  in-  i 
terest.    It  is  not  to  be  arrested  by  any  wall  like  this  ; 
provision  which  you  propose  to  check  it,  and  even  if  it  ( 
were,  why  his  four  years  are  out,  he  has  done  all  the  j 
wrong,  and,  in  the  name  of  heaven,  what  good  will  it  i 
do  to  the  people,  so  far  as  repairing  that  wrong  is  con-  j 
cerned,  to  leave  him  out.    It  will  do  no  good.  I  would 
prefer  that  the  people  should  have  the  fullest  power  to 
pass  on  the  acts  of  their  public  officers  ;  but  then  I  de-  , 
sire  that  they  should  do  it  or  have  an  opportunity  of 
doing  it,  at  such  time  and  within  such  periods  as  that 
the  office  itself  will  not  be  bestowed  too  long  on  any 
one  man.    And  four  years  I  consider  too  long,  and, 
therefore,  I  go  for  two. 

The  only  purpose  which  I  had  in  addressing  the 
committee  to-day  at  all,  was  to  explain  the  remark 
which  fell  from  me  the  other  day,  that  I  occupied  a  po- 
sition rather  peculiar  in  regard  to  the  question  before 
the  committee,  and  that  was,  that  in  fact  I  agree  with 
them  in  thiw  matter.  All  I  ask  and  desire  is,  to  set  my- 
self right  before  the  committee,  and  to  show,  that  as  the 
question  now  stands  with  the  term  of  four  years  engraft- 
ed on  each  of  these  propositions,  I  could  not  vote  for 
them,  and  that  I  should  vote  against  all,  unless 
this  question  of  re-eligibility  or  ineligibility  be  post- 
poned to  a  future  time,  and  the  term  of  office  be  first 
fixed  at  a  shorter  period.  With  these  remarks,  it  seems 
to  me  that  I  have  done  all  that  my  duty  required  me 
to  do  on  this  occasion.  I  am  extremely  obliged  to  the 
committee  for  the  very  respectful  attention  which 
they  have  given  me  during  the  whole  course  of  these 
very  crude  remarks. 

Mr.  HOGE.  If  the  Committee  will  indulge  me  in 
the  motion  which  I  am  about  to  subnait.  I  will  on  to- 
morrow endeavor  to  define  my  position  in  reference  to 
the  principles  which  I  think  are  involved  in  this  ques- 
tion now  under  consideration.  I  merely  desire  an  op- 
portunity to  morrow,  to  speak  a  very  few  moments  in 
reference  to  these  principles. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  Will  the  gentleman  withdraw  his 
motion  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  HOGE.    Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  CHILTON".  I  rise  to  address  myself  for  a  mo- 
ment, and  only  a  moment  or  two,  to  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  to  express  to  him  the  deep 
sense  that  I  feel  of  the  compliment  he  has  bestowed 
on  me,  and  to  request  of  him,  as  I  have  defined  my  po- 
sition distinctly,  and  a3  he  admits,  that  in  regard  to  it 
I  have  no  concealment  and  that  he  understands  the 
whole  of  it;  that  as  he  has  declared  himself  to  be  "  an 
infinite  radical,"  he  will  for  my  information,  to  enable 
me  to  meet  his  position,  give  me,  not  now — 


Mr.  WISE.    Yes,  now. 

Mr.  CHILTON  Not  now,  I  say,  but  at  his  conve- 
nience, the  length  and  breadth,  and  heighth,  and  depth 
cf  his  position — not  doubting  in  making  this  request, 
his  capacity  to  do  it,  and  his  inclination  to  furnish  me 
with  the  very  fullest  imformation  in  regard  to  the  po- 
sition he  wishes  to  occupy  on  the  subject. 
Mr.  WISE.    Mr.  Chairman — 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  not  in  order  for  the  gentleman  to 
?peak  again  without  the  leave  of  the  Convention. 
MANY  MEMBERS.  Leave,  leave. 
The  CHAIR.  The  gentleman  will  proceed. 
Mr.  WISE.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  disorder 
in  my  occupying  the  floor,  with  the  leave  of  the  gentle- 
man who  has  the  floor,  and  who  does  not  wish  to  occupy 
it  this  evening.  My  friend  from  Fauquier,  who  has 
boldly,  clearly  and  honestly  defined  his  position,  admits 
that  i  fully  and  exactly  represented  his  position,  and  de- 
mands now  to  undei>tand  mine;  and  he  might  have 
waked  me  up  at  6  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  before  I 
laved  my  eyes,  heavy  with  the  slumbers  of  the  night, 
I  could  have  answered  his  question.  I  am  ready  now, 
and  in  a  moment,  to  answer  it.  I  will  repeat  his  de- 
finition of  a  "  conservative,"  in  order  to  make  my  defini- 
tion of  an  "  infinite  radical,"  clearly  understood.  Sir, 
the  English  language  is  not  strong  enough — I  do  wish, 
in  every  feeling  and  fibre  of  the  man,  physical,  moral 
and  intellectual,  that  I  could  concentrate  all  the  verjuice 
of  the  language — for  the  definition  that  I  am  about  to 
give,  and  that  I  had  something  stronger  than  "  infinite" 
to  oppose  the  definition  of  conservatism,  which  the 
gentleman  has  given. 

Mr.  CHiLTON.  Try  Dutch.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  WISE.  It  is  not  copious  enough.  Greek  is  not 
copious,  is  not  sublime,  is  not  spiritual  enough,  is  not 
ethereal  enough,  to  define  my  radicalism  in  opposition 
to  his  conservatism.  No.  His  conservatism  is,  that 
pure  democracy  is  to  be  scouted.  That  we  ought  to 
check  it,  and  that  it  is  our  duty  now  in  this  constitution 
which  we  are  to  form  for  the  people,  to  infuse  into  it 
the  principles  of  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  to  check 
pure  democracy.  Now  coolly  and  deliberately,  I  will 
give  my  definition  and  philological  meaning  of  the 
word  "  radical,"  and  my  understanding  of  it.  as  I  wish 
it  to  be  understood  in  this  Convention.  It  comes,  I  be- 
lieve, from  the  word  radix.  It  is  a  principle  that  means 
to  eradicate  all  monarchy  and  all  aristocracy,  not  only 
from  this  commonwealth,  and  this  constitution,  but  if 
it  can,  from  the  world.  That  is  radicalism.  Does 
the  gentleman  understand  me  ? 
Mr.  CHILTON.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  spoke  yesterday  of  the 
'  spirit  of  radicalism,  and  said  it  desired  to  go  with  the 
rapidity  of  electricity  over  the  earth.  Does  the  gentle- 
■  man  know  what  was  said  to  King  John  at  the  battle  of 
1  Runneymede  ?  Mark  you,  I  am  attacking  principles. 
'  Does  he  remember  what  has  been  consecrated  by  Brit- 
ish poetry,  when  he  was  told, 
1     "  He  is  a  traitor  to  his  native  land, 

A  traitor  to  mankind,  who  in  a  cause 
»     That  down  the  course  of  time  will  fire  the  world, 
Ridis  not  upon  the  lightning  of  the  sky, 
To  save  his  country  " 
i     And  may  God  in  his  mercy  save  this  State  and  this 
country  from  every  root,  every  tendril  of  a  root  of  such 
3  misnamed  aristocracy,  and  misnamed  monarchy  as  is  now 
called  conservatism.    Hereafter  it  shall  be  called  by  its 
true  name,  monarchy  and  aristocracy.    I  come  here  to 
-  eradicate  every  part  and  parcel  of  it.   I  would  hunt  for  it 
l  as  I  would  for  "  terra  ricca" — I  would  not  leave  a  vestige 
■>  of  the  plant  in  the  land,  before  the  operations  of  my  hus- 
1  bandry.    Plowing  in  that  ground  I  will  set  my  coulter 
_  deep—and  I  was  told  this  morning  that  I  set  my  coult- 
t  er  very  deep,  and  so  help  me  God,  I  mean  to  go  down 
e  below  the  sub-soil— and  then  I  will  use  cultivator,  har- 
i  row  and  rake  ;  and  it  shall  not  be  only  the  labor  of  ma- 
e  chinery,  but  of  man  with  pains  taking,  close  inspecting 
labor.    So  help  me  God  in  this  patriotic  duty,  I  will  get 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


1C3 


down  on  my  knees  to  manipulate  the  work  !  I  deny 
here,  that  there  is  a  particle  of  aristocracy  or  monarchy 
necussary  tu  the  well-being  or  safety,  either  of  perton 
or  property.  I  deny  it.  1  vindicate  American  doctrines 
—  L  vindicate  American  liberty.  Here  standing  in  the 
capitoi  of  Virginia,  in  this  assembly,  representing  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  in  the  name  oi 
my  fore-fathers — in  the  name  of  my  children — in  the 
n  cine  of  my  own  rights — in  the  name  of  the  dignity  of 
human  nature  and  the  authority  of  that  reason  and  con- 
science, which  assimilated  me  to  my  Cod,  I  dtny  that 
doctrine  aud  here  repel  it.  1  thank  the  gentleman  for 
nerving  my  mind  to  this  patieut  labor.  :Sir,  you  and  i 
are  antipodes  in  our  principles.  Your  doctrines  have 
b:eu  for  seventy  odd  years  too  much  regarded — I  must 
spiak  plainly — among  our  people,  especially  ea?t  of  the 
mountains  of  Virginia.  Thank  God  every  evil  cures  it- 
se  f  There  was  once  a  day  wheu  tire  arhtucracy  in  the 
State  of  Virginia  wore  white  topped  boots,  and  ruffs 
and  powdered  hair.  There  was  once  a  day  when  white 
men  could  stand  at  the  door,  with  hat  under  arm  and 
bow  to  th  it  aristocracy  as  it  rolled  by  in  Olympic  cha- 
riot, casting  it-  dust  into  the  eyes  of  the  people  ;  but 
now,  in  poor  old  Virginia,  to  be  talking  about  aristocra- 
cy, when  it  is  so  pi, or,  that  none  are  s  <  poor  as  to  do  it 
reverence !  [Laughter.] 

Mr  CHILTON.  I  do  not  mean  to  prolong  this  dis- 
cussion. 

The  CHAIR.  The  gentleman  cannot  proceed  without 
leave  of  the  Convention. 

MAiN  Y  M EM  BERS.    Leave,  leave. 

Mr,  CHILTON.  I  rise  to  ask  the  gentleman  to  give 
me  a  definition. 

Mr.  WISE.    I  hope  I  did  it. 

Mr.  CHiLTON.  But  he  gave  me  rather  a  speech  than 
a  definition — I  think  somewhat  like  Falslaff's  b  11,  "  To 
sack,  £5  ;  to  bread,  one  penny."  [Laughter.]  The  on- 
ly deduiiiou  that  he  has  made,  and  which  I  take  to  be  a 
full  definition  of  his  proposition,  is,  that '"an  infinite 
radical  '  means  one  who  goes  to  eradicate  every  trace 
of  m  aurcby  an  I  aristocracy  from  the  Constitution  that 
we  are  about  t  >  form. 

Mr.  WISE.    That  is  it. 

Mr.  CHILTON  So  I  thought.  I  am  glad  to  have  a 
definition  of  the  gentleman's  position,  and  thank  him 
for  giving  it  to  me. 

Mr.  HoG-E.  1  renew  the  motion  that  the  Committee 
ri.-e. 

Th  j  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

And  vhen  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
at  12  o'clock. 


SATURDAY,  February  8,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  .by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly,  of  the  Baptist  church. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

CHANGE  OF  THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  STRAUGHAN.  I  move  that  when  the  Conven- 
tion adjourns  to-day,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  11  o'clock  on 
.Monday.,  and  that  that  shall  be  the  regular  hour  of  meet- 
ing until  further  ordered. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  COUNTY  COURTS,  &C. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  The  Committee  on  Coun- 
ty Courts,  County  Organizations  and  County  Police, 
have  heretofore  been  directed  by  three  resolutions  of 
the  Convention  to  inquire  :  first,  into  the  propriety  of 
providing  in  the  Constitution  for  the  re-construction  of 
the  different  counties  of  the  State ;  aud  by  another  re- 
solution to  inquire  into  the  propriety  of  providing  in  the 
Constitution  to  have  the  registration  of  births,  marria- 
ges and  deaths,  kept  in  each  county  ;  and  by  the  third 
resolution,  directed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
providing  a  restriction  upon  the  county  authorities  and 
overseers  of  the  poor,  in  making  extra  compensation 


for  public  services.  They  have  had  these  subjects  un- 
der consideration,  and  have  directed  me  to  submit  a  re- 
port in  regard  to  them. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  Committee  on  County  Courts,  County  Organiza- 
tion and  County  Police,  have,  according  to  order,  had 
under  consideration  three  resolutions  of  the  Convention, 
the  one  directing  the  committee  to  inquire  into  the 
practicability  of  re-constructing  the  several  counties  of 
the  commonweaWi,  so  as  to  make  them  as  nearly  uni- 
form in  territorial  extent  as  may  be,  having  regard  to 
natural  boundaries;  another  directing  the  committee  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  inserting  a  clause  in  the 
constitution,  requiring  provisions  to  be  made  by  law 
for  the  registration  of  births,  marriages  and  deaths  in 
the  several  counties,  cities  and  towns  within  the  Com- 
monwealth ;  and  the  third  requiring  the  committee  to 
inquire  into  the  propriety  of  impo  ing  a  constitute  al 
restriction  on  the  county  courts,  overseers  of  the  poor, 
and  other  county  tribunals,  in  granting  extra  compen- 
sation for  public  services,  in  certain  cases,  and  have 
adopted  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  make  any  provis- 
ion in  the  Constitution  on  the  subjects  referred  to  in  the 
said  resolution. 

Mr.  SCOTT.  I  move  to  lay  the  report  on  the  table, 
and  that  it  be  printed. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  ask  for  a  division  of  the  qrestion.  I 
presume  that  nobody  will  object  to  laying  the  report  on 
the  table. 

Mr.  SCOTT.    I  withdraw  the  motion  to  print. 

The  report  was  then  laid  on  the  table. 

restriction  of  debase. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  [  desire  to  effer  the  following 
resolution,  on  the  adoption  of  wh.ch  1  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Resolved,  That  all  debate  on  the  amendment  pending 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the  fiist  section  of 
the  first  article  in  the  report  of  the  Commit  ee  on  the 
Executive  Department  shall  cease  at  2  o'clock  to-day. 

Mr.  MARTIN,  of  Henry.  I  move  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  table. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered.  c 

The  question  was  then  taken,  and  th  &e  were  yeas  63, 
nays  23,  as  follows: 

Yeas — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (President, )  Arm- 
strong, Beaie,  Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Bland,  Blue,  Bo- 
cock,  Bolts,  Bowden,  Brown,  Burges,  Carter  of  Lou- 
doun, Chambliss,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Davis,  Fisher,  Ful- 
kerson,  Fultz,  Fuqua,  Gaily,  Garland,  M.  Garnett, 
Hall,  Hoge,  Jacob,  Janney,  Jones,  Knote,  Leake,  Letch- 
er, Lucas,  McComas,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin  of 
Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Morris,  Neeson,  Pendleton, 
Petty,  Price.  Randolph,  Ridley,  Rives,  Saunders,  Scog- 
gin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Shell,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith 
of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Stephenson,  Stewart 
of  Morgan,  Straughan,  Summers,  Trigg,  Tunis,  Turn- 
bull,  Watts  of  Norfolk  county,  Willey,  Wise  and  Wy- 
sor — 63. 

Nays — Messrs.  Banks,  Bowles,  Chambers,  Conway, 
Douglass,  Edmunds,  Flood,  Hunter,  Kenuey,  Kilgore, 
Ligon,  Lionberger,  Lynch,  Murphy,  Newman,  Scott  of 
Puchmond  city,  Snowden,  Southa  1,  Stuart  of  Patrick, 
Taylor,  Tredway,  Wingfield,  Woolfolk— 23. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed  to. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  COUNTY  COURTS,  &.C. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  I  am  directed  by  the 
Commitlee  on  County  Courts,  Cou  ty  Organization  and 
County  Police,  t3  present  a  report  >n  reference  to  these 
subjects. 

The  report  wTas  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  Committee  on  County  Courts,  County  Organiza- 


164 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tion  and  County  Police,  report  the  following  provisions 
on  these  subjects,  and  recommend  that  they  be  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Constitution. 

Article  I — County  Court. 

Sec.  1.  There  shall  be  in  each  county  of  this  com- 
monwealth a  county  court  to  consist  of  justices  of 
the  peace.  The  jurisdiction  of  these  courts  shall  ex- 
tend to  all  causes  and  matters  of  controversy  whether 
in  law  or  equity,  where  the  demand  or  subject  in  contro- 
versy, exclusive  of  interest,  exceeds  the  sum  of  twenty 
dollars,  and  appeals  from  judgments  of  the  justices,  and 
also  all  such  criminal  jurisdiction  as  maybe  bylaws  now 
in  force,  or  hereafter  to  be  enacted,  devolved  upon  it, 
except,  however,  the  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  the 
board  of  police,  by  this  constitution,  and  laws  passed 
in  pursuance  thereof. 

2.  The  counties  shall  be  divided  into  townships,  as 
nearly  equal  in  territory  and  population  as  practicable, 
— but  no  county  shall  contain  less  than  four  nor  more 
than  fifteen  townships — and  there  shall  be  elected  in 
each  township,  by  the  qualified  voters  thereof,  for  the 
term  of  four  years,  two  justices  of  the  peace,  resident 
herein. 

8.  The  justices  so  elected  shall  from  their  own  num- 
ber elect  one  of  their  body,  who  shall  be  the  presiding 
justice  of  the  county  court,  and  such  presiding  justice  with 
not  less  than  two  nor  more  than  four  associate  justices, 
and  in  the  absence  of  the  presiding  justice  not  less  than 
three  nor  more  than  five  associate  justices  shall  consti- 
tute a  court — except  in  the  appointment  of  county  offi- 
cers— and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  pro- 
vide by  law  for  the  classification  of  the  associate  justices 
for  the  performance  of  their  duty  in  court. 

4.  There  shall  be  twelve  terms  of  the  county  court 
in  each  year,  in  only  two  of  which  shall  appeals  from 
the  judgments  of  justices  and  other  civil  controversies 
be  heard  and  determined. 

5.  The  presiding  justice  and  associate  justices  shall 
receive  a  per  diem  compensation  for  their  services 
while  sitting  in  court,  and  sitting  as  a  board  of  police, 
to  be  ascertained  by  law,  and  paid  out  of  the  county 
treasury. 

6.  The  justices  shall  hear  and  determine  all  matters 
in  civil  controversy  where  the  demand  or  subject  in 
controversy  shall  not  exceed  thirty  dollars — and  shall 
exercise  jurisdiction  in  all  pleas  of  the  commonwealth 
which  now  are,-%r  may  be  hereafter  conferred  by  law. 
Where  the  subject  in  controversy  exceeds  ten  dollars, 
appeals  shall  be  allowed  from  the  judgment  of  a  justice 
to  the  county  court. 

Article  II- — Board  of  Police. 
Sec.  1.  The  justices  of  the  peace  in  any  county,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  constitute  a  board  of  police  for 
such  county  which  board  shall  set  at  least  twice  in 
every  year  at  the  court  house  of  the  county — shall  have 
power  and  authority  to  assess  the  county  levy,  and 
exercise  such  other  police  and  municipal  jurisdiction 
as  may  be  conferred  upon  it  by  law.  The  clerk  of  the 
county  shall  be  clerk  of  this  board. 

Article  III. — County  Officers. 

Sec.  1.  There  shall  be  elected  from  time  to  time,  for 
each  county  by  the  qualified  voters  therein,  a  clerk  of 
the  county  court,  a  sheriff,  an  attorney  for  the  common- 
wealth, a  surveyor  and  one  or  more  commissioners  of 
the  revenue,  as  may  be  determined  by  law,  to  continue 
in  office  respectively  as  follows,  to  wit :  The  clerk  for  the 
term  of  five  years — the  sheriff  for  the  term  of  two  years 
— the  attorney  for  the  term  of  two  years — the  survey- 
or for  the  term  of  two  years,  and  the  commissioner  or 
commissioners  of  the  revenue,  for  the  term  of  two 
years. 

2.  There  shall  be  elected  from  time  to  time  by  the 
qualified  voters  therein,  one  constable  for  every  two 
townships — to  continue  in  office  for  the  term  of  two 
years, — who  may  act  in  the  whole  county. 

S.    There  shall  be  elected  from  time  to  time,  by  the 


qualified  voters  therein,  one  overseer  of  the  poor  for 
every  township,  to  continue  in  office  for  the  term  of  two 
years. 

4.  Each  of  the  officers  mentioned  in  this  article,  shall 
continue  in  office  until  a  successor  shall  have  been  ap- 
pointed and  qualified- — shall  reside  during  his  term  cf 
office  in  the  county,  township  or  double  townships  re- 
spectively for  which  he  was  elected,  and  shall  be  re  eligi- 
ble to  office,  except  the  sheriff,  who  may  be  elected 
for  a  second  term,  but  shall  not  again  be  eligible,  until 
the  expiration  of  a  full  term  after  that,  for  which  he 
was  last  elected  ;  provided  however,  that  appointments 
to  fill  vacancies  for  an  unexpired  term,  shall  not  come 
under  the  operation  of  this  restriction. 

5.  Surveyors  of  roads  shall  be  appointed  by  the  board 
of  police.  Their  term  of  service,  duties,  and  compensa- 
tion to  be  regulated  by  law. 

6.  Vacancies  occurring  in  any  of  the  foregoing  offices, 
except  that  of  clerk,  shall  be  filled  by  the  temporary 
appointment  of  the  county  courts, — all  the  justices  being 
summoned  for  that  purpose  and  a  majority  being  pres- 
ent,— such  appointment  to  continue  until  the  next- 
regular  term  of  election.  Vacancies  in  the  office  of 
clerk  of  the  county  court  shall  be  filled  by  an  election 
of  the  qualified  voters,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

Article  IV. — Corporation  Court  and  Corporation  Officers, 

Sec.  1.  The  legislature  may  vest  such  jurisdiction 
as  shall  be  deemed  necessary  in  corporation  courts, 
and  in  the  magistrates  who  belong  to  the  corporate 
body. 

2.  Ail  officers  appertaining  to  the  cities  and  other 
municipal  corporations,  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied voters  or  appointed  by  the  constituted  authorities 
of  such  cities  or  corporations  as  may  by  law  be  pre- 
scribed. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  The  report  that  has  been 
presented  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  County 
Courts,  yet  I  think  it  due  to  state,  is  the  report  not 
of  all  the  committee,  but  of  a  large  majority.  It  is 
presented  as  a  scheme,  which  after  the  fullest  examina- 
tion, they  believe  will  prove  best  in  its  administration 
and  action  for  that  branch  of  the  Judiciary  of  State, 
and  the  police  affairs  of  the  country.  I  have  deemed  it 
proper  to  make  the  remark  that  it  was  not  the  work  of 
the  whole  committee,  because  I  am  aware  that  there 
are  gentlemen  dissenting  from  that  report,  and  who  will 
present  their  competing  schemes.  I  presume  that  the 
report  will  receive  the  same  destination  that  has  been 
given  to  the  others,  and  I  move  for  the  present  that  it 
be  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  motion  that  the  report  lie  on  the  table  and  be 
printed  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  FULTZ.  I  was  an  humble  member  of  the  com- 
mittee whose  report  has  just  been  submitted,  and  it  was 
my  misfortune  not  to  concur  with  the  committee  in 
several  of  the  most  important  propositions  contained  in 
the  report.  Indeed,  the  report  was  rather  acquiesced 
in,  than  approved  of,  by  a  majority  of  the  committee. 
There  was,  as  might  have  been  expected  on  a  subject 
of  so  much  difficulty  and  importance,  a  great  diversity 
of  opinion.  I  have  been  a  close  observer  of  the  practi- 
cal operations  of  the  county  courts  for  the  last  twenty- 
years;  and,  when  placed  on  the  committee,  called  to  my 
aid  all  the  lights  I  possessed,  and  after  giving  the  sub- 
ject my  best  reflection,  and  satisfying  myself  as  to  the 
proper  principles  upon  which  the  courts  should  be  or- 
ganized, I  have  drawn  up  a  plan  carrying  out  those 
principles  somewhat  in  detail.  This  plan  I  desire,  and 
considered  it  my  duty  to  submit  to  the  Convention  for 
their  consideration,  not  with  the  vain  hope  that  it  will 
be  approved  of  by  a  majority  of  this  body,  but  trusting 
that  it  may  direct  the  mind  of  some  gentleman  to  the 
proper  provisions  to  be  engrafted  on  this  the  most  import- 
ant branch  of  our  judiciary.  I  submit  the  plan  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Convention.    I  will  not  ask  (hut 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


165 


it  be  now  read,  but  that  it  be  laid  upon  the  table;  and 
-when  the  proper  time  arrives  I  will  offer  it  as  an  amend- 
ment to,  or  a  substitute  for,  the  report  of  the  committee* 
The  proposition  is  as  follows: 

COUNTY  COURTS  AND  COUNTY  ORGANIZATION. 

Sec.  1.  A  county  court  shall  be  established  in  every 
county  now  formed,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  created 
within  this  commonwealth,  to  consist  of  a  chief  justice 
and  two  associate  justices,  any  two  of  whom  shall  con- 
stitute a  court  for  the  transaction  of  business. 

2.  The  justices  of  the  county  court  shall  be  elected 
by  the  qualified  electors  in  each  county,  for  the  term  of 
four  years,  and  shall  continue  in  office  until  their  suc- 
cessors be  duly  qualified,  and  shall  receive  such  com- 
pensation per  diem,  while  engaged  in  holding  courts,  as 
may  be  provided  by  law,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  county 
treasury. 

3.  The  election  of  the  justices  of  the  county  courts 
shall  take  place  at  the  same  time  fixed  by  this  constitu- 
tion for  the  election  of  judges  of  the  court  of  appeals, 
and  of  the  circuit  courts,  and  the  mode  and  manner  of 
conducting  the  elections  and  making  the  returns  there- 
of, and  of  determining  contested  elections,  shall  be  the 
same  herein  prescribed  in  relation  to  the  election  of 
judges. 

4.  The  chief  justice  first  elected  shall  hold  his  office 
until  the  first  day  of  January,  1855,  and  the  associate 
justices  first  elected  shall  hold  their  offices  until  the  first 
day  of  January,  1853. 

5.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  as  justice  of  the  county 
court  unless  he  shall  be  25  years  of  age,  and  a  qualified 
elector  in,  and  a  resident  of,  the  county  in  which  he 
may  be  a  candidate,  at  least  four  years  next  preceding 
his  election. 

6.  The  justices  of  the  county  courts  shall  be  commis- 
sioned by  the  governor  of  the  commonwealth,  and  after 
taking  the  oaths  of  office,  shall  be  vested  with  the  same 
rights  and  powers,  and  exercise  the  same  jurisdiction 
now  belonging  to  the  county  courts,  and  shall  hold  their 
offices  at  the  same  times  and  places;  but  their  rights, 
powers,  and  jurisdiction  may  be  diminished  or  enlarged, 
and  the  times  and  places  of  holding  the  courts  changed 
as  the  legislature  may  hereafter  direct. 

7.  A  clerk  of  the  county  court  shall  be  elected  in  each 
county,  by  the  qualified  electors,  for  the  term  of  four 
years.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  clerk 
unless  he  be  a  qualified  elector,  and  a  resident  of  the 
county  five  years  preceding  the  election. 

8.  A  commonwealth's  attorney  for  the  county  court 
shall  be  elected  in  each  county,  at  the  same  time,  in  the 
same  manner,  and  for  the  same  term  as  county  clerk. 
No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  county  at- 
torney unless  he  be  a  qualified  elector,  and  a  resident 
in  the  county,  and  a  licensed  practising  attorney  for  two 
years. 

9.  A  sheriff  shall  be  elected  in  each  county,  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  same  manner  as  county  attorneys  are 
elected,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  two  years,  and  he 
shall  be  re-eligible  for  a  second  term;  but  no  sheriff 
shall,  after  the  expiration  of  the  second  term,  be  re- 
eligible  or  act  as  a  deputy  for  the  next  succeeding  term. 
No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  sheriff,  un- 
less he  be  a  qualified  elector  in  the  county,  and  25 
years  of  age. 

10.  A  county  surveyor,  or  coroner,  and  one  commis- 
sioner of  the  revenue,  shall  be  elected  in  each  county, 
at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  as  sheriffs  are 
elected,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four  years.  No 
person  shall  be  eligible  to  either  of  said  offices  who  is 
not  a  qualified  elector  in  the  county. 

11.  The  county  courts  shall  proceed,  as  soon  as  may 
be,  to  divide  their  respective  counties  into  districts  of 
convenient  size,  containing,  as  near  as  practicable,  two 
hundred  qualified  electors;  but  if  any  county  shall  not 
contain  two  hundred  qualified  electors,  it  shall,  not- 
withstanding, constitute  one  district. 

12.  In  lieu  of  the  separate  elections  now  authorized 
by  law,  one  separate  election  shall  be  established  in 


each  district,  to  be  held  at  such  place  as  the  county 
court  shall  designate  and  appoint,  at  which  all  qualified 
electors  may  cast  their  votes  for  all  officers,  federal, 
State,  or  county,  who,  by  law,  are  to  be  elected  by  the 
people. 

13.  In  each  of  said  districts  there  shall  be  elected,  at 
the  same  time  and  in  like  manner  with  the  other  county 
officers,  two  justices  of  the  peace,  an  overseer  of  the 
poor,  and  a  school  commissioner,  for  the  term  of  four 
years,  and  one  constable,  whose  term  of  service  shall 
be  two  years.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  either  of 
said  offices  who  has  not  arrived  at  the  age  of  25  years, 
and  a  qualified  elector  in  the  county. 

14.  The  legislature  may,  from  time  to  time,  prescribe 
the  manner  of  conducting  and  making  due  returns  of  all 
elections  to  fill  county  offices,  and  the  mode  of  deter- 
mining all  contested  elections  arising  thereupon;  but  un- 
til otherwise  provided  by  law,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
county  courts  to  appoint  fit  and  proper  persons  to  super- 
intend and  conduct  the  elections  of  the  county  officers, 
and  make  returns  thereof  to  said  court;  and  any  contest- 
ed election  that  may  arise  shall  be  decided  by  the  county 
courts. 

15.  The  clerks,  sheriffs,  surveyors,  coroners,  and  con- 
stables so  elected,  before  they  shall  enter  upon  the  du- 
ties of  their  respective  offices,  shall  give  such  bond  and 
security  as  are  now  prescribed  by  law;  and  upon  taking 
the  oath  of  office  before  the  county  courts,  shall  be  fully 
installed  into  office,  with  all  the  rights  and  powers, 
duties  and  obligations,  and  entitled  to  all  the  compensa- 
tion now  conferred,  or  imposed  by  law  on  those  officers. 

16.  The  justices  of  the  peace,  upon  taking  the  oaths 
of  office  before  the  county  courts,  shall  be  vested  with 
all  the  powers,  rights  and  jurisdiction  now  possessed, 
enjoyed  and  exercised  by  the  justices  of  the  peace  in 
the  county,  and  shall  receive  such  compensation  for 
their^'services,  per  annum,  as  may  be  provided  by  law, 
to  be  paid  out  of  the  county  treasury. 

17.  The  county  attorneys,  commissioners  of  revenue, 
overseers  of  the  poor,  and  school  commissioners,  upon 
taking  the  oath  of  office  before  the  county  courts,  shall 
be  clothed  with  the  same  right  and  privileges,  duties 
and  responsibilities;  and  the  two  first  entitled  to  the  same 
compensation  as  are  now  prescribed  by  law  in  relation 
to  said  officers. 

18.  The  said  clerks,  county  attorneys,  sheriffs,  survey- 
ors, coroners,  justices  of  the  peace,  commissioners  of 
the  revenue,  overseers  of  the  poor,  school  commissioners 
and  constables,  shall  hold  their  offices  respectively,  un- 
til their  successors  be  duly  qualified  ;  and  their  rights 
and  duties,  powers  and  jurisdiction  may  be  enlarged  or 
restricted,  defined  or  modified  form  time  to  time,  as  the 
legislature  may  provide  and  direct. 

19.  The  justices  of  the  county  courts,  justices  of  the 
peace,  sheriffs,  coroners  and  constables,  shall  be  conser- 
vators of  the  peace,  with  a  jurisdiction  co-extensive  with 
their  respective  counties. 

20.  The  justices  of  the  peace  in  each  county,  or  as 
many  as  shall  attend,  shall  sit  inxonjunction  with  the 
justices  of  the  county  courts  in  the  court  of  claims,  and 
assist  in  laying  the  county  levy,  and  making  appropria- 
tions of  the  same. 

21.  When  any  of  said  county  districts  shall,  by  in- 
crease of  population,  the  formation  of  new  counties,  or 
other  causes,  become  unequal  or  inconvenient,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  county  courts,  until  the  legislature 
vests  the  power  elsewhere,  to  re-organize,  and  as  near  as 
may,  equalize  said  districts. 

22.  The  said  county  officers  shall  vacate  their  offices 
by  removing  from  the  county  or  district  in  which  they 
shall  be  appointed,  or  by  accepting  any  other  office,  ap- 
pointment or  public  trust,  except  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace ;  and  county  attornies  shall  be  eligible  to  either 
house  of  the  legislature.  They  shall  be  subject  to  in- 
dictments or  presentments  for  malfeasance  or  misfeas- 
ance in  office,  or  wilful  neglect  in  the  discharge  of 
their  official  duties,  in  such  mode  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law ;  and  upon  conviction,  their  office  shall  become 
vacant. 


166 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


23.  Tlie  count/  courts,  until  otherwise  provided  by 
law,  shall  have  power  to  remove  fn»ni  office,  any  of  said 
county  officers, for  glaring  neglectof  official  duties,  gross 
ma  I -practices,  or  imbecility  of  body  or  mini,  accompa- 
nied with  a  manifest  want  of  capacity  to  discharge  their 
duties.  The  court  fchall  be  judges  of  the  fact  as  well 
as  the  law  ;  b  it  no  sentence  of  removal  shall  be  pro- 
nounced, unless  two-thirds  of  the  members  shall  concur 
therein. 

2  I.  The  clerks,  sheriffs  surveyors,  eoronors  xtvl  con- 
chies m  ty  b.'  req  iired  by  law  to  renew  their  security 
from  time  to  time,  and  in  default  oi  giving  such  new  se 
curib',  their  office  shall  be  deemed  vacant,  and  no  oneoi 
sai  1  officers  sh  dl  be  re-eligible,  or  eligible  to  any  other 
office,  who  is  in  default  for  any  monies  collect  d  by  vir- 
tue of  his  office. 

25.  If  a  vacancy  shall  occur  in  the  office  of  justice  of 
the  county  court,  the  Governor  shall  issue  a  writ  of 
election  to  fill  such  vac  iney  for  the  i  efidue  (  f  the  t<  r  a  ; 
an  1  if  a  vacancy  occur  in  any  of  the  other  county  offices 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  county  court,  until  the  power 
be  vested  elsewhere  by  the  legislature,  to  order  an  elec- 
tion to  be  held  to  supply  said  vacancy  for  the  balance  of 
the  term. 

26'.  When  prosecutions  shall  be  instituted  agai:  s',  or 
proceedings  pending  to  remove,  any  of  said  county  offi- 
cers, they  shall  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  their 
offices  until  they  shall  have  been  acquitted;  and  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  county  court  to  appoint  competent 
persons  to  discharge  the  duties  of  said  officers  during 
such  suspension,  and  until  an  election  can  be  held  to  fill 
the  vacancy,  should  the  trial  result  in  a  conviction  or 
removal. 

27.  The  legislature  may  provide  for  the  election  or 
appointment  of  such  other  county  officers,  ministerial 
or  executive,  as  shall  from  time  to  time  be  necessary 
and  proper. 

23.  If  a  new  county  shall  be  formed,  the  present 
countie:;  shah  not  he  deprived  of  any  of  their  officers  by 
their  places  of  resideuce  being  embraced  in  the  new 
county,  except  only  that  justices  of  the  peace,  overseers 
of  the  poor,  school  co  nmissioners,  and  constables,  who 
may  reside  within  the  limits  of  the  new  county,  shall 
continue  to  exercise  the  duties  of  their  offices  until  the 
new  county  is  fully  organized,  and  elections  held  to  fiil 
the  offices  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  may  pro- 
vide and  direct. 

The  proposition  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  order- 
ed to  be  printed. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  desire  to  present,  on  the  part  of 
the  minority  of  the  committee,  a  substitute,  varying  in 
many  essential  particulars  from  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee. I  merely  ask  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table  and 
printed  as  the  report  of  the  minority,  which  will  be  of- 
fered as  a  substitute  at  a  proper  time,  to  the  report  oi 
the  committee. 

The  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

Jtrticle  I. — Cf  Justices  and  other  officers. 

Sec.  1.  The  several  counties  of  the  State  shall  be  di- 
vided into  townships  as  nearly  equal  in  territory  and 
population  as  practicable,  in  each  of  which  shall  be 
elected,  by  the  qualified  voters  therein,  two  persons  as 
justices  of  the  county,  to  continue  in  office  for  the  term 
of  two  years  :  Provided,  hoicever^  that  no  county  shall 
contain  less  than  four,  nor  more  than  fourteen  town- 
ships. Each  justice  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  county.  They  shall  hear  and  determine  all  mat- 
ters in  assumpsit,  debt,  detinue,  and  trover,  wherein  the 
demand  or  subject  in  controversy,  exclusive  of  interest, 
shall  not  exceed  in  value  the  sum  of  twenty  dollars. 
They  shall  exercise  all  such  criminal  jurisdiction,  and 
perform  such  other  duties,  as  may  from  time  to  time  be 
devolved  on  them  by  law. 

2.  There  shall  be  elected  in  each  county,  by  the  qual- 
ified voters  therein,  a  presiding  justice  of  the  county,  to 
continue  in  office  for  the  term  of  five  years.  He  shall 
receive  for  his  services  an  adequate  salary,  to  be  paid 
either  out  of  the  county  levy  or  other  special  fund, 


other  than  the  public  treasurv,  as  may  be  provided  by 
law. 

3.  The  justices  shall  receive  adequat  e  compensation 
for  their  services,  to  be  provided  for  by  law,  otherwise 
than  by  fees  of  office  ;  but  neither  their  compensation, 
nor  that  allowed  to  the  presiding  justice  of  the  county, 
shall  be  increased  or  diminished  during  the  pericd  fcr 
which  they  were  respectively  elected. 

4.  There  shall  be  elected,  for  each  county  by  the 
qua  ifbd  voters  therein,  a  clerk  of  the  county  court,  a 
sheriff,  an  attorney  for  the  Commonwealth,  a  county 
surveyor,  and  or  e  or  more  commissioners  of  the  revenue, 
as  may  be  determined  by  law.  Each  of  saidoffhirs 
shall  continue  in  office  respectively  as  follows,  to  wit  : 
The  clerk  for  the  term  of  rive  years  ;  the  sheriff  for  tlie 
term  of  two  years  :  the  attorney  for  the  term  of  two 
years  ;  the  surveyor  for  the  term  of  two  years;  and  the 
commissioners  for  the  term  of  two  years. 

5.  Constr.bles  shall  be  elected  lor  every  two  cc-termi- 
nous  townships,  by  the  qualified  voters  thereof,  to  con- 
tinue in  office  for  the  term  of  two  years.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  each  shall  extend  over  the  whole  county. 

6.  Overseers  of  the  poor  shall  be  elected,  one  for  each 
township,  by  the  qualified  voters  therein,  to  continue  in 
office  for  the  term  of  two  years. 

7.  Surveyors  of  roads  shall  be  appoirted  by  the  board 
of  police.  Their  term  of  service,  duties,  and  compen- 
sation shall  be  regulated  by  law. 

8.  Each  of  the  officers  mentioned  in  this  article,  shall 
continue  in  office  umil  a  successor  shall  have  been 
qualified.  Each  shall  reside  during  his  ttrm  of  office  in 
the  county,  township,  or  double  township  respectively, 
for  which  he  was  elected.  They  shall  be  re-eligible  to 
office,  except  the  sheriff,  who  may  be  elected  for  two 
successive  terms,  but  he  shall  not  be  again  eligible  un- 
til the  expiration  of  a  full  term  after  lhat  for  which  he 
was  last  elected  :  Provided,  however,  that  appointments 
to  fiil  vacancies  for  an  unexpired  term  in  the  office  cf 
•sheriff  shall  not  come  under  the  operation  cf  this  re- 
striction. 

9.  Vacancies  occurring  by  death,  resignation  or  oth- 
erwise, in  any  of  the  offices  mentioned  in  this  article, 
except  those  of  presiding  justice  of  the  county,  ard 
clerk  cf  the  county  court,  shall  be  supplied  until  the 
next  regular  period  of  election,  by  appointment  cf  ihe 
board  of  police,  each  of  the  justices  having  been  sum- 
moned for  that  purpose,  and  a  majority  of  the  v»  hole 
number  being  present  and  acting  in  the  matter  of  such 
appointment.  Vacancies  occurring  in  like  manner,  in 
the  offices  of  presiding  justice,  and  clerk  of  the  county 
court,  shall  be  supplied  by  special  elections  of  the  quali- 
fied voters,  in  such  manner  as  may  he  prescribed  by  law. 

10.  The  voters  referred  to  in  this  article,  shall  be 
those  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the  legislature. 

11.  The  offices  of  coroner,  and  escheatcr,  in  the  sev- 
eral counties,  are  hereby  abolished  ;  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  provide  by  Jaw  for  devolving 
the  duties  now  appertaining  to  said  offices,  upon  such 
other  of  the  foregoing  officers  as  may  be  deemed  expe- 
dient. 

12.  Ail  officers  appertaining  to  the  cities  and  other 
municipal  corporafi  a  s  of  the  State,  and  such  county 
officers  as  may  hereafter  be  created  by  the  legislature, 
shall  either  be  elected  by  the  qualified  voters  or  by  the 
constituted  authorities  thereof,  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

Article  2. — Of  the  County  Court,  Court  of  Probate,  and 
Board  of  Police. 
Sec.  1.  There  shall  be  established  in  each  county  a 
county  court,  to  consist  of  the  presiding  justice  of  the 
county,  and  not  less  than  two,  nor  more  than  four  of 
the  other  justices,  or  in  the  absence  of  the  presiding 
justice,  said  court  may  be  composed  wholly  of  the  eth- 
er justices  of  the  county:  Provided,  kowevn-,  ih&t  not 
less  than  three  nor  more  than  five  shall  set  at  one  lime; 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature,  to  provide  by 
law  for  the  classification  of  the  justices,  in  such  manner 
as  to  equalize  as  near  as  may  be  their  duties  as  mem- 
bers of  the  court. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


167 


2.  The  county  courts  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  all 
causes  at  common  law,  wherein  the  demand  or  subject 
in  controversy,  exclusive  of  interest,  exceeds  in  value 
the  sum  of  twenty  dollars,  but  which  do  not  exceed  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  dollars  ;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  legislature  to  provide  by  law,  for  the  trial  of  such 
causes,  in  a  summary  and  economical  manner,  without 
pleadings.  They  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  all  causes 
in  equity — appeals  from  judgments  of  justices,  and  over 
such  criminal  matter  as  by  law  may  be  devolved  on 
them. 

3.  Two  terms  only  of  said  court  shall  be  held  in  each 
year,  for  the  trial  of  appeals,  and  civil  causes  in  law  or 
equity;  but  special  sessions  thereof  may  be  held,  for 
the  hearing  of  criminal  matters,  and  for  other  purposes 
requiring  summary  proceedings  as  may  be  provided  b) 
law. 

Court  of  Probate. 

4.  There  shall  be  established  in  each  county,  a  court, 
to  be  known  as  the  court  of  probate,  which  shall  be 
held  at  the  court-house  thereof,  by  the  presiding  justice 
of  the  county,  four  times  in  each  year.  They  shall  have 
jurisdiction  over  all  matters  appertaining  to  the  probate, 
wills,  the  appointment  and  duties  of  executors,  admin- 
istrators, guardians,  and  committees  of  insane  persons 
with  such  other  jurisdiction  of  a  like  nature  as  may  be 
conferred  on  them  by  law. 

5.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  provide 
by  law  for  the  holding  of  said  courts,  at  any  time  in  va- 
cation, upon  the  due  citation  of  the  parties  interested, 
for  the  purpose  of  qualifying  and  appointing  execu- 
tors and  administrators,  and  for  such  other  purposes 
requiring  summary  action  as  may  be  deemed  expe- 
dient. 

Board  of  Police. 

6.  The  whole  number  of  justices  in  each  county  shall 
constitute  thereof  a  board  of  police.  They  shall  be  a 
body  corporate  by  the  name  of  the  Board  of  Police  of 

 county,  and  as  such  may  sue  and  be  sued. 

They  shall  have  power  and  jurisdiction  under  regulations 
to  be  prescribed  by  law  over  all  applications  and  other 
matters  concerning  cou  rty  roads,  mills,  ferries,  and  pub 
lie  landing,  the  granting  of  ordinary  and  other  county 
licences,  and  over  all  matters  appertaining  to  the  as- 
sessment, collection,  and  disbursement  of  the  county 
levy,  together  with  such  other  powers  and  jurisdic- 
tion as  may  from  time  ti;  time  be  conferred  on  them 
by  law. 

7.  At  the  first  meeting,  after  any  general  election  of 
the  justices  of  the  county,  they  shall  elect  one  of  their 
number  as  president  of  the  board,  Avho  shall  pre- 
side over  their  deliberations.  A  majority  of  the  whole 
number  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  and  their  sessions, 
which  shall  not  be  less  than  six  in  each  year,  shall  be 
held  in  public,  at  the  court-house  of  their  respective 
counties. 

8.  The  clerk  of  the  county  court  shall  be  ex  officio 
•clerk  of  the  court  of  probate,  and  also  of  the  board  of 
police.     His  official  duties  shall  be  regulated  by  law. 

The  proposition  was  laii  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  Unfortunately,  I  am  one  of  the  com- 
mittee on  county  courts  who  could  not  concur  with  the 
majority  in  their  report.  I  regret  to  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity to  state  this  fact,  for  1  did  since  rely  hope  that 
the  committee  would  have  been  able  to  have  made  a 
report  in  which  we  should  all  have  concurred.  But  be- 
lieving as  I  do,  that  the  plan  presented  by  the  major- 
ity of  the  committee  contains  many  of  the  essential 
objections  to  the  existing  county  court  system,  I  have 
thought  it  my  duty  to  present  to  the  Convention  a  com- 
peting plan,  more  especially  since  the  constituency  I 
represent  here  demaud  not  merely  a  modification,  or  a 
reform  of  the  existing  county  court  system,  but  a  total 
annihilation  of  it.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  plan  prepared  by 
myself  and  another  dissenting  member  of  the  commit- 
tee, not  in  bis  seat,  the  gentleman  from  Wood,  (Mr.  Van 


Winkle,)  principally  prepared  by  him.  I  agree  with 
him  in  the  general,  and  ask  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table 
and  printed. 

The  proposition  was  read  as  follows  :  x 

JUSTICES  AND  OTHER.  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

1.  Every  county  shall  be  divided  into  not  less  than 
four  nor  more  than  fifteen  townships,  as  nearly  equal  as 
practicable  in  territory  and  in  the  number  of  electors 
qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the  general  assembly 
resident  in  each. 

2.  At  such  times  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law,  the 
qualified  electors  of  every  county  shall,  elect  a  sheriff, 
a  clerk  of  the  county,  an  attorney  for  the  Common- 
wealth, a  surveyor  of  the  county,  and  one  or  more 
commissioners  of  the  revenue.  And  the  qualified  elect- 
ors of  every  township  shall  elect  two  justices  of  the 
Peace,  an  overseer  of*  the  poor,  and  one  surveyor  of 
roads  for  every  precinct  into  which  the  township  shall 
be  divided  ;  and  for  every  two  townships  there  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  voters  thereof,  one  constable. 
All  other  county  and  township  officers  shall  be  elected 
in  like  manner,  or  appointed  by  the  board  of  police. 

3.  All  county  and  township  officers  shall  be  qualified 
electors  there,  fj  and  except  the  judge  of  the  court  of 
probate  shall  be  elected  or  appointed  for  terms  of  two 
years,  or  the  residue  of  an  unexpired  term — shall  reside 
during  their  continuance  in  office  in  the  counties  and 
townships  for  which  they  were  respectively  elected — 
shall  serve  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  quali- 
fied, and  shall  be  re-eligible  ;  but  the  same  person  shall 
not  serve  as  sheriff  for  more  than  two  consecutive  full 
terms. 

4.  Vacancies  in  the  offices  of  judge  of  the  court  of 
probate,  sheriff,  clerk  of  the  county,  or  justice  of  the 
Peace  shall  be  filled  by  special  elections,  and  in  all 
other  offices,  by  appointment  of  the  board  of  police. 

5.  The  jurisdiction  of  justices  shall  be  co-extensive 
with  their  counties,  and  shall  embrace  all  actions  of 
assumpsit,  debt,  detinue  and  trover,  where  the  sum  of 
money,  exclusive  of  interest  or  value  of  the  thing  in 
controversy,  does  not  exceed  fifty  dollars,  subject  to 
an  appeal  to  the  circuit  court  of  the  county  where 
the  same  exceeds  ten  dollars.  The  general  assembly 
shall  prescribe  the  extent  of  their  separate  jurisdiction 
as  to  breaches  of  the  peace  and  criminal  offences ; 
aud  may  authorize  two  or  more  of  them  to  hold  spe- 
cial courts  for  the  examination  or  trial  of  persons 
charged  with  crime,  and  for  other  purposes ;  but  no 
justice  shall  be  a  member  of  any  court  having  general 
civil  jurisdiction. 

6.  The  jurisdiction  of  constables  shall  be  co-extensive 
with  their  counties. 

7.  The  sheriff  shall  be  the  collector  ant!  treasurer  of 
the  board  of  police. 

8.  The  clerk  of  the  county  shall  be  clerk  of  the  board 
of  police,  of  the  court  of  probate,  and  of  all  special 
courts  held  by  justices  in  his  county.  He  shall  record 
deeds,  wills,  and  other  writings,  and  perform  such 
other  duties  of  a  like  nature  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

9.  The  attorney  for  the  Commonwealth  shall  be  pros- 
ecutor of  the  pleas  of  all  the  courts  held  for  his  county, 
and  shall  appear  in  all  causes  tried  therein,  in  which  the 
Commonwealth  may  be  a  party; 

10.  All  county  and  township  officers  shall  receive  for 
their  services  an  adequate  compensation  ;  but  in  no  case 
shall  a  justice  be  compensated  by  fees  for  issuing  pro- 
cess or  trying  any  civil  or  criminal  case.  When  the  com- 
pensation is  paid  from  the  county  treasury,  the  amount 
shall  be  fixed  by  the  board  of  police,  within  limits  to  be 
ascertained  by  law. 

11.  The  offices  of  coroner  and  escheater  are  abolished. 
Every  justice  shall  perform  the  duties  of  coroner  with- 
in his  district  as  to  persons  coming  to  their  deaths  by 
violence  or  casualty ;  and  the  board  of  police  shall 
designate  one  or  more  constables  to  perform  the  other 
duties  of  the  office.    The  duties  of  escheator  shall  be 


168 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


performed  by  one  or  more  of  the  county  and  township 
officers  named  in  this  article,  who  shall  be  designated 
by  law. 

Board  of  Police. 

1.  The  former  county  courts  are  abolished.  There 
shall  be  established  in  each  county,  a  court  to  be  called 
"  the  court  of  probate  of  the  county  of  ." 

2.  A  judge,  who  shall  hold  the  said  court,  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  electors  of  each  county,  at  such 
time  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law,  for  the  term  of  four 
years.  He  shall  receive  for  his  services  an  adequate  com- 
pensation, the  minimum  whereof  shall  be  fixed  by  law, 
which  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  county  treasury,  and 
shall  be  neither  increased  nor  diminished  during  his 
continuance  in  office. 

8.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  said  court  shall  extend  to 
all  matters  relating  to  the  probate  of  wills,  the  ap- 
pointment and  duties  of  executors,  administrators,  guar- 
dians, curators,  and  committees  of  insane  persons,  the 
partition  of  estates,  and  the  assignment  of  dower :  and 
to  such  other  matters  of  a  like  nature  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

4.  Six  terms  of  the  said  court  shall  be  held  in  every 
year  ;  and  it  shall  be  always  open  for  the  appointment 
and  qualification  of  executors,  administrators,  and  cura- 
tors, upon  citation  of  all  persons  interested,  and  for  such 
other  purposes,  and  under  such  regulations,  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law. 

Court  of  Probate. 

1.  The  justices  of  each  county,  whereof  a  majority 
shall  be  a  quorum,  shall  constitute  a  board,  which  shall, 
under  such  general  regulatious  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law,  have  the  administration  of  all  the  internal  af- 
fairs of  the  county  not  of  a  judicial  character,  including 
the  establishment  and  regulating  of  roads,  public  land- 
ings, ferries  and  mills,  (except  in  the  issue  and  trial 
of  writs  of  ad  quod  damnum  which  shall  issue  from 
the  circuit  courts,)  the  quantity  of  ordinary  and  other 
licences,  and  the  laying  and  disbursement  of  the  county 
levies. 

2.  The  said  board  shall  be  a  corporation  by  the  name 

of  "  the  board  of  police  of  the  county  of  ,"  by 

which  name  they  may  sue  and  be  sued.  They  shall 
meet  statedly,  at  least  six  times  in  every  year,  at  the 
court-house  of  their  county,  and  may  hold  special  and 
adjourned  meetings.  At  their  first  meeting  after  any 
general  election  of  justices,  and  whenever  a  vacancy 
may  occur,  they  shall  elect  one  of  their  number  pres- 
ident of  the  board.  They  shall  keep  a  journal  of 
their  proceedings,  and  may  pass  by-laws  and  ordi- 
nances not  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  or  of  this  State,  for  the  better  administration  of 
the  affairs  of  their  county  committed  to  their  charge ; 
and  shall,  in  all  cases,  act  as  a  legislative  and  not  as  a 
judicial  body. 

3.  The  said  board  shall,  from  time  to  time,  appoint 
the  places  for  holding  elections  in  the  several  townships 
of  their  county,  and  shall  be  the  judges  of  the  election, 
qualification  and  return  of  their  own  members,  and  of  all 
county  and  town  officers,  including  the  judge  of  the 
court  of  probate. 

The  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

PUBLIC  MEETING  IN  TAYLOR  COUNTY. 

Mr.  ARMSTRONG.  I  h-ve  received  the  proceed- 
ings of  a  public  meeting  held  n  the  county  of  Taylor  ; 
it  is  said  to  be  a  very  large  d  nd  respectable  meeting. 
They  have  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions,  in  which 
they  lay  down  certain  great  principles.  They  first  as- 
sert the  principle  that  all  power  is  vested  in  the  people, 
and  consequently  derived  from  the  people,  and  that  any 
other  basis  of  representation  than  the  white  basis  would 
be  anti-republican.  They  further  state  that  a  majority 
of  the  people  have  a  right  to  change  and  alter,  and  to 
enforce  that  form  of  g  overnment  which  is  best  calcu- 
lated to  secure  to  them  and  their  posterity  their  equal 
political  rights.  They  have  adopted  several  other  res- 
w.ti/*ra,  one  of  which  is  instruction  to  myself,  and  to 


the  other  gentleman  from  that  district,  in  which  they 
require  that  we  shall  conform  our  action  to  the  resolu- 
tions, and  that  we  shall  exercise  our  best  discretion  to 
give  them  a  practical  application.  They  further  direct 
that  I  shall  present  them  to  this  Convention,  which  I  now 
do,  and  ask  that  they  may  be  read.  These  resolu- 
tions come  with  a  good  deal  of  propriety  from  the 
people  living  in  the  county  of  Taylor,  when  we  remem- 
ber that  the  law  by  which  this  Convention  is  now  as- 
sembled was  presented  to  the  voters  of  that  county, 
every  vote  was  against  it.  I  send  the  proceedings  of 
this  meeting  to  the  Chair,  and  ask  that  the  Secretary 
will  read  them. 

The  paper  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  fol- 
lows: 

On  Monday,  the  27th  day  of  January,  1851,  a  large 
number  of  the  citizens  of  Taylor  county  met  at  the 
courthouse  of  said  county;  and  by  them  Col.  Cather 
was  called  to  the  chair,  and  Adolphus  Armstrong  re- 
quested to  act  as  secretary. 

The  object  of  the  meeting  being  explained,  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  prepare  and  report  resolutions 
in  accordance  therewith.  Whereupon,  Leonidas  S. 
Johnson,  Esq.,  of  said  committee,  and  on  its  behalf, 
presented  the  following  resolutions,  which  were,  after 
the  meeting  was  addressed  by  said  Johnson  and  John  S. 
Burdett,  unanimously  adopted: 

1.  Resolved,  "That  all  power  is  vested  in,  and  conse- 
quently derived  from,  the  people,"  and  that  the  free 
white  population  is  the  only  true  basis  of  a  republican 
government. 

2.  Resolved,  That  a  majority  of  the  free  white  people 
of  the  State,  and  they  alone,  have  the  right  to  establish 
and  enforce  such  mode  or  form  of  government  as  tney 
believe  to  be  best  calculated  to  secure  to  them  and 
their  posterity  their  just  and  equal  rights. 

3.  Resolved,  That  representation  in  the  legislative  de- 
partment of  government  based  on  property,  or  taxation, 
or  on  taxation  and  population  combined,  is  such  an  in- 
fraction of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  and 
tends  so  directly  to  the  subversion  of  political  equality, 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by  a  free  people. 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  right  of  suffrage  ought  to  be  ex- 
tended to  every  free  white  male  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  over  the  age  of  21  years,  who  has  also  resided 
in  the  county,  city,  or  town  of  this  commonwealth  for 
twelve  months  next  preceding  the  election  at  which  he 
may  offer  to  vote,  not  of  an  unsound  mind,  nor  a  pau- 
per, nor  commissioned  officer,  soldier,  seaman,  or  ma- 
rine in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  or  persons  con- 
victed of  an  infamous  offence. 

5.  Resolved,  That  while  we  deny  that  property  is  an 
element  of  the  basis  of  representation,  it  ought  to  re- 
ceive full  and  ample  protection. 

6.  Resolved,  That  an  ad  valorem  tax  is  the  true  prin- 
ciple of  taxation. 

7.  Resolved,  That  our  delegation  in  the  Convention  to 
amend  the  constitution  of  our  State  are  hereby  in- 
structed to  conform  their  action  to  the  principles  of  the 
foregoing  resolutions:  and  that  they  use  their  discretion 
as  to  the  mode  best  calculated  in  their  judgment  to  ob- 
tain a  practical  application  of  said  principles. 

8.  Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  resolutions  be  pub- 
lished in  the  newspapers  of  this  convention  district,  and 
a  copy  be  forwarded  to  E.  J.  Armstrong,  Esq.,  one  of 
our  delegates  in  the  Convention,  with  the  request  that 
he  lay  the  same  before  the  Convention. 

On  motion,  the  meeting  adjourned. 

Thos.  Cather,  Chairman. 
A.  Armstrong,  Secretary. 

Mr.  ARMSTRONG.  I  should  like  to  know  whether 
these  proceedings  will  be  entered  upon  the  journal  or 
not,  as  I  am  entirely  ignorant  of  the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  without  an  order  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  ARMSTRONG.  I  would  ask,  then,  that  the 
proceedings  be  laid  on  the  table,  understanding  that 
they  will  come  up  in  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention,  if  laid  on  the  table. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


169' 


^  The  PRESIDENT.  The  notice  of  the  fact  that  the 
gentleman  offered  these  proceedings  will  appear  on  the 
journal,  and  the  proceedings  themselves  will  appear  in 
the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  ARMSTRONG.    That  is  all  I  want. 

The  paper  was  then  laid  on  the  table. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  committee  on  the  legislative  de- 
partment of  the  government,  according  to  order,  have 
had  under  consideration  numerous  resolutions  and  vari- 
ous clauses  of  the  constitution  to  them  referred,  and 
have  adopted  a  report  in  relation  to  many  of  them,  and 
bave  instructed  me  to  hand  that  report  into  the  Conven- 
tion this  day;  which  I  am  ready  to  do  when  it  is  the  will 
and  pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  receive  it.  I  have 
no  objection  to  the  reading  of  the  report,  nor  have  I  any 
wish  on  the  subject  at  all,  except  to  comply  with  the 
will  of  the  Convention;  but  it  is  about  thirteen  pages 
long,  and  will  occupy  some  time  in  reading,  and  I  move 
that  it  be  printed,  so  that  the  members  will  have  it  to 
peruse  at  their  leisure.  I  shall  close  the  single  remark 
I  have  to  make,  with  a  motion  to  lay  the  report  on  the 
table,  and  that  it  be  printed. 

I  have  to  remark  that  it  is  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  Convention  that  a  great  variety  of  interesting  sub- 
jects were  referred  to  the  committee,  such  as  were  cal- 
culated to  excite  diverse  feelings  on  the  part  of  the  va- 
rious members  composing  the  body.  They  proceeded 
harmoniously,  and  I  hope  efficiently,  to  discharge  all 
their  laborious  and  difficult  duties,  and  this  report  is  the 
result  of  their  labors,  so  far  as  they  have  had  these  va- 
rious subjects  under  consideration.  But  I  wish  to  an- 
nounce the  fact,  for  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  have 
had  resolutions  referred,  that  the  committee  have  still 
various  subjects  before  them  undisposed  of,  and  which 
the  committee  propose  to  go  on  and  consider  as  rapidly 
as  they  can.  I  move  that  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table 
and  printed. 

Mr.  McCAMANT.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  re- 
port. 

i  Mr.  WISE.  Perhaps  my  friend  did  not  hear  what 
was  said  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  The  report 
is  thirteen  pages  long,  and  I  presume  it  will  be  an  un- 
necessary waste  of  time  to  read  it  here.  I  would  ask 
him  to  withdraw  his  request  for  the  reading  of  the  re- 
port, and  that  it  may  lie  on  the  table  and  be  printed. 
We  should  all  have  plenty  of  time  to  digest  it  before  it 
comes  up  for  action. 

Mr.  McCAMANT.  At  the  request  of  the  gent'eman 
from  Accomac  I  withdraw  the  motion,  notwithstending 
I  believe  I  would  as  soon  hear  these  reports  read,  as 
long  speeches  on  the  subject  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
governor. 

The  report  is  as  follows: 

REPORT   OF    THE    COMMITTEE  ON    THE    LEGISLATIVE  DE- 
PARTMENT. 

r  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  of  the 
government  have,  according  to  order,  had  under  con- 
sideration the  several  articles  and  clauses  of  the  exist- 
ing constitution  to  them  referred,  and  have  agreed  upon 
recommending  the  following  provisions,  viz: 

Article  1. 

The  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  departments 
shall  be  separate  and  distinct,  so  that  neither  exercise 
the  powers  properly  belonging  to  either  of  the  others; 
nor  shall  any  person  exercise  the  powers  of  more  than 
one  of  them  at  the  same  time,  except  that  justices  of  the 
peace  shall  be  eligible  to  either  house  of  assembly. 
Article  2. 

Sec  1.  The  legislature  shall  be  formed  of  two  dis- 
tinct branches,  which  together  shall  be  a  complete  legis- 
lature, and  shall  be  called  the  general  assembly  of 
Virginia. 

2.  One  of  these  shall  be  called  the  house  of  delegates, 
and  shall  consist  of   members,  to  be  chosen  bi- 

ennially, whose  term  of  service  shall  be  two  years,  to 


commence  on  the  day  of  the  first  election  under  this 
constitution. 

3.  The  other  house  of  the  general  assembly  shall  be 

called  the  senate,  and  shall  consist  of  members, 

whose  term  of  service  shall  be  four  years,  to  commence 
on  the  day  of  the  first  election  under  this  constitution. 
Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  first  election,  they  shall  be  divided  as 
equally  as  may  be  into  two  classes.  The  seats  of  the 
senators  of  the  first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  second  year,  and  of  the  second  class  at  the 
expiration  of  the  fourth  }?ar;  so  that  one  half  may  be 
chosen  every  second  year. 

4.  For  the  election  of  senate:  *,  the  counties,  cities, 
and  towns  shall  be  divided  into  districts. 

5.  Any  person  may  be  elected  a  senator  who  shall 
have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty  years,  and  shall  be  ac- 
tually a  resident  within  the  district,  and  qualified  to  vote 
for  members  of  the  general  assembly  according  to  this 
constitution.  And  any  person  may  be  elected  a  mem- 
ber of  the  house  of  delegates,  who  shall  have  attained 
to  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  shall  be  actually  a 
resident  within  the  county,  city,  town,  or  election  dis- 
trict, qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the  general 
assembly  according  to  this  constitution:  Provided,  That 
all  persons  holding  lucrative  offices,  and  ministers  of 
the  gospel  and  priests  of  every  denomination,  shall  be 
incapable  of  being  elected  members  of  either  house  of 
assembly. 

6.  The  General  Assembly  shall  meet  once  in  every 
two  years,  and  not  oftener,  unless  convened  Dy  the  act- 
ing Governor  of  the  commonwealth  on  application,  in 
recess,  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  each  house  of 
assembly,  or  when,  in  his  opinion,  the  interest  of  the- 
common wealth  may  require  it.  Neither  house,  during* 
the  session  of  the  legislature  shall,  without  the  consent 
of  the  other,  adjourn  for  mure  than  three  days,  nor  to 
any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two  houses  shall 
be  sitting.  A  majority  of  each  house  shall  constitute  a 
quorum  to  do  business,  but  a  smaller  number  may  ad- 
journ from  day  to  day,  and  shall  be  authorized  to  com- 
pel the  attendance  of  absent  members  in  such  manner 
and  under  such  penalties  as  each  house  may  provide. 
And  each  house  shall  choose  its  own  speaker,  appoint 
its  own  officers,  settle  its  own  rules  of  proceeding,  and 
direct  writs  of  election  for  supplying  intermediate  va- 
cancies, but  if  vacancies  shall  occur,  by  death  or  resigna- 
tion, during  the  recess  of  the  general  assembly,  such 
writs  may  be  issued  by  the  governor,  under  such  regula- 
tions as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.  Each  house  shall 
judge  of  the"  election,  qualification  and  returns  of  its 
members,  may  punish  its  members  for  disorderly  be- 
havior, and  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  expel  a 
member  ;  but  not  a  second  time  for  the  same  offence. 

1.  The  members  of  the  Assembly  shall  receive  for 
their  services  a  compensation  to  be  ascertained  by  law 
and  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury  ;  but  no  law  increas- 
ing that  compensation  shall  take  effect  until  the  end  of 
the  term  for  which  the  members  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates were  elected.  And  no  senator  or  delegate  shall, 
during  the  term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  be 
appointed  to  any  civil  office  of  profit  under  the  Com- 
monwealth, which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emol- 
uments of  which  shall  have  been  increased  during  such 
term,  except  such  offices  as  may  be  filled  by  elections 
by  the  people. 

8.  All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the 
house  of  delegates  ;  but  the  senate  may  propose  or  con- 
cur with  the  amendments,  as  on  other  bills. 

9.  Each  house  of  the  general  assembly  shall  keep  a 
journal  of  its  proceedings,  which  shall  be  published  from 
time  to  time. 

10.  The  whole  number  of  members  to  which  the  state 
may  at  any  time  be  entitled  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives of  the  United  States,  shall  be  apportioneel  as  near- 
ly as  may  be  amongst  the  several  counties,  cities,  and 
towns  of  the  state,  according  to  their  respective  num- 
bers, which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 


170 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service 
for  a  term  of  years  and  excluding-  Indians  not  taxed, 
three-niths  of  all  other  persons.  And  in  the  apportion- 
ment, the  state  shall  be  divided  into  districts,  corres- 
ponding in  number  with  the  representatives  to  which  it 
may  be  entitled  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States. 

11.  The  districts  to  embrace  respectively  contiguous 
counties  cities  and  towns,  to  be  compact  and  to  include 
as  nearly  as  may  be,  an  equal  number  of  the  population, 
upon  which  is  based  representation  in  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States. 

12.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall 
not  in  any  case,  be  suspenled.  The  legislature  shall  not 
pass  any  bill  of  attainder  or  any  ezp'>st  facto  law;  or 
any  law  impairing  the  obligations  of  contracts,  or  any 
law  whereby  private  property  shall  be  taken  for  public 
uses,  without  |ust  compensation  ;  or  any  law  abridging 
the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press.  No  man  shall  be 
compelled  to  frequent  or  support  any  religious  wor-h  p, 
place  or  ministry  whatsoever ;  nor  shall  any  man  be  en- 
force I,  restrained,  mole-ted  or  burthened  in  his  body  or 
goods,  or  otherwise  sinter  on  acount  of  his  religious 
opimcns  or  belief;  but  all  men  shall  be  free  to  profess, 
ani  by  argument  to  maintain  their  opinionsin  matters  of 
religion,  aud  the  same  shall  in  nowise  affect,  diminish  or 
enlarge  their  civil  capacities.  And  the  legislature  shall 
not  prescribe  any  religious  test  whatever ;  n  >r  confer 
any  peculiar  privileges  or  advantages  on  any  sect  or  de- 
nomination ;  nor  pass  any  law  requiring  or  authorizing 
any  religious  society,  or  the  people  of  any  district  with- 
in this  commonwealth,  to  levy  on  themselves  or  others 
a  tax  for  the  erection  or  repair  of  any  house  of  public 
worship,  or  for  the  .-upport  of  any  church  or  ministry; 
bat  it  shall  be  full  and  free  to  every  person  to  select  his 
religious  instructor,  an  1  to  make  for  his  support  such 
private  contract  as  he  shall  please. 

13.  The  general  a->se  nbly  may  by  law  confer  on  the 
courts  or  other  tribunals  the  power  to  grant  divorces, 
change  the  name>  of  persons  and  direct  the  sale  of  es- 
tates belonging  to  inputs,  or  other  persons  under  legal 
disabilities  But  shall  not  by  special  legislation,  grant 
relief  in  such  ca-e,  nor  in  any  other  case  over  which  the 
laws  may  have  conferred  jurisdiction  on  the  courts  or 
other  trib  mals. 

U.  No  new  county  shall  be  formed  with  an  area  less 
than  600  square  miles.  In  the  formation  of  new  coun- 
ties, no  existing  county  shall  be  reduced  below  such  area, 
nor  shall  any  existing  county  having  a  population  less 
than  six  thousand  white  inhabitants  be  deprived  "of 
mare  than  one-fifth  of  its  population. 

15.  Every  law  shall  embrace  but  one  object,  and  that 
shall  be  expressed  in  the  title. 

16.  The  legislature  may  provide  by  law  that  no  per- 
son shall  be  capable  of  holding  or  being  elected  to  any 
post  of  profit,  trust  or  emolument,  civil  or  military,  le- 
gislative, executive  or  judicial,  under  the  government  of 
this  commonwealth,  who  shall  hereafter  fight  a  duel,  or 
sen  1  or  accept  a  challenge  to  fight  a  duel,  the  probable 
issue  of  which  may  be  the  death  of  the  challenger  or 
eh  illenged,  or  who  shall  be  a  secon  1  to  either  party,  or 
shall  iu  any  manner  aid  or  assist  in  such  duel,  or  shall 
be  knowingly  the  bsarer  of  such  challenge  or  acceptance; 
*but  no  person  shall  be  so  disqualified  by  reason  of  his 
having  heretofore  fought  such  duel,  or  sent  or  accepted 
such  challenge,  or  been  second  in  such  duel  or  bearer  of 
such  challenge  or  acceptance. 

17.  The  governo--,  the  ju  Iges,  and  all  others  offending 
against  the  state,  either  by  mal-administration,  corrup- 
tion, neglect  of  duty,  or  any  other  high  crime  or  mis- 
demeanor, shall  be  impeached  by  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates ;  such  impeachment  to  be  prosecuted  before  the 
Senate,  which  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  im- 
peachments. When  sitting  for  that  purpose,  the  Sen- 
ate shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation,  and  no  person  shall 
be  convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present.  Judgment  in  cases  of  impeach- 
ment shall  not  extend  further  than  to  removal  from 


office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  office 
of  honor,  trust  or  profit  under  the  commonwealth ;  but 
the  party  convicted  shall  nevertheless  be  liable  and 
subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment  and  punishment, 
according  to  law. 

18.  In  all  elections  in  this  Commonwealth  to  any 
office  or  place  of  trust,  honor  or  profit,  the  vote  shall  be 
given  openly  or  viva  voce,  and  not  by  ballot. 

Article  3 — Free  Persons  of  Color. 

Seu.  1.  It  shall  not  be  competent  to  the  general  as- 
sembly to  pass  any  law  by  which  permission  to  remain 
within  the  limits  of  this  commonwealth,  whall  be  granted 
to  any  slave  hereafter  to  be  emancipated — except  only 
that  when  such  slave  shall  have  been  emancipated  by 
last  will  a^id  testament,  he  or  she  may  be  permitted  so  to 
remain,  for  such  time  aud  such  only  as  may  be  fixed  by 
law  for  winding  up  aud  closing  the  administration  of  the 
estate  of  the  testator. 

2.  All  laws  now  in  force  by  which  permission  may 
be  obtained  by  any  free  negro  or  mulatto  to  remnin 
within  the  limits  of  the  commonwealth  shall  be  void, 
and  no  such  law  shall  hereafter  be  passed  except  as 
aforesaid. 

3.  The  general  assembly  may  pass  such  laws  as  they 
may  deem  best  for  the  removal  of  all  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  beyond  the  limits  of  this  commonwealth  for 
a  permanent  residence,  either  with  or  without  the  con- 
sent of  said  free  negroes  and  mulattoes. 

Article  4 — Taxation. 

Sec.  1.  Taxation  shall  be  equal  and  un'form  through- 
out the  State.  All  property  shall  be  taxed  in  propor- 
tion to  its  value ;  to  be  ascertained  by  law.  No  one 
species  of  property  shall  be  taxed  higher  than  another 
species  of  property  of  equal  value  on  which  taxes  shall 
be  levied,  but  any  property  may  be  exempted  from  tax- 
ation by  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  members 
elected  to  service  in  each  house  of  assembly. 

2.  A  capitation  tax  shall  be  levied  equal  to  double  the 
tax  levied  on  one  hundred  dollars  worth  of  land.  The 
legislature  shall  have  power  to  levy  an  income  tax,  and 
a  tax  on  salaries,  but  no  tax  shall  be  levied  on  incomes 
derived  from  property  <  therwise  taxed. 

3.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  but  in 
consequence  of  appropriations  made  by  law  ;  and  a 
regular  statement  of  the  receipts,  disbursements,  an- 
propriations  and  loans  shall  be  published  annually. 

4.  '•  A  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  members 
elected  to  serve  in  each  house  of  assembly  -hall  be  ne- 
cessary to  pass  any  law  imposing  taxes  or  providing 
for  raising  money  by  taxes,  loans,  or  otherwise  appro- 
priating public  money.'' 

5.  "On  the  final  passage  of  all  money  bills,  the  vote 
shall  be  taken  by  '  ayes  and  noes'  and  be  entered  on  the 
journal." 

6.  There  shall  be  set  apart  annually  by  the  auditing 
and  disbursing  officers  of  the  treasury,  from  the  reve- 
nue accruing  from  taxation,  and  the  fuud  for  internal 
improvements,  a  sum  equal  to  seven  per  cent,  of  the 
State  debt  existing  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1852. 
The  fund  thus  set  apart  shall  be  called  the  'sinking 
fund,"  anl  shall  be  set  apart  and  applied  by  the  officers 
aforesaid  to  the  payment  of  the  State  debt  as  it  shall 
become  redeemable.  For  the  purpose  of  setting  apart, 
making  and  superintending  this  investment,  the  said 
officers  shall  constitute  a  board  with  all  necessary  pow- 
er to  carry  into  effect  this  article  ;  the  organization  of 
which  board  may  be  prescribed  by  law.  Whenever  a 
debt  shall  be  contracted  after  the  first  day  of  January, 
1852,  the  said  officers  shall,  iu  like  manner,  set  apart 
annually  for  twenty-four  years  from  that  time,  which 
sum  shall  be  a  part  of  the  sinking  fund,  and  shall  be  ap- 
plied in  the  manner  before  directed.  The  revenue  thus 
appropriated  to  the  sinking  fund  with  its  accruing  in- 
terest, simple  and  compouud,  shall  not  be  subject  to 
appropriation  by  the  legislature,  except  in  time  of  war, 
insurrection  or  invasion. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


171 


7.  Fixe  legislature  shall  not  pledge  the  faith  of  the 
State,  or  bia.l  it  ia  a  ay  form  for  the  debts  or  obligations 
of  an  ,'  company  or  .corporation  whatever. 

9.  The  legislature  shall  a  it  contract  loans,  or  cause 
to  be  issued  certificate;  of  debt  or  bonds  of  the  State, 
irre  ieemabie  at,  the  pleasure  of  the  State,  for  a  period 
gre  iter  than  twenty  tour  years. 

10.  The  debt  of  the  State  hereafter  contracted  shall 
never  exceed    millions  of  dollars. 

11.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  assembly  to 
provi  le  by  law  fur  the  registration  of  the  qualLied  vo- 
ters of  the  commonwealth,  i  i  such  manner  as  to  afford 
an  effectual  check  to  the  practice  of  fraud  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  elective  franchise. 

The  report  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  CARTER,  of  Loudoun.  I  have  an  amendment  to 
one  of  the  prop  >sitions  of  that  report  which  I  propose 
to  olTcfl"  when  it  shall  come  up  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention.  I  ask  tint  it  may  be  laid  on  the  table 
an  I  printed  with  the  report. 

The  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

'•  The  general  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to  au- 
thorize a  subscription  on  state  account  for  any  work  of 
internal  improvement,  u  .lless  satisfactory  evi  lence  be 
furuishe  1  the  board  of  public  works.,  or  other  authorized 
agent  of  the  St  ite,  shewing  that  at  least  three-fifths  of 
the  capital  stock  of  the  co  np  my  by  which  said  improve- 
ment is  to  be  mi  le,  has  been  taken  by  solvent  persons 
fully  able  to  pay  the  same." 

The  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  C  invention, on  motion  of  Mr.  CONWAY,  resumed 
the  consideration,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr. 
Waits,  of  Norfolk  county,  ia  the  chair,)  of  the  lvport 
of  the  Co  nmittee  on  the  Executive  Department  of  the 
Governm  ;nt. 

The  Old  AIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  first  article  of  the  report,  and  the  amen  l- 
me:it<  p  n  ling  upon  it. 

Mr.  H3.tE.  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  committee 
for  a  very  few  moments,  for  an  investigation  of  the  prin- 
ciples involved  in  the  subject  now  under  consideration 
I  shall  coafi  »e  myself  almost  entirely  to  the  principle 
itself,  fir,  to  my  min  1,  there  is  very  iittle  of  practical 
imp  H'tauce  in  the  matter.  But  I  do  think  there  is  ;i 
principle  of  deep  and  vital  importance  in  the  s  ibject 
ualer  c  >a  si  deration — a  princi  >le  that  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  our  institutions,  and  the  decision  of  this  ques- 
ti  »n  must  se  tie  die  prin  iiple  by  which,  inaT  probabidty, 
we  s  ia  1  be  gov  ;rn  •  i  in  m  st,  if  not  all  the  subjects  that 
shall  be  presented  for  our  deliberations  while  we  remain 
assembled  here.  I  ca  ne  to  this  C  >nven  ion  with  a  fixed 
desire  an  I  determination  to  ex^rt  all  my  humb'e  efforts 
to  the  promotion  of  great  principles,  and  in  framing  the 
organic  law  of  the  State,  so  to  construct  it  as  to  adapr 
it,  in  its  details,  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  gre;it  end 
an  I  object  ha  1  in  view  by  our  fathers  when  they  laid  the 
fuiln  I  itioas  of  our  government.  I  shall  not  here  stop 
to  inquire  whether  or  not  it  is  the  design  of  this  Conven 
tion  to  conform  to  those  great  principles,  nor  shall  I  stop 
to  inq  are  what  ;  Ti  the  desires  of  iho  people  of  this  old 
commonwealth  in  reference  thereto.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  all  will  at  once  concede  the  fact  that  the 
peop  e  of  this  commonwealth  desire  our  constitution  to 
conform  to  the  principles  established  bv  our  forefath- 
ers— no,  not  established,  but  recognized  and  declared 
by  them;  an  1  that  is,  "that  all  power  is  vested  in,  an  i 
consequently  derive  1  from  the  people  ;  that  magistrates 
are  their  trustees  and  servants,  aud  at  all  times  amena- 
ble to  them."  Now,  I  understand  the  subject  un  lei* 
const  leration  to  involve  the  very  principle  declared  in 
the  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  just  quoted  :  for  it  is 
simply  this — shall  we,  in  the  formation  of  the  organic 
law  of  the  State,  adapt  it  to  the  principle  therein  recog 
iiized,  which  declares  that  all  rightful  political  power 


belongs  to  the  people.    1  do  not,  I  cannot  give  my  assent 
to  the  pro,.;o?iaon  so  frequently  laid  down,  so  urgently 
pressed  ami  so  pertinaciously  adhered  to,  during  this 
disc.stdou — long  protracted  as  it  has  been — that  the 
people,  when  they  cater  the  social  compact,  do,  as  of 
right  aud  propriety,  surrender  parts,  or  the  whole  of  their 
natural  sovereignty  and  inherent  rights.    That  I  under- 
stand to  be  the  principle  involved  in  the  question  now 
under  consideration,    is  it  competent?    Is  it  within  the 
power  of  the  people,  consistently  with  the  theory  of  a 
p  .pular  government,  to  restrict  themselves  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  organ. c  law?    It  has  been  over  and  over 
again  asserted  in  this  debate,  that  the  ptople  do  restrict 
inemselves,  both  in  their  soveieign  and  inherent  rights, 
by  entering  society,  and  that  in  doing  so,  they  act  in 
perfect  consistency  with  the  tluory  of  our  government 
und  with  the  great  doctrine  of  popular  supremacy  in  a 
popular  government.    And  it  has  been  asserted  by  the 
gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredway,)  that  the 
object  of  a  written  coastitutioa  is  to  restrict  the  people, 
to  that  proposition  1  intend  principally  to  address  my- 
seif ;  for  it  is  one  to  w  hich  I  cannot  give  my  assent.  I 
never  can  ackuow.eJge  the  proposition,  that  man,  when 
lie  enters  the  social  compact,  surrenders  all,  or  any  part 
of  that  inherent  sovereignty  which  we  are  taught  be- 
longs to  him.    I  assert  the  proposition — I  may  be  pecu- 
liar in  it,  but  I  must  a-sert  it — t oat  n  a  i,  by  entering 
the  social  compact,  surrenders  none — no  not  one  parti- 
cle—oi  either  Ins  sovereignty  or  his  natural  rights.  On 
the  coatrary,  I  think  I  shall  show,  that  so  far  from  a  sur- 
render or  restriction  of  them,  they  are  both  strength- 
ened and  supported  by  that  compact,    What  is  the  nat- 
ural condition  of  man  and  what  is  un  le-stood  by  his 
sovereignty  in  that  condition  ?    What  do  we  mean  when 
we  speak  of  a  man  in  the  natural  state,  before  he  enters 
the  political  or  social  compact  ?    Surely  we  do  not  mean 
that  he  has  the  power  of  right  to  do  wrong.    But,  if  I 
understand  it,  his  position  is  that  of  the  soveieign  and 
subject  combined  i  i  the  same  person — sovereign  in  that 
iie  is  the  master  of  his  own  destiny  on  earth,  and  sub- 
ject in  that  he  is  subject  to  the  com.ro]  of  his  own 
will,  and  his  own  reason  and  conscience.    That  I  under- 
stand to  be  the  condition  of  man  in  the  natural  state. 
And  the  social  compact  is  but  a  union  of  a  multitude  of 
men  thus  circumstanced.    How,  then,  con  it  be  said  man 
surrenders  his  sovereignty  by  that  union  ?    H«  but  unites 
his  own  sovereignly  with  that  of  many  others  in  the 
compact,  and  the  con  equence  is  the  union  of  a  multi- 
tude of  sovereigns  and  subjects,  each  one  as  sovereign, 
uniting  with  alt  in  determining — and  each,  as  subject, 
governed  by  the  decisions  of  all.    Again,  I  inquire', 
what  are  the  natural  or  inherent  rights  of  man?    If  I 
am  correctly  advised,  they  are  the  right  of  life,  of  ;ib- 
r:rty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.    Ad  his  other  rights 
are  inferior  and  subservient  to  these.    Then  the  question 
very  properly  arises,  does  man,  by  entering  the  s<  cial 
compact,  surrender  all,  or  any  part  of  the  e  his  nat  ural 
rights  ?    Nay,  can  he  sum  nder  them  ?   Can  he  surrender 
the  right  of  life  ?    If  he  does,  he  is  guilty  of  suLdde,  and 
amenable  to  the  divine  law  for  its  infringement.  Can 
he  surrender  the  right  of  iibeity  ?    If  he  does,  he  ceases 
to  be  a  man — he  becomes  a  mere  automaton — not  a  fee- 
man — not  a  man — but  a  mere  machine,  turned  at  the 
will  of  him  who  works  the  machinery  by  wl.ieh  he  is 
governed    Can  he  surrender  the   pursuit  of  happi- 
ness?   I  understand  the  great  design  of  man's  creation 
was  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  and  if  he  surrenders  his 
right  to  that  pursuit,  he  destroys  the  object  of  his  own 
creation,  the  design  of  his  own  existence,  and  renders 
himself  amenable  to  the  divine  law,  by  surrendering 
that  for  which  alone  he  was  placed  on  earth  to  .-eel; — 
eternal  happiness.    Now  I  ask  gentlemen,  is  it  consist- 
ent with  the  nature  of  man  to  surrender  these  his  natur- 
al rights,  acknowledged  to  be  such.    All  the  other  rights 
of  men  are  merged  in  or  subservient  to  the  rights  f  have 
mentioned. 

Now,  for  a  very  few  moments,  I  propose  to  investi- 
gate the  arguments  urged  by  gentlemen  upon  this  sub- 


172 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ject.  My  position  is,  that  this  proposition  or  argument, 
that  man  surrenders  his  rights,  is  contrary,  first  to  all 
the  authorities  upon  this  subject.  I  will  repeat  it,  that 
I  may  not  be  misunderstood — this  proposition  of  gentle- 
men, that  a  man  does  surrender  a  portion  of  his  natural 
rights  by  entering  the  compact,  in  a  popular  government, 
is  contrary  to  all  the  received  authorities  upon  the  sub- 
ject. Gentlemen  have  been  exceedingly  prolific  in  au- 
thorities, and  I  wonder  they  have  not  brought  the  au- 
thority of  some  of  the  writers  on  this  subject  to  sustain 
them  in  their  position.  What  elementary  writer  has 
been  referred  to — who  has  been  quoted  to  sustain  that 
position  ?  I  hazard  the  assertion,  none  can  be  procured. 
If  there  can  be,  I  never  have  seen  it.  I  grant  you  that  an 
abundance  of  authority  can  be  produced  from  those  wri- 
ters who  have  written  in  defence  of  monarchy,  to  sustain 
them  in  one  part  of  their  position.  Those  writers  all 
unite  in  saying  that  man  can  surrender  his  sovereignty 
and  rights,  and  that  he  does  surrender  them  often  to  one 
man,  and  from  this  supposed  surrender  they  derive  the 
right  of  monarchs  to  rule.  Bnt  we  in  this  country,  as  I 
had  always  been  taught  to  believe,  have  ever  maintained 
that  monarchs  rule,  not  by  the  surrender  of  the  rights  to 
him  by  the  people,  but  by  his  own  usurpations.  Whilst 
all  those  writers  unite  in  assuming  that  man  can  and 
does  surrender  the  sovereign  powers  into  the  hands  of 
one  man ;  not  one  of  them  has  ever  asserted  that,  in  a 
popular  government,  man  surrenders  either  his  sover- 
eignty or  his  natural  rights  by  entering  the  social  com- 
pact. If  they  have  so  asserted,  I  have  never  seen  it. 
But  this  proposition  is  not  only  contrary  to  all  the  au- 
thors and  to  nature,  but  it  is  contrary,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  to  reason.  It  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands, 
that  man  in  the  natural  state  is  sovereign,  but  they  say 
that  that  sovereignty  is  surrendered.  The  design  of  a 
written  constitution  itself,  says  the  gentleman  from  Pitt- 
sylvania, is  to  restrict  ihe  people  when  they  enter  the 
social  compact.  Wow,  I  have  always  understood,  not 
only  from  authority,  but  from  my  own  humble  reason- 
ing on  this  subject,  that  man's  sovereignty,  so  far  from 
being  surrendered,  by  entering  the  social  compact,  was 
secured  to  him  by  the  terms  of  the  compact  itself,  each 
one  pledging  the  defence  of  others.  According  to  the 
authority  of  Burlamaqui,  the  sovereignty  of  each  is 
merged  in,  or  united  with,  that  of  the  whole.  The  will, 
the  conscience,  the  judgment  of  all,  becomes  that  of  each, 
all  of  which  is  set  forth  by  the  decision  of  the  majority. 
The  will  and  conscience  of  the  individual  in  the  natural 
state  governs  his  action.  He  is  the  subject  of  that  will. 
The  judgment,  the  weight  ot  considerations  operating 
upon  the  mind,  predominating  one  way  or  the  other, 
control  the  actions  of  man.  So  arguing  Burlamaqui 
contends,  and  so  I  think,  that,  when  they  enter  the 
social  compact,  the  sovereignty  of  each  being  united  in 
that  of  the  whole,  each  one  is  thereby  strengthened, 
just  as  one  chord  is  strengthened  by  its  union  with  a  mul- 
titude— and  then  the  will,  judgment  and  conscience  of 
the  majority,  predominating  one  way  or  the  other,  de- 
cides the  question  by  which  all  are  to  be  governed — the 
opinions  and  considerations  of  the  minority  yielding  to 
the  superior  judgment  of  the  majority,  just  as  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  will  or  conscience  with  the  individual 
himself.  Thus  believing,  I  must  insist,  in  the  language  of 
our  own  bill  of  rights,  that  the  natural  rights  of  man 
are  li  unalienable  and  indefeasible." 

I  have  now  said  all  I  intended  to  say  upon  the  abstract 
priuciple  involved  in  the  question  now  under  considera- 
tion. I  must,  however,  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee for  a  short  time  to  an  application  of  this  prin- 
ciple to  the  subject  of  our  deliberations.  I  shall  be  very 
brief;  for  my  greatest  desire  was  to  define  my  own  po- 
sition upon  the  theory  of  popular  government — and  that 
opinion  is,  that  all  rightful  political  power  belongs  to 
the  people ;  and  further,  that  the  opinion  urged  by  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  of  this  question,  is  contrary  to 
all  our  received  notions  of  popular  rights — is  at  vari- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  our  government,  and  would 
strike  from  under  us  the  foundation  upon  which  the 


whole  superstructure  is  raised;  and  if  persevered  in, 
must  sooner  or  later,  tear  down  the  pillars  of  the  great 
edifice  itself.  The  position  assumed  by  some  gentlemen 
here,  I  say,  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  ground  up- 
on which  ouf  whole  fabric  rests.  It  is  anti-democratic ; 
it  is  monarchical.  What  is  the  reasoning  by  which  all 
the  advocates  of  monarchy  claim  the  right  of  the  mon- 
arch to  rule  ?  Is  it  not  upon  this  very  reasoning  that  the 
people  surrender  to  him  the  right  ?  Is  it  not,  according 
to  the  reasoning  of  the  same  author  I  have  before  re- 
ferred to  (Burlamaqui)  upon  the  very  ground  that  ;dl 
power  is  originally  inherent  in  the  people,  and  that  it 
is  transferred  by  them  to  one  man,  whereby  all  sover- 
eignty in  the  government  or  community  is  vested  in 
him ?  I  know  of  no  writer  on  the  subject  who  has  ever 
claimed  the  right  of  a  monarch  to  rule,  upon  any  other 
ground  than  a  surrender  by  the  people,  the  same  that 
has  been  so  urgently  pressed  here.  And  hence,  I  say,  it 
is  not  only  anti-democratic,  but  monarchial.  It  is  this 
that  has  disrobed  the  people  of  other  countries  of  their 
rightful  sovereignty.  It  is  this  that  has  reared  the 
proudest  thrones  that  have  ever  stood  upon  earth,  and 
placed  upon  them  the  basest  tyrants  that  ever  wielded  a 
sceptre.  And  this  same  principle,  carried  to  its  legiti- 
mate results  here,  will  prostrate  the  liberties  of  our  peo- 
ple low  beneath  the  haughty  tread  of  the  tyrant's  heel. 
I  understand  that  the  object  of  our  assembling  here  was 
not  to  plunge  rashly  into  fields  of  untried  experiment, 
but  to  carry  out,  to  build  upon,  and  perfect  that  building, 
the  foundations  of  which  were  laid  by  our  forefathers  in 
the  days  of  darkness  and  blood — those  days  that  tried 
men's  souls.  They  laid  the  foundations,  and  we  are 
called  here  to  perfect,  in  detail,  that  which  they  began. 
They  never  designed,  in  fixing  the  details  of  the  consti- 
tution they  had  framed,  to  adapt  those  details  fully  to 
the  principles  they  themselves  had  declared.  And  why  ? 
Because  they  were  entering  upon  an  untried  experi- 
ment ;  they  had  the  fate  of  all  the  ancient  republics 
staring  them  in  the  face  ;  they  were  just  emerging  from 
a  monarchy ;  they  were  just  forming  a  new  government, 
and  all  they  did,  and  all  they  proposed  to  do,  was  to  lay 
the  foundations,  and  leave  to  posterity,  with  the  lights 
of  experience  upon  them,  to  perfect  the  building  upon 
the  foundations  they  had  laid.  No  one  pretends,  no  one 
ever  did  pretend,  that  the  constitution  of  '76  was  adapt- 
ed, in  all  its  details,  to  the  principles  declared  by  its 
framers.  While  they  declared  that  ail  power  was  in  the 
people  inherently — that  magistrates  were  their  trustees 
and  servants,  and  at  all  times  amenable  u>  them — did 
they  adapt  the  details  of  their  government  to  the  prin- 
ciples thus  declared?  Very  far  from  it.  They  made  the 
governor  himself  elective  by  the  legislature.  Did  they 
not  thereby  make  him  irresponsible  to  the  people,  in 
whom,  as  they  had  just  declared,  all  power  was  vested 
inherently  ?  I  repeat  then,  that  they  never  designed,  at 
that  time,  to  adapt  the  details  of  the  government  to  the 
principles  they  had  laid  down;  but  they  determined  to 
enter  upon  it,  and  then  leave  to  the  developments  of 
time  and  experience  the  demonstration  of  the  truth  of 
the  position  they  had  assumed,  that  all  power  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  people,  and  would  be  rightfully  exercised 
by  them.  It  has  been  argued  and  pressed  by  every  gen- 
tleman who  has  advocated  the  side  of  restriction  in  this 
discussion,  that  they  have  the  precedents  of  the  fathers 
for  that  which  they  now  propose — the  precedents  of  the 
constitution  of  '76,  and  that  of  '29  and  '30.  Why,  does  it 
not  occur  to  every  mind  that  by  neither  of  these  consti- 
tutions are  they  sustained  in  a  solitary  step  they  pro- 
pose to  take.  The  precedents  of  the  fathers  of  those 
constitutions!  What  were  those  precedents?  They 
gave  the  election  of  the  governor  to  the  legislature,  and 
the  restriction  of  ineligibility  therefore  was  not  applied 
to  the  sovereigns  of  all  power — the  people — but  that  re- 
striction was  upon  the  legislature — their  agents.  No 
man  has  contended  here,  and  no  man  will  contend,  I 
presume,  that  it  is  incompetent  or  improper  to  restrict 
the  agents  of  the  people.  That  I  understand  to  be  the 
design  of  all  gentlemen ;  that  I  take  to  be  the  object  of 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


■all  written  constitutions  ;  the  imposition  of  restrictions 
upon  the  agents  of  the  people,  but  not  on  the  people 
themselves.  Our  fathers,  by  the  constitutions  of  '76  and 
'29  and  '30,  laid  this  restriction  of  ineligibility,  not  upon 
the  people,  but  upon  their  agents — the  legislature.  And 
here,  permit  me  to  say,  that  I  am  ready  to  go  with  gen- 
tlemen for  all  proper  restrictions  that  may  be  proposed, 
when  they  propose  the  application  of  those  restrictions 
to  the  agents  of  the  people.  I  am  ready  and  willing  to 
■restrict  the  legislative,  the  executive,  and  judicial  branch- 
es of  the  government — those  who,  as  the  agents  of  the 
people,  fill  the  various  offices  in  those  departments  ;  but 
if  you  say  restrict  the  people,  in  whom  resides  all  sover- 
eignty, I  must  reply,  never !  never !  no,  never !  I 
understand  directly  the  reverse  of  the  proposition 
that  has  been  so  much  contended  for  here —  that 
the  object  of  constitutions  is  to  restrict  the  people.  My 
own  opinion  has  always  been  that  the  object  of  a  consti- 
tution was  to  restrict  the  agents  and  representatives  of 
the  people ;  to  lay  down  the  rules  and  regulations  by 
which  they  are  to  be  governed  in  their  official  acts;  to 
prescribe  the  orbit  in  which  they  are  to  move,  and  not 
to  restrict  the  people  themselves.  And  then  the  laws 
■afterwards -enacted  by  their  legislature,  in  pursuance  of 
that  constitution,  were  for  the  government  of  every  in- 
dividual in  that  community. 

I  have  already  spoken  longer  than  I  proposed  to  my- 
self, but  I  must  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  for 
a  few  moments  more.  The  argument  urged  on  this  sub- 
ject as  a  practical  question — not  altogether  practical — 
but  as  a  practical  question  connected  with  the  principle, 
is,  that  the  objection  to  re-eligibility  does  not  grow  out 
of  a  want  of  capacity  in  the  people,  but  rests  on  the 
man  elected — that  the  officer  himself  is  thereby  cor- 
rupted. They  acknowledge  the  capacity  of  the  people. 
They  at  once  concede  that  the  wisdom,  the  virtue,  the 
intelligence,  and  the  patriotism  of  the  people,  are  ade- 
quate to  any  political  emergency  that  can  possibly  arise 
in  the  government.  They  all  concede  this,  but  urge 
that  as  a  consequence  of  the  election,  the  officer  himself 
is  thereby  corrupted,  and  should  not,  therefore,  be  eli- 
gible to  a  re-election.  Now,  I  humbly  think  that  these 
two  propositions  are  the  converse  of  each  other,  and  that 
each  one  destroys  the  other.  Why !  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  capacity  of  man  to  elect,  confesses,  neces- 
sarily, his  capacity  to  judge  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
duties  of  the  office  are  to  be  performed,  and  afterwards 
the  details  of  the  manner  in  which  its  functions  have 
been  performed.  The  two  are  inseparable ;  they  go 
hand  in  hand,  and  it  is  impossible  to  separate  them.  If 
you  acknowledge  the  capacity  to  elect,  you  must  ac- 
knowledge the  capacity  to  judge  of  the  duties  of  the 
office.  But  gentlemen  say  the  effect  and  consequence  of 
the  election  is  the  corruption  of  the  officer  himself. 
Well,  if  you  admit  that,  what  does  it  prove  ?  If  it  proves 
anything,  does  it  not  prove  that  all  popular  elections  are 
corrupting  in  their  tendency  ?  The  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Tredway)  shakes  his  head.  But  if  a 
man  is  a  eorrect  and  upright  man  when  he  goes  into 
office,  and  becomes  dishonest  by  having  been  elected, 
does  it  not  prove  that  the  tendency  of  the  election  of 
the  agents  has  a  corrupting  influence  ?  Why,  the  idea 
is,  that  the  man  is  an  honest  man  in  the  first  instance, 
but  becomes  dishonest  by  having  passed  in  review  by 
the  people,  and  been  elevated  to  office  and  honor  by 
their  voice.  If  this  argument  of  gentlemen  proves  any- 
thing, does  it  not  prove  that  popular  elections  have  a 
corrupting  influence  ?  I  should  be  extremely  happy  if 
gentlemen  will  show  me,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  this 
argument,  that  the  proposition  for  which  they  contend, 
does  not  prove  all  popular  elections  to  be  corrupt.  I 
should  be  glad  to  have  it  proved  to  my  own  mind.  But 
what  else  does  it  prove  ?  If  this  idea  of  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  is  correct,  it  proves  that  the  people  are 
competent  to  decide  upon  the  qualifications  of  candi- 
dates for  any  office  or  public  trust — that  they  ar  capa- 
ble of  determining,  in  the  first  instance,  Avhether  he  is 
honest  or  dishonest,  capable  or  incapable,  competent  or 


incompetent,  to  fill  the  office  to  which  he  aspire? — though 
they  are  competent  thus  to  decide  upon  his  qualifica- 
tions in  the  first  instance,  yet  gentlemen  would  have  us 
believe  they  are  not  competent  to  re-pass  upon  him.  But 
gentlemen  tell  us  the  people  act  honestly  and  wisely  in 
the  selection  of  their  officers — that  they  appoint  good 
men  to  offices  of  honor  and  responsibility  ;  but  the  office 
itself  corrupts  the  holder  of  it;  that  his  political  integ- 
rity is  destroyed  by  the  incumbency  ;  that  he  becomes 
dishonest ;  plays  into  the  hands  of  demagogues ;  in- 
trigues with  political  partizans,  and  descends  to  many 
other  unworthy  means  of  retaining  his  position.  In 
this  manner,  gentlemen  argue,  his  re-election  is  secured. 
Grant  it,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  and  what  would  this 
proposition  of  our  opponents  prove?  Why,  that  the 
people  are  so  corrupt  that  they  yield  to  the  unholy  in- 
fluences brought  to  bear  in  favor  of  the  re-election;  or 
that  they  are  so  blii  id  as  to  be  deceived  by  them.  If 
this  proposition  or  this  argument  can  be  reconciled  with 
the  great  principles  of  democracy— with  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  popular  government,  for  I  do  not  use  the  word 
democracy  in  a  partizan  sense— if  it  can  be  made  to 
harmonize  with  the  principles  declared  by  our  forefa- 
thers in  the  bill  of  rights,  then  I  confess  that  I  have  not 
the  capacity  to  see  it.  But  the  very  intelligent  and 
talented  gentleman  from  the  c  unty  of  Fauquier — I  do 
not  see  him  in  his  seat — very  boldly  and  unhesil  atingly 
declared  that  a  pure  representative  democracy  could 
not  exist.  Yes,  a  pure  representative  democracy — the 
gentleman  first  said  a  pure  democracy,  and  afterwards 
repeated  a  pure  representative  democracy.  We  have 
no  pure  democracy  in  this  country.  We  do  not  stand 
in  the  condition  in  which  they  did  in  democratic  Athens, 
where  the  people  assembled  in  mass,  in  the  groves  of 
the  Acadmey,  to  legislate  in  their  primary  capacity,  or 
to  jgude  of,  and  execute  the  laws  by  them  enacted.  The 
representative  feature  is  brought  into  our  constitution, 
and  wherefore  ?  Does  the  representative  element  exist 
in  a  popular  government,  as  a  necessary  ingredient 
thereof  ?  No,  but  representation  in  a  popular  govern- 
ment is  but  a  concession  to  necessity  itself.  Where  is- 
the  authority  for  the  creation  of  the  representative  fea- 
ture in  a  popular  government,  upon  any  other  ground' 
than  of  making  concessions  to  the  necessity  that  exists- 
here,  and  that  did  not  exist  in  Athens  ?  And  why  does- 
it  exist  here  ?  Because  the  extent  of  territory,  the  im- 
perfection of  our  roads,  and  scattered  condition  of  our 
people,  rendered  it  extremely  inconvenient,  if  not  im- 
possible, for  them  to  assemble  in  their  primary  capacity. 
The  representative  feature  is  not  based  on  the  moral 
incapacity  of  the  citizens,  but  is  a  concession  to  the 
physical  causes  that  rendered  it  imposs  ble  for  them  to. 
perform  these  functions  themselves.  Then,  because  of 
that  necessity,  the  representative  feature  is  incorporated 
into  our  constitution.  But  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion cannot  be  carried  one  inch  beyond  the  bounds  of 
that  necessity;  for  whenever  the  representative  feature 
steps  beyond  the  bounds  of  necessity  in  a  popular 
government,  the  practice  pro  tanto  departs  from  the 
theory  of  the  government,  and  to  that  extent  infringes 
the  rights  of  the  people.  Here  we  find  the  authority 
for  electing  a  governor  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  com- 
monwealth :  for  if  this  physical  necessity  did  not  exist, 
the  people  could  doit  themselves,  without  the  agency  of 
a  governor.  And  now  let  me  ask  if  these  causes  did  not 
exist  ?  If  the  people  were  to  execute  the  laws  them- 
selves, and  not  entrust  that  duty  to  their  agents,  would 
or  could  you  restrict  them  in  the  manner  of  its  execu- 
tion ?  Would  you  or  could  you  say  that  A  or  B  should 
participate  in  the  matter,  but  C  or  D,  their  equals,  should 
not  ?  I  think  not.  Then  if  you  could  not  thus  restrict 
them,  if  you  could  not  say  who  should  or  who;  should  not 
participate  ;  neither  can  you  say  who  shall  or  shall  not 
participate  in  the  selection  of  the  agents,  in-  so  far  as  it& 
application  is  to  the  citizen.  Nor  can  you  say  that  the 
citizens  having  this  right,  have  not  an  equal  right  to 
the  selection  of  whom  they  choose  among  themselves;, 
without  limitation  and  without  restriction. 


174 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


I  am  aware  that  gentlemen  may  argue  that  I  would 
exten  I  this  subject  a  little  beyond  what  any  others  here 
propose.  And  it  is  more  than  probable  that  some  gen 
tlem  m  may  ft*k  me  if  my  theory  would  not  extend  the 
selec  ion  of  the  governor  to  females  and  to  minors.  All 
I  have  to  say  in  reference  to  that  matter  is,  that  if  you 
make  the  ladies  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  con- 
fer upon  them  th  :  right  of  suffVcige,  I  shall  claim  the 
right  to  vote  for  one  of  them  as  governor.  [Laughter,  j 
Bat  they  are  not  citizens  bat  inhabitants;  and  whilst  all 
•citizens  are  inhal  itants,  all  inhabita  its  are  not  citizens  . 
fo  no  disfranchised  individual  is  a  citizen.  A  citizen  is 
-one  possessing  the  right  to  exercise  political  power.  Fe- 
males and  minors,  therefore, are  not  citizens  in  the  tech- 
nical meaning  of  the  word.  And,  by  Divine  institution, 
females  are  made  subject  to  their  lords,  and  minors  sub 
ject  to  their  parents.  Wh  ist  I  should  claim  the  right  to 
vote  thus  as  1  have  sai  !,  I  think  the  laiies  have  sufficient 
natural  power  with  their  eyes;  and  I  should  hesitate  long 
before  1  would  be  willing  to  a  id  political  power  thereto 
My  own  humble  opinion  with  reference  to  this  matter  i>, 
that  all  the  powers  of  government  are  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  or  citizens,  without  restriction  and  without 
■surrender. 

I  be  ^  pardon  for  having  already  detained  the  commit- 
tee so  1  >ng,  and  I  shall  hurry  along  as  rapidly  as  possi 
ble.  And  in  so  doing  1  shall  pass  over  many  positions  1 
had  note  1,  and  to  which  i  had  intended  to  reply.  1 
m  i  t  beg  leave  to  make  one  remark  in  reference  to  the 
pos  tion  occupied  by  the  very  able  gentleman  from 
Richmond  (Mr.  Merhdith)  the  other  day.  It  was,  that 
if  you  make  a  Governor  re-eligible,  he  would  be  court- 
ing the  Legislature,  or  be  intriguing  with  politicians,  and 
would  be  asking  a  re-nomination  to  the  office  by  his  po- 
litical party,  and  his  consequent  re-election.  Well,  1 
grant  you  that  he  may  sometimes  do  so.  And  here  I 
will  remark,  that  whilst  I  have  the  fullest  confidence  in 
the  people,  I  do  not  believe  them  infallible.  "  To  err  is 
human."  But  I  do  believe  that  whenever  the  people 
err,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  make  a  quotation  from  a 
source  that  is  rather  sore  to  us  Democrats,  "  the  sober, 
second  thought  always  corrects  them."  But  suppose 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  to  be  true,  that,  by  in- 
triguing with  politicians,  he  will  secure  a  re-nomination 
and  his  consequent  re-election,  and  what  would  it  prove  ? 
Would  it  not  prove  that  the  people  are  so  corrupt  as  not 
to  put  their  condemnation  on  such  means,  or  so  blind  as 
not  to  see  them  ? 

I  was  sorry  to  hear  my  able  and  learned  friend  from 
Fauquier  take  the  position  he  did  on  the  day  before  yes- 
terday— that  he  desired  democracy  to  be  expunged  from 
o  lr  government,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  desired  a 
government  combining  with  it  both  aristocracy  and  mon- 
archy. The  learned  gentleman  referred  to  the  history 
of  the  pa  t — of  the  past  so-called  Republics  of  other 
nations  and  other  ages  of  the  world;  and  does  he  not 
find  an  example  full  of  warning  in  those  very  Republics 
of  that  which  he  now  so  much  desire*  ?  The  Republic 
of  Sparta,  so  called  under  the  institutions  of  her  great 
law-giver,  Lycurgus.  had  both  monarchy  and  aristocracy; 
and  after  a  period  of  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  years, 
democracy  was  united  therewith.  The  Ephoni  was  the 
only  democratic  feature  in  the  government;  and  they 
were  elected  by  the  people.  But  let  me  tell  the  gentle- 
man that  the  people  in  the  election  of  the  Ephorii  were 
restricted  in  their  selectior  to  the  nobility.  And  so  it 
was  with  the  so-called  Republic  of  Athens — the  people 
elected  their  Archons  annually;  yet  they  were  restricted 
in  their  selection  to  persons  composing  their  aristocracy. 
And  so  also  in  Rome,  the  Tribunes  were  elected  by  the 
people,  but,  if  I  remember  rightly,  they  were  elected 
from  among  the  Patricians.  All  three  of  these  Repub- 
lics show  us,  by  their  warning  example,  the  danger  of 
impo.-ing  such  restrictions  upon  the  sovereigns  of  all 
earthly  power,  in  the  selection  of  their  Governors,  or 
other  agents.  It  is  dangerous,  and  the  history  of  the  an- 
cient world  proves  it  to  be  dangerous.    There  is  purity 


with  the  masses,  there  is  patriotism,  thei  e  is  love  of  -  oui;- 
try  there.  But  when  you  pass  from  the  masses  to  politi- 
cians, and  to  the  aristocracy,  1  cannot  say  as  much.  Witu 
the  masses  of  the  people  there  is  patriotism.  They  hav  • 
nothing  to  govern  or  io  guide  them  but  the  great  princi- 
ple of  a  love  of  country.  Nothing  but  the  pure  and 
holy  principle  of  patriotism  governs  their  actions — noth- 
ing else  glows  in  their  bosoms.  But  it  is  not  always  so 
with,  the  politicians  and  the  aristocracy.  They  frequent- 
ly have  other  and,  to  them,  w tighter  considerations  gov- 
erning and  controlling  them  in  iheir  movements.  Poli- 
ticians look  to  themselves,  and  to  the  means  of  their 
own  promotion ;  and  the  aristocracy  are  continually 
graspsng  for  power,  and  impelled  on  by  that  love  for  the! 
unholy  power  of  wealth  that  proved  the  curse  and  tli^ 
downfall  of  the  Roman  and  other  Republics  of  the  old 
world,  and  which  will  ere  long,  I  fear,  steal  from  the 
people  of  this  Commonwealth  that  which  they  cannot, 
rightfully  surrender,  but  which  may  be  stolen  from  iheni 
by  littles,  until  it  ends  in  the  prostration  of  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  peopie.  and  the  ultimate  downfall 
of  our  Republic.  All  history  demonstrates  that  the 
danger  to  a  Republic  is  the  stealing  of  power  from  the 
masses  and  taking  it  into  the  hands  of  the  aristocracy, 
or  the  few.  And  above  all  tilings,  as  wise  legislators  a 
behooves  us  to  guard  well  she  sovereign  powers  and  sov- 
ereign rights  of  the  people.  With  them  there  is  honesty 
and  patriotism;  and  as  long  as  you  keep  the  love  ol 
country,  the  feeling  of  patri  ttsm,  burning  in  their  bos- 
oms, the  lamp  of  liberty  will  never  be  ext.ingui.-hed. 

I  beg  pardon  for  having  dela  ned  the  Committee  so 
much  longer  than  I  designed.  My  sole  desire  was  to 
define  my  own  position  on  principles,  which  principles 
are  to  guide  me  in  all  my  acts  in  thus  C<  nvention.  I 
.-hall  vote  against  any  and  every  restriction  proposed  to 
oe  laid  on  the  people.  I  shall  vote  for  any  and  ad  proper 
restrictions  on  the  agents  of  the  people.  And  allow  me, 
in  conclusion,  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylva- 
nia, who  has  alluded  to  the  fact  that  there  are  other  re- 
strictions in  the  report,  that,  at  a  proper  time,  there  will 
be  other  propositions  of  amendment.  But  "  sufficient 
unto  the  day." 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Caroline.    I  rise,  not  for  the  purpose- 
of  entering  at  large  into  the  discussion  of  this  discus- 
sion, but  simply  to  offer  some  reasons  for  a  vote  I  shall 
give.    Much  has  been  said  which  meets  my  approbation,, 
and  much  has  been  said  which  meets  my  disapprobation. 
I  came  here,  with  a  mind  open  to  conviction.    In  t lie 
canvass  in  which  I  performed  an  humble  part,  although 
I  had  formed   opinions,   and  considered  in  my  own 
mind,  governmental  questions,  that  wi  uld  be  brought 
up  here,  yet  upon  every  and  ail  occasions,  I  hesitated, 
not  to  say  to  the  people  ihat  if  they  elected  me,  they 
would  have  to  elect  me  upon  trust.    With  a  mind  thus 
free  to  conviction,  I  came  here  to  listen  to  the  vari- 
ous arguments  that  should  be  adduced  by  the  able 
and  distinguished  gentlemen  here,  and  with   a  de- 
sire of  gaining  therefrom  such  light  and  information 
as  would  conuuet  my  mind  to  a  truthful  conclusion.  I 
have   been  taught  to  look  to  the  constitution  of  our 
country,  not  with  the  feeling  of  aversion  manifested 
by  some  of  the  speakers  upon  this  floor,  but  I  had  beeru 
taught  to  reverence  it ;  and  I  am  willing  to  preserve  in  it 
all  that  is  good,  and  eject  from  it  all  that  is  had.  I  would 
regard  it  as  I  would   a  venerable  father — I  would, 
reverence  it  for  its  virtues,  but  I  would  withdraw  from 
it,  its  infirmities.    I  would  not  lay  the  hand  of  Vandal- 
ism upon  it,  because  it  is  the  creation  of  some  of  the 
wisest  minds  and  the  best  heads  that  this  country  has  ever 
seen.    I  would  not  raze  this  noble  fabric  from  its  foun- 
dation, but  I  would  repair  it  where  necessary,  and  re- 
form its  imperfections.  Looking  to  it,  then,  in  this  point  of 
view,  I  approach  the  subject  under  consideration,  with  a. 
view  of  arriving  at  a  conclusion  to  which  the  best  judg- 
ment of  my  mind  can  conduct  me.    Suppose,  for  a  mo- 
ment, we  hoist  all  governmental  restraints,  and  resolve 
society  into  its  original  elements,  and  leave  it  unre- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


175 


strained  and  unrestricted,  what  would  be  its  inevitable 
tendency  ?  The  inevitable  tendency  would  be  to  aii- 
-archy  and  confusion.  And  if  the  theory  of  the  argu- 
ment adduced  by  my  friend  from  Montgomery  (Mr. 
B.oge)  should  be  carried  out  in  application  to  the  con- 
stitution, its  results  would  inevitably  lead  to  that.  There 
might  be  some  force  in  his  argument,  if  we  were  to  re 
gard  man  as  perfect,  and  exempt  from  those  frailties 
which  necessarily  connect  themselves  with  human 
nature.  But  looking  to  him  as  he  is,  it  is  necessa- 
ry that  some  restraints  should  be  imposed  upon  him, 
for  the  purpose  of  checking  the  passions  of  the 
human  heart,  and  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  and 
controlling  his  otherwise  uncontrollable  actions.  Why, 
t.iis  principle  lays  at  the  foundation  cf  all  govern- 
ment. Government  is  but  a  limitati  n  upon  popu- 
lar rights,  and  whether  we  look  to  republican  or 
monarchical  governments,  they  exercise,  and  will  exer- 
cise upon  the  actions  of  all  men,  moral  restraints.  For 
the  purpose  of  preventing  the  existence  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  anarchy,  as  existing  among  mankind  in  an  un- 
res trained  ami  uncontrollable  state,  government  has 
been  established.  And  by  government  those  restraints 
necessary  to  the  well-being  of  society  are  necessarily 
imposed.  I  have  not  heard  an  argument  adduced  here 
that  did  not  ad. nit  the  fact,  that  all  wholesome  and 
necessary  restraints  were  proper  in  order  to  restrain 
the  action  of  men;  and  the  only  difference  be- 
tween the  various  speakers  who  have  adiressed  you 
on  the  subject,  is  not  that  restraints  are  not  necessary, 
but  how  far  these  restraints  should  extend.  The  one  party 
contending  that  these  restraints  should  be  few,  and  the 
other  contends  that  they  should  extend  so  far  as  to  re- 
strain man  in  a  State  of  society  under  which  the  citizen 
iaay  better  enjoy  his  rights  unimpaired.  If  the  argu- 
ment of  my  worthy  friend  be  correct,  no  restraint 
would  be  necessary.  He  says,  if  our  fair  friends,  the 
la  lies,  could  be  made  citizens,  if  minors  could  be  recog- 
nized as  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth,  that,  in  the  ap- 
plication of  this  principle,  he  would  even  advoca!  e  their 
exercising  all  political  power;  and  that  was  but  the 
legitimate  deduction  from  his  argument. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  beg  pardon  for  interrupting  the  gen- 
tleman. My  positiou  was,  that  if  the  ladies  were  made 
citizens,  then  i  shouid  claim  the  right  to  vote  for  one  of 
them  for  governor.  But  you  would  have  to  make  them 
ciiizeus  first. 

Mr.  SCOTT.  Then,  according  to  the  view  of  the 
gentleman,  if  his  vote  was  to  be  restricted  to  the  lady 
citizens,  then,  perhaps,  he  would  go  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent, and  restrict  the  other  part  of  society  from  voting 
for  governor.  Bat  this  is  apart  from  the  question,  i 
know  that  the  ladies  are  the  depositories  of  ail  the  softer 
and  kinder  virtues ;  and  that  in  their  proper  sphere, 
they  are  very  active  in  asserting  their  supremacy,  so 
far  as  the  influence  of  those  virtues  exist.  [Laughter.] 
But  that  was  the  legitimate  tendency  of  the  gentle 
man's  argument,  and  finding  it  so,  he  sought  to  antici- 
pate the  argument  on  the  other  side  by  the  qualification  he 
himself  gave  to  the  point.  But  this  i<  a  diversion  from 
the  true  question  at  issue.  What  is  proposed  here? 
One  proposition  is,  that  there  shall  be  a  limitation  as  to 
the  nativity  of  the  governor.  I  presume  that  there  is 
not  a  member  of  this  Convention  who  would  not  regard 
it  as  a  proper  and  reasonable  limitation  to  the  office  of 
governor.  Your  committee  has  reported  it  as  a  limita 
tiou,  and  I  have  not  yet  heard  the  first  objection  made  to 
that  limitation.  Why  is  this?  If  the  principle  of  the 
gentleman  from  Montgomery  be  correct,  why  should 
any  qualification  as  to  nativity  be  imposed  on  the  gov- 
ernor ?  Why  should  he  be  required  to  be  a  native  of 
the  State  ?  Why  not  take  him  either  from  the 
north,  the  west,  the  south,  or  the  east,  etheir  domestic 
or  foreign?  It  is  because  the  fact  of  his  nativity  in- 
spires him  with  a  deep  and  abiding  interest  in  the' wel- 
fare of  our  community,  and  that  is  a  wholesome  re- 
straint. 

A  MEMBER.    That  clause  will  not  be  adopted. 


Mr.  SCOTT.  Ii  I  understand  the  gentleman  right,  it 
is  said — and  it  is  the  first  time  I  have  heard  an  objection 
to  it  —that  the  nativity  clause  will  not  be  carried 
here.  Why  should  it  not  be?  It  is  based  upon  the 
principles  of  patriotism  and  love  of  country  so  forcibly 
adverted  to  by  my  friend.  He  who  is  native  born  lias 
an  affection  for  the  State,  a  pride  of  his  nativity  added 
to  an  identity  of  feeling  and  interest  and  sympathy  with 
the  citizens  of  the  State.  But  this  is  not  the  only  limi- 
tation proposed  in  the  report  of  the  committee  -another 
is,  a  limitation  as  to  age.  Will  the  gentleman  say  that 
this  is  no  infringement  upon  popular  rights?  Will  he 
say  that  it  is  no  curtailment  of  the  rights  of  the  people  ? 
I  presume  that  he  would  not  fill  the  gubernatorial  chair 
with  a  minor.  But  the  result  of  his  argument  isT  that 
minors  should  be  eligible  to  the  offices  of  the  Common- 
wealth and  to  the  high  executive  office  of  this  Com- 
monwealth, 

Mr.  HOGE.  That  was  not  my  position.  My  position 
was,  that  minors  were  inhabitants  or  subjects,"  and  not 
citizens.  A  citizen  in  the  United  States  means  one  who 
can  exercise  political  power.  As  soon  as  a  minor  be- 
comes a  citizen,  so  that  he  cau  exercise  political  power, 
then  I  would  give  him  the  right  of  selection4  and  of 
being  selected. 

Mr.  SJOTT.  I  did  not  misunderstand  the  gentle 
man,  and  my  allusion  was  to  the  legitimate  result  of 
his  argument,  1  said  that  if  it  was  carried  out  to  its 
lull  extent,  it  would  inevitably  lead  to  the  very  results 
to  which  I  have  referred.  Bat  then  this  a  proper  'limi- 
tation. It  is  a  necessary  and  wholesome  limitation  ; 
because  at  that  age  all  the  powers,  the  experience,  and 
the  development  of  the  mental  power  requisite  to  qual- 
ify a  man  tor  otfice  are  more  lixely  to  be  exhibited  at 
that  period  than  at  any  other.  It  is  necessary r  there- 
fore, that  some  restraint  should  be  provided  in  order 
that  such  officers  as  would  administer  the  government 
efficiently  should  be  brought  into  power.  I  have  not 
yet  heard  that  any  gentleman  has  thought  proper  to 
give  the  term  of  the  Governor  an  unlimited  continuance. 
And  yet,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman  who  address- 
ed the  Convention  this  morning  be  true,  that  all  power- 
res  des  in  the  people ;  and  that  they  cannot  surrender" 
it  to  any  other  depository  of  power,  they  might  to-day 
elect  a  Governor,  next  month  turn  him  out  of  office,  and. 
elect  another.  The  doctrine  of  the  gentleman,  I  say, 
inevitably  leads  to  that  result.  The  gentleman  spoke- 
of  agencies  and  the  transfer  of  power.  That  is  enough. 
What  is  an  agent?  He  is  an  individual  entrusted  with 
power,  which  is  delegated  to  him  to  exercise  under  his 
own  control  according  to  the  charter  or  the  grant  by 
which  the  power  is  conferred.  An  agent  pre-supposes 
some  power  who  had  delegated  to  him  the  power  of 
his  agency.  If  the  Governor  is  elected  by  the  people 
and  clothed  with  executive  authority  and  power,  from 
whom  is  that  power  derived  ?  Is  it  self-created,  self- 
assumed?  or  is  it  not  a  power  delegated  by  the  people 
to  him,  and^o  be  exercised  within  certain  metes  and 
bounds.  The  very  term,  I  say," of  agency  pre-supposes 
some  power  which  is  to  be  exercised  by  the  agent- 
While  all  admit  that  the  people  are  the  safest  deposito- 
ry of  power,  yet  1  contend  the  fact  of  their  possessing 
all  power  enables  them  to  delegate  a  portion  of  it  to 
their  agents,  the  incumbents  in  office.  Why,  if  that  doc- 
trine is  true — facit  per  ilium  facit  per  se,  and  when  the 
people  choose  to  consummate  an  act  through  their 
agents  they  consummate  that  act  by  themselves.  So  that 
the  very  use  of  the  term  agent  alluded  to  by  my  friend 
from  Montgomery,  (Mr.  Hoge  )  certainly  pre  supposes 
the  fact  that  whiie  the  people  are  the  depositories  of 
all  power,  the  very  fact  of  their  possessing  all  power 
enables  them  to  delegate  a  portion  of  that  power  to 
whomever  the  necessity  oi  the  case  may  require. 

But  it  is  proper  that  there  should  be  a  limitation  of 
the  term  for  which  the  Governor  shall  hold  his  office. 
I  have  heard  various  propositions  offered  here  ;  one  is 
that  he  shall  hold  his  power  for  two  years ;  and  the 
other  that  he  should  hold  it  for  four,  and  another  that 


176 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


there  should  be  an  intermediate  term  and  the  right  to 
be  elected  for  four  years  more  after  its  expiration ; 
and  last  of  all  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Henri- 
co, that  he  shall  be  forever  re-eligible.  And  yet  these 
are  all  limitations  and  favored  by  the  most  radical  gen- 
tlemen in  the  Convention.  Will  it  not  be  a  limitation 
to  confine  the  term  of  service  for  two  years  ?  Will  not 
this  be,  if  the  gentleman's  argument  is  correct,  a  limita- 
tion upon  the  rights  of  the  people — the  fixing  the  term 
at  any  period.  I  go  for  a  limitation  of  the  rights  of  the 
people,  rather  than  any  unlimited  system  which  should 
degenerate  into  the  very  worst  of  all  governments — ■ 
anarchy. 

I  shall  support  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania,  and  for  these  reasons :  You  elect  a  Gov- 
ernor for  four  years,  and  the  people  in  the  most  enlarg- 
ed sense  are  to  become  the  electors  of  the  Governor. 
It  has  been  denied  in  the  argument  to-day,  that  office 
•or  power  had  a  corrupt  influence,  and  yet  the  other 
day  the  very  worthy  gentleman  from  Powhatan  arrang- 
ed the  source  of  corruption  into  three  classes.  First,  a 
love  of  power,  second,  pride  and  ambition,  and  third, 
a  passion  of  avarice,  I  will  let  these 'two  gentlemen — 
the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  and  the  gentleman 
from  Powhatan — reconcile  the  difference  between  them. 
That  power  will  beget  power  is  an  axiom  which  all 
governments  have  been  created  to  restrain.  It  is  an 
admitted  truth,  and  all  governments  have  turned  their 
attention  to  the  object  of  restraining  power.  If  you 
elect  a  man  for  four  years  and  elect  him  afterwards  fur 
the  same  period,  pride  of  office  is  likely  to  beset  him, 
and  no  sooner  is  a  man  clothed  with  the  robes  of  office 
than  he  feels,  by  the  very  elevation  which  enables  him 
to  occupy  that  office,  that  he  is  to  some  extent  raised 
above  his  fellows,  and  that  the  mass  of  community  have 
yielded  to  some  extent  to  his  superiority.  The  effect  of 
the  principle  of  ineligibility  would  be  to  check  this 
spirit,  and  to  bring  him  down  from  his  elevation,  to 
mix  again  with  the  people.  Then  if  he  had  adminis- 
tered the  government  satisfactorily  to  the  people,  he 
would,  after  he  had  again  mingled  with  them,  and  had 
an  opportunity  to  learn  their  interests  and  their  wants, 
be  agai n  elected,  if  the  people  thought  proper  to  elect  him, 
as  with  one  voice  to  the  office  which  he  had  before  occu- 
pied. And  then  when  he  had  served  out  eight  out  of 
twelve  years,  Iwould  bring  him  back  again  to  the  people, 
and  let  him  again  become  one  of  them.  And  this  princi- 
ple has  been  carried  out  in  this  State.  But  it  is  argued 
and  it  was  most  ingeniously  and  plausibly  argued,  by 
my  friend  from  Powhatan  the  other  day,  that  the  ob- 
jection, not  to  the  re-election  but  to  a  limitation  was 
that  corruption  would  steal  itself  into  the  executive 
chair;  and  whilst  it  would  not  be  exerted  for  the  benefit 
of  the  incumbent  himself,  it  might  be  exerted  to  the  most 
,  alarming  extent  for  the  benefit  of  politicians  and  other 
designing  men;  and  that  while  you  render  him  ineligi- 
ble, you  give  him  the  power  of  securing  the  election  of 
some  other  individual,  and  that  in  the  end,  it  would 
result  in  corrupt  exercise  of  power.  Well,  that  struck 
me  as  a  very  singular  argument.  If  this  power  of  cor- 
ruption exists,  so  that  it  can  inure  to  the  elevation  of 
political  friends,  I  ask  when  you  come  to  employ  that 
power  in  aid  of  the  individual's  own  personal  elevation, 
how  much  more  dangerous  and  destructive  would  it  be 
to  popular  rights  ?  And  when  you  come  to  add  to  these 
powerful  motives  the  passion  of  avarice,  which  the  gen- 
tleman says  is  one  of  the  strongest  that  governs  man's 
action ;  when  you  come  to  add  the  influence  of  this 
passion  with  corrupt  motives,  would  it  not  result  in 
making  the  Governor  more  pliant  and  more  facile,  in 
the  exercise  of  corrupt  power  ?  Unite  then,  these  two 
influences,  the  power  of  ambition  and  the  love  of  office, 
and  put  a  corrupt  man  in  the  executive  chair,  and  while 
there  is  danger  to  be  apprehended  according  to  the 
gentleman  from  Powhatan  from  the  exercise  of  these 
powers  in  bringing  into  office  a  political  friend,  how 
much  more  dangerous  the  combination  of  all  these  in- 
fluences, when  they  permit  him  to  exert  his  power  to 


subserve  his  own  selfish  purposes  If  the  argument  is 
good  when  applied  to  collaterals,  how  much  more  pow- 
erful is  it  when  applied  to  the  persons  themselves.  For 
these  reasons,  strong  and  pertinent,  in  my  mind,  I  go  for 
the  limitation  of  the  election  of  the  Governor;  and  so 
far  from  infringing  upon  popular  right,  in  the  most  en- 
larged sense  in  which  it  can  be  considered,  it  is  design- 
ed to  purify  the  officer.  It  is  intended  the  better  tc* 
secure  and  protect  these  reserved  rights,  not  delegated 
to  the  agent,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  The  ten- 
dency of  re-eligibility,  I  will  not  say  that  it  is  the  pur- 
pose of  those  that  advocate  that  side  of  the  question, 
is  to  perpetuate  the  existence  of  the  incumbent  in  the- 
same  office,  as  long  as  he  pleases.  I  do  not  say  that 
such  will  be  the  result,  but  that  the  tendency  of  it  may- 
be to  perpetuate  his  re-election  as  long  as  he  lives. 
And  may  this  not  be  the  fact?  If  these  controlling  in- 
fluences to  which  I  have  just  now  adverted  shall  be- 
come necessary  to  be  brought  to  bear  at  every  election, 
and  continued  to  be  exerc  sed  at  every  election,  may 
it  not  ke?p  in  power  during  his  life  time,  a  Governor 
controlled  by  the  principles  of  ambition  and  avarice,, 
may  he  not  if  he  can  so  manage  as  to  secure  the  elec- 
tion of  friends,  so  manage  as  to  secure  his  own  re-elec- 
tion, antl  too,  term  after  term  as  long  as  ha  chooses  to 
occupy  the  chair  of  office. 

Mr.  HOPKINS,  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to* 
explain. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Caroline.    Certainly,,  sir*. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  My  position  I  think  is  not  clearly 
understood  by  the  gentleman.  I  supposed  when  I  was> 
speaking  of  the  avarice  and  ambitions  of  the  Governor,, 
that  the  temptation  to  do  wrong  operated  on  him  from/ 
the  certainty  of  his  ejection  from  office.  I  will  eite  a 
case.  Martin  Van  Buren  was  at  one  time  Pres;dent 
of  the  Unit  ed  States,  and  as  long  as  he  had  a  hope  of 
continuing  in  office  was  faithful  to  the  constitution.. 
But  the  very  moment  he  was  disappointed  ia  that  hope, 
he  turned  traitor  to  the  constitution  itself.  That  wilt 
explain  very  fully  the  idea. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Caroline.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for 
his  explanation,  and  also  for  Ms  illustration.  The  ex- 
planation then  is,  that  the  temptations  secure  the  faith- 
ful discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  ©fficerr  while  in  his 
office  ;  the  illustration  was,  th«at  Mr..  Van  Buren  r  while 
he  was  in  office,  under  the  expectation  of  retaining  of- 
fice, did  faithfully  and  efficiently  discharge  all  the  du- 
ties connected  with  the  office,  but  the  instant  he  found 
that  he  was  to  go  out  of  office,  he  was  derelict  of  duty. 

I  should  like  to  know  how  the  gentleman  arrived  at  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Van  Buren  became  satisfied  that  his  term 
would  be  limited  to  four  yeavs-.  If  I  understand  the 
history  of  those  times,  he  wa3  again  a  candidate  and  un- 
der the  very  strongest  expectation  of  being  again  re- 
elected. Yet  my  worthy  friend  r  notwithstanding  all 
this  relaxation  of  duty  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
while  President  of  the  United  States,  I  am  sure,  though 
I  do  not  know  the  fact,  was  found  voting  with  me  for 
Mr.  Van  Buren  the  second  time.  And  yet  h®  was  under 
the  full  consciousness  that  there  had  been  such  relaxa- 
tion in  the  discharge  of  all  the  functions  of  this  high 
office,  on  his  part,  as  to  render  it  improper  that  he  should  " 
be  continued  in  office.  Let  me  apply  that  illustration 
here.  Here  is  a  Governor  elected  for  two  years ,  and  h® 
is  elected  by  the  people,  the  depository  of  all  virtue  and 
knowledge  and  intelligence,  and  he  comes  into  office, 
and  although  he  intends  to  be  a  candidate  for  re-election,, 
yet  he  relaxes  in  his  duty,  and  although  this  relaxation 
is  known,  yet  the  effect  is  so  very  slight  upon  the  public 
mind,  that  even  such  intelligent  gentlemen  as  my  friend 
from  Powhatan,  (Mr,  Hopkins,)  will  overlook  it  or  re- 
gard it  as  a  casus  omisms,  and  still  vote  to  re-elect  thi s- 
careless,  indifferent  Governor  to  the  same  position- 
Apply  this  illustration  to  the  people  of  Virginia.  Why, 
they  are  the  depositories  of  all  power  and  of  all  intelli- 
gence, yet  when  an  individual,  who  in  office  has  been 
relax  and  even  corrupt  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties, 
I  comes  before  them  for  a  re-election,  they  will  be  sogtner- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


177 


ous  and  so  magnanimous  as  to  overlook  his  faults  and  to 
re-elect  him.  That  is  the  application  of  the  gentle- 
man's illustration.  My  friend  was  extremely  magnani- 
mous and  generous  when  he  overlooked  these  lapses  in 
the  discharge  of  the  functions  of  the  government  by 
Mr.  Van  Buren  and  voted  for  him.  [Laughter.] 

Mr,  HOPKINS.  I  dislike  to  trouble  my  friend.  I 
will  not  do  so  again,  but  undoubtedly  he  misapplies  my 
illustration.  My  friend  is  right  in  saying  that  I  went 
along  with  him  in  the  Baltimore  convention  for  the  re- 
nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  so  long  as  we  held 
out  a  prospect  of  re-election  to  Mr.  Van  Buren,  I  be- 
lieve that  he  remained  faithful  and  true  to  the  consti- 
tion ;  but  when  he  was  disappointed,  when  he  found 
that  he  could  not  get  the  nomination,  and  lost  all  hope 
of  ever  regaining  the  Presidency,  then  he  joined  the 
free  soilers  and  set  the  constitution  at  naught. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Caroline.  I  am  sorry  that  this  inci- 
dental debate  has  occurred.  I  had  only  playfully  allud- 
ed to  it,  and  did  not  regard  it  as  a  theme  which  would 
require  so  much  explanation  from  my  friend.  It  is  true 
we  were  in  the  Baltimore  convention  together,  and  oc- 
cupied the  same  position,  and  I  do  not  know  whether 
his  exertion  to  procure  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren 
was  stronger  than  mine,  or  mine  stronger  than  his,  but 
certain  it  is,  that  both  of  us  worked  very  hard  to  ac- 
complish that  end.  But  I  think  it  was  said,  in  those 
days  at  least,  the  opposite  party  always  complained,  and 
inveighed  against  this  caucus  system,  earnestly  con- 
tending that  the  nomination  then  made  was  most  unfair- 
ly made.  And  if  that  was  the  case,  although  Mr.  Van 
Buren  did  not  receive  the  nomination,  he  might  have 
had  a  long  lingering  hope  to  aspire  to  the  position  again. 
No  more  of  that. 

I  was  about  remarking  that  if  the  principles  which 
govern  human  action,  and  which  displayed  themselves 
in  a  most  eminent  degree  in  the  conduct  of  my  friend 
from  Powhatan,  when  he  overlooked  the  frailties  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  be  here  applied  to  the  people,  where  they 
exist  in  all  their  strength,  vigor,  and  influence  their 
action,  will  they  not  when  the  incumbent  in  office  pre- 
sents himself  for  a  re-election,  shut  their  eyes  to  his 
frailties,  lapses,  and  derelictions  from  duty  and  place 
him  again  in  the  executive  office.  It  is  said  the  re-eligi- 
bility principle  would  operate  as  an  inducement,  from 
the  fact  that  if  you  elected  him  for  one  term  and  failed 
to  re-elect  him  the  second  term,  and  turned  him  out  to 
grass,  it  would  tarnish  the  escutcheon  of  his  fair  fame — 
to  secure  fidelity  in  his  action.  Is  that  the  principle 
which  regulates  the  acts  of  this  community?  How  of- 
ten would  a  majority  of  the  virtuous,constituency  come 
to  the  rescue  of  such  a  man,  and  from  sympathy  for  him, 
and  lest  such  a  stain  should  be  fixed  upon  his  character, 
elevate  him  to  the  office  again?  Not  because  the  people 
are  not  capable  of  self  government,  not  because  they 
are  not  capable  of  making  a  selection  and  election,  but 
because  where  all  the  finer  feelings  of  the  heart  are 
brought  to  bear  in  favor  of  the  incumbent  in  office,  they 
will  overlook  these  frailties  which  they  would  otherwise 
more  clearly  scan.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  limi- 
tation ought  to  be  fixed,  in  order  that  the  purity  of  the 
•  reserved  rights  of  the  people  may  be  preserved,  and  the 
encroachment  of  official  power  forever  checked.  This 
office  of  Governor  possesses  patronage  and  power.  You 
may  strip  him  of  it,  however  much  you  may  make  him 
a  mere  subordinate  in  the  government,  but  when  you 
look  at  the  operations  of  this  government,  the  Legisla- 
ture will  add  to  that  power  until  perhaps  in  the  end  it 
will  assume  the  character  which  it  now  assumes — an 
office  of  too  much  power  and  too  much  patronage.  And 
if  the  evils  to  which  I  have  referred  are  likely  to  exist 
by  an  accumulation  of  power — and  that  will  be  the  in- 
evitable result  of  the  operations  of  this  government, 
form  it  as  you  will ;  if  that  be  the  case,  I  would  guard 
it  now  from  improper  exercise,  and  would  guard  it  with 
much  more  jealous  care  against  this  improper  exercise 
in  the  future.  But  in  the  very  language  of  my  friend 
from  Powhatan,  while  he  would  not  adminis+er  the  pow- 
er for  self-aggrandizement  and  self-promotion,  in  the 
12 


strong  language  of  my  friend  from  the  county  of  Acco- 
mac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  he  would  administer  it  for  the  purpose 
of  elevating  politicians,  who  like  leeches,  fasten  upon 
the  body  politic  of  power.  If  this  be  so,  I  would  guard 
still  more  carefully  against  the  application  of  these  in- 
fluences to  the  incumbent  in  office. 

These  are  the  considerations  which  induced  me  to  go 
for  this  limitation,  and  against  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
Governor,  term  after  term,  which  may  result  in  a  life- 
time election.  I  would  have  him  elected  for  a  term,  and 
to  go  back  to  the  people,  where  he  might  learn  virtue 
and  ascertain  the  necessities  of  the  people,  and  then  if 
he  had  been  a  faithful  officer,  and  should  again  come 
before  them  for  office,  the  spirit  of  magnanimity  and 
justice  which  ever  characterizes  the  people,  will  at  once 
induce  them  to  say  to  such  an  incumbent,  well  done 
good  and  faithful  servant.  What  I  desire  is,  to  protect 
the  people  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights,  and  in  order 
to  do  that,  there  must  be  some  limitations  of  power. 
Hoist  all  these  governmental  restraints,  raise  them  from 
the  action  of  men  and  the  inevitable  result  of  it  is  that 
you  degenerate  into  a  state  of  anarchy,  the  very  worst 
form  of  government  ©f  which  the  mind  of  man  can  con- 
ceive. If  men  were  angels  and  perfect  in  character, 
then  I  would  be  willing,  according  to  the  argument  of 
my  friend,  to  say,  give  them  all  power  ;  and  I  would 
agree  too  in  theory,  that  while  they,  the  people,  pos- 
sessed all  power,  they  should  never  delegate  any  por- 
tion of  it.  But  so  long  as  we  are  to  regard  man  as  man, 
the  creature  of  passion,  of  avarice  and  ambition — so 
long  as  you  so  regard  him — it  is  necessary  that  such 
checks  should  be  placed  on  his  action  to  prevent  corrup- 
tion, and  prevent  all  that  abuse  of  power  by  which  mi- 
norities may  be  oppressed.  Why,  have  minorities  no 
rights,  no  powers?  Are  the  majority  of  the  people  to 
do  as  they  will  ?  Are  they  to  trample  the  rights  of  mi- 
norities under  foot?  Will  you  not,  by  some  such  limi- 
tation, secure  the  rights  of  the  minority,  and  limit  the 
power  which  the  strong  hand  ever  has  to  oppress  the 
weak  ? 

Something  was  said  in  the  debate  looking  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  an  interregnum  between  the  two  terms,  be- 
cause it  might  be  required  of  the  Governor  that  he  should 
canvass  the  State.  I  cannot  be  influenced  in  my  vote 
by  the  law  of  any  such  necessity.  If  his  administra- 
tion be  wise,  be  virtuous,  be  diligent  and  efficient,  he 
will  find  in  every  county  and  in  every  portion  of  the 
State,  like  the  fabled  dragon's  teeth,  men  rising  up  to 
sustain  the  purity  of  his  administration,  and  the  fidelity 
of  his  action.  It  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  can- 
vass the  -State ;  his  virtues  will  embalm  him  in  the  mem- 
ory of  all,  and  a  grateful  people  will  re-elect  him,  if 
necessary.  While  I  utter  this  sentiment,  I  am  not  one 
of  those  who  oppose,  in  the  strong  language  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac,  electioneering  in  the  right  way. 
No !  That  is  the  very  means  by  which  the  candidate  is 
brought  before  the  people,  and  brought  to  feel  and  know 
his  dependence  upon  the  people;  and  I  hold,  that  every 
man  who  is  a  candidate  for  the  public  approbation  and 
support,  ought  to  give  to  them  a  full  and  free  and  frank 
expression  of  the  principles  by  which  he  intends  to  be 
guided  in  his  public  action.  And  I  was  very  much  grat- 
ified to  learn  from  my  friend  from  Accomac,  that  in  all 
his  canvasses  in  his  district,  contesting  as  was  said  a 
majority  of  fourteen  hundred,  and  as  was  explained  by 
himself,  of  sixteen  hundred  against  him,  that,  election- 
eering in  the  right  way — appealing  to  the  public  mind 
and  appealing  to  the  public  heart,  was  the  means  of  his 
success,  and  this  too  without  the  help  of  a  dram.  That 
was  said  for  the  honor  of  the  people — they  need  per- 
haps no  such  aid.  They  are  competent  enough,  with  or 
without  the  dram. 

For  these  reasons  I  sustain  this  limitation — which  is 
not  to  limit  the  rights  of  the  people.  And  my  democ- 
racy, not  the  democracy  of  the  patent  order,  has  at  all 
times  taught  me  this,  that  to  secure  a  prudent  exercise 
of  power,  a  proper  system  of  Balances  and  checks  is  ab- 
solutely necessary.  It  is  the  undue  exercise  of  power 
against  which  I  desire  to  guard.   No  man  has  been  more 


178 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


diligent  to  that  end  than  my  friend  from  Accomac.  Not 
only  upon  the  hustings  has  he  inveighed  against  the  cor- 
rupt exercise  of  power,  but  in  a  much  more  elevated 
position  he  has  opened  his  breast  to  the  storm  and  re- 
sisted it  most  gallantly.  And  it  is  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  undue  exercise  of  power,  clothed 
in  official  robes,  that  I  would  limit  the  power  of  the 
Governor  by  limiting  his  term  of  service,  and  thus  bring 
him  back  to  the  people  whence  he  sprung  ;  and  at  the 
same  time  by  rendering  him  ineligible,  guard  him  against 
any  tendency  to  corruption  in  office,  to  secure  his  own 
aggrandizement.  And  in  this  way  also  I  would  shield 
him  even  against  an  imputation  of  such  an  abuse  of 
power. 

I  have  thus  imperfectly  exhibited  to  the  Convention 
my  views  and  the  reasons  which  will  govern  me  in  the 
action  I  shall  take.  I  desired  that  my  opinions  might 
be  known  to  my  constituents  and  that  they  might  know 
the  position  I  occupy  on  this  question,  that  they  might 
approve  or  condemn  it  as  to  them  seemed  wise. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  rise  simply  to  explain,  or  to  correct  a 
misapprehension  of  my  friend  from  Caroline.  He  rep- 
resented me  as  saying  that  the  people  in  creating 
agents,  transmit  their  power  with  the  agents.  I  thought 
my  position  was  directly  the  opposite  of  that  position. 
I  attempted  to  sustain  the  position  that  representation 
was  a  concession  to  the  necessity,  and  when  that  agency 
came  in,  the  people  had  transmitted  to  their  agents  what 
from  necessity  they  could  not  themselves  perform.  That 
is  my  position,  and  not  that  it  was  a  transfer  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  people.  And  to  illustrate  that  position,  if  my 
friend  from  Caroline  was  to  constitute  me  his  agent  to 
perform  any  duties,  within  a  period  of  one,  two,  or  five 
years,  he  could  restrict  me  in  the  performance  of  those 
duties — I  acting  for  him,  it  would  be  competent  for  him 
to  restrict  me.  But  I  ask  my  friend  if  it  would  be 
competent  for  him  to  divest  himself  of  the  power  of  re- 
taining me  at  the  termination  of  that  period  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Caroline.  I  am  gratified  with  the  ex- 
planation and  receive  it  with  great  kindness.  I  cer- 
tainly did  not  intend  to  misrepresent  the  gentleman, 
and  am  gratified  with  the  reiteration  of  his  position  ; 
but  it  seems  that  the  gentleman  has  not  exactly  under- 
stood my  argument.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  in 
the  nature  of  things,  all  power  belonged  to  the  people, 
and  that  they  could  not  divest  themselves  of  that  power. 
That  was  the  broad  proposition  which  he  laid  down. 
I  said  that  this  very  argument  introduced  by  the  gentle- 
man himself  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  proposition, 
was  suicidal  to  the  theory  which  he  advanced,  and  that 
when  he  conceded  that  the  people  had  the  power  of  del- 
egating power  to  an  agent,  he  yielded  the  first  proposi- 
tion, because  the  first  one  was  that  they  could  not  dele- 
gate power. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  have  no  intention  of  protracting 
this  discussion ;  I  rise  for  the  simple  purpose  of  explain- 
ing the  vote  which  I  feel  constrained  to  give  upon  the 
question  before  the  committee.  I  feel  called  upon  to  do 
so,  because  my  convictions  lead  me  to  a  conclusion,  advo- 
cated by  gentlemen  in  whose  general  views  of  govern- 
ment I  have  no  sympathy  whatever.  I  am  willing  to  be 
responsible  for  their  conclusions,  but  not  for  their  argu- 
ments. If,  then,  I  were  to  cast  my  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Henerico,  after 
his  speech  in  support  of  it,  without  explanation,  my  po- 
sition would  be  wholly  misunderstood. 

I  confess,  when  this  question  was  first  submitted  to 
our  consideration  I  regarded  it  as  one  of  very  little  im- 
portance. In  the  aspect  in  which  it  is  now  presented,  it 
lias  assumed  an  importance  which  in  my  judgment  does 
not  intrinsically  belong  to  it.  A  mere  question  of  expe- 
diency ;  it  has  involved  the  discussion  of  great  princi- 
ples of  government.  I  do  not  mean  noio  to  be  drawn 
into  any  such  discussion.  I  shall  treat  it  as  I  consider  it,  , 
a  mere  question  of  expediency,  and  according  to  this  view 
shall  cast  my  vote. 

The  question  then,  as  it  presents  itself  to  my  mind,  is 
this  :  Is  it  wise  and  expedient  to  insert  the  limitation  pro- 


poseo  _)•'  J  a  executive  committee  in  our  constitution  or 
is  it  l.o.  ;  J  j '»ink  not.  I  think  it  unwise  and  inexpedient 
to  do  so,  anc.  for  the  following  reasons  among  others. 
The  end  in  view  all  admit  to  be  integrity  and  diligence 
in  the  officer.  As  to  the  means  of  accomplishing  that 
end  we  differ.  Assume  the  governor  to  be  a  man  of  ex- 
alted character,  and  elevated  above  all  unworthy  mo- 
tives— such  as  I  trust  the  people  of  Virginia  will  only 
select — and  if  so,  what  more  potent  consideration  can 
you  present  to  secure  official  propriety  than  the  pros- 
pect of  again  coming  before  his  electors  to  have  his  con- 
duct fully  canvassed  and  receive  the  just  rewards  of 
merit.  I  can  conceive  no  higher  motive  to  stimulate  a 
pure  man  than  those  which  arise  from  the  approbation 
of  hi3  constituency,  except  the  self-sustaining  support  of 
his  own  conscience.  Such  a  prospect  I  wish  to  hold  out 
to  such  a  man,  to  nerve  him  against  all  assaults  and  im- 
putations which  may  be  cast  upon  his  official  conduct. 
Such  a  prospect,  in  my  ©pinioa,  is  held  out  by  re-eligi- 
bility. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  people  should  happen  un- 
fortunately to  select  a  man  of  a  different  stamp,  one 
amenable  to  unworthy  considerations,  I  wish  to  impose 
upon  such  a  man  the  wholesome,  and,  in  my  judgment, 
the  most  effectual  restraint  against  the  prostitution  of 
the  powers  of  his  office  to  improper  purposes.  Such  a 
restraint  as  the  prospect  of  having  his  official  conduct 
exposed  to  the  light  of  day — to  the  scrutiny  of  the  pub- 
lic— will  make  him  secure,  and  such  as  can  only  be  se- 
cured by  re-eligibility. 

While,  therefore,  in  my  view  re-eligibility  will  exert  a 
salutary  influence  upon  both  the  man  of  elevated  character 
and  the  man  of  unworthy  character,  I  think  ineligibility 
will  operate  deleteriously  on  either. 

Both  will  be  exposed  to  the  same  temptations,  wheth- 
er they  are  eligible  to  a  second  term  or  not.  Party  ap- 
pliances will  be  brought  to  bear  in  any  event.  No  mara 
will  be  able  to  withdraw  from  them.  I  wish  to  strength- 
en him  to  resist  them. 

I  have  thus  explained  my  views,  without  pretending- 
to  debate  the  question.  I  think  they  are  well  illustra- 
ted by  the  case  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Pow- 
hatan, (Mr.  Hopkins,)  and  so  wholly  misinterpreted  as  I 
conceive  by  the  gentleman  from  Caroline,  (Mr.  Scott.) 
Let  us  examine  that  case.  It  is  conceded  by  both  gen- 
tlemen that  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  a  very  unworthy  man., 
It  is  equally  admitted  by  both  that  during  his  first  term 
he  faithfully  discharged  the  duties  of  the  office.  Con- 
ceding thus  much,  I  ask  what  restrained  him  during  his 
occupancy  of  office  from  the  prostitution  of  its  patron- 
age ?  Let  us  examine  that  case.  We  find  that  even 
here  a  bad  man  was  restrained  from  the  prostitution 
of  his  office  during  his  term,  according  to  the  view 
of  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  by  the  prospect  of  a 
re-election  to  office,  while,  when  that  prospect  was  re- 
moved, he  appeared  in  his  naked  deformity.  Here, 
then,  was  this  power  of  the  people,  this  prospect  of 
coming  before  the  people  of  this  country,  where  his  con- 
duct should  be  carefully  canvassed,  controlling  the  offi- 
cial conduct  of  an  admitted  bad  man,  and  securing,  in 
the  view  of  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  official  pro- 
priety and  truth  to  the  constitution.  If,  then,  that  re- 
straint be  worth  anything,  it  is  worth  this,  that  we  may 
expect,  if  we  should  be  so  unfortunate  as  to  elect  a  bad 
man  to  the  office  of  governor,  the  prospect  of  re-elec- 
tion will  secure  to  the  people  of  this  State  official  pro- 
priety during  his  term  of  office.  But  what  I  rose  prin- 
cipally to  say,  was,  that  I  could  not  concur  in  the  views 
taken  by  most  of  the  advocates  for  re-eligibility.  A 
stranger,  upon  witnessing  the  debates  in  this  hall,  or 
upon  reading  these  debates,  would  really  suppose  that 
a  conspiracy  was  formed,  by  the  delegates  on  this  floor, 
against  the  rights  of  the  good  people  of  this  Common- 
wealth, and  that  my  friend  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise.) 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  and  my  friend 
from  the  county  of  Montgomery.  (Mr.  Hoge,)  were  here, 
for  the  purpose  of  defending  these  assailed  rights 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


181 


lift  up  their  hands  and  cry  out  in  holy  horror  against  the 
idea  of  the  one  man  power,  I  think  I  stand  within  that 
body  now.  If  ever  I  saw  gentlemen  bent  on  stripping 
office  of  all  power  and  patronage,  I  think  this  Conven- 
tion has  already  developed  its  determination  to  strip  this 
office  of  Governor  of  even  the  inconsiderable  patronage 
it  has  under  the  existing  constitution,  and  to  make  your 
chief  magistrate  a  mere  automaton.  I  understand  tins 
office  has  attached  to  it  now  but  little  importance,  so  far 
as  patronage  and  power  are  concerned,  and  the  deter- 
mination here  seems  to  be  to  bring  it  down  so  low  that 
the  governor  is  even  to  be  denied  the  right  of  appointing 
the  agents  and  representatives  of  the  commonwealth  in 
the  banks  of  the  State,  a  larger  portion  of  which  it  owns 
and  is  directly  interested  in.  Then  what  is  to  be  the 
power  and  patronage  of  the  governor  ?  He  will  conduct 
the  intercourse  of  Virginia  with  foreign  States,  or  in 
other  words  he  will  appoint  commissioners  in  foreign 
States  to  take  acknowledgments  of  deeds.  He  will 
have  the  appointment  of  agents  to  settle  boundary  ques- 
tions between  Virginia  and  other  States,  and  no  ques- 
tion of  this  sort  is  likely  ever  to  be  raised  hereafter. 
He  will  appoint,  perhaps,  commissioners  to  visit  the 
University,  and  the  Deaf  and  Dumb  and  Lunatic  Asy- 
lums, and  the  Virginia  Military  Institute,  and,  perhaps, 
he  may  be  allowed  tb  appoint  the  directors  for  the  State 
in  the  Penitentiary  of  the  commonwealth,  and  he  is  to 
be  the  commander-in-chief  with  the  epaulet  upon  his 
shoulder  of  the  army  of  this  State  and  of  the  navy  of 
Virginia.  This  is  all  his  patronage  and  power  that  I 
understand  the  Governor  of  Virginia  is  to  possess  when 
this  constitution  we  propose  to  make  shall  have  been 
adopted  by  the  convention  and  ratified  by  the  people.  I 
ask  the  committee  if  it  is  possible  that  that  little  patron- 
age will  enable  him  to  control  public  sentiment,  and  by 
corruption  in  office  to  secure  his  re-election  over  the 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  his  opponents  ?  I  say  thou- 
sands because  Virginia  can  boast  more  particularly  of 
her  politicians  than  she  can  of  any  thing  else.  And 
there  will  always  be  a  host  of  politicians,  able,  talented 
men  who  have  rendered  service  in  the  ranks  of  the  po- 
litical parties  to  which  they  belong,  seeking  for  and  ex- 
pecting that  nomination  at  the  hands  of  whig  and  demo- 
cratic caucuses. 

Then  there  is  nothing,  in  my  humble  opinion,  in  this 
argument  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  restricting  the  pow- 
ers of  the  people  and  preventing  them  from  selecting  as 
well  as  electing  a  governor.  If  this  principle  is  to  be 
settled  here  that  the  governor  of  Virginia  on  account  of 
his  impartiality  in  the  administration  of  his  executive 
office,  should  be  incompetent  to  a  re-election,  it  must, 
by  a  parity  of  reason,  be  carried  out  in  the  judiciary  and 
the  other  important  offices  of  this  country. 

If  you  say  that  the  people  ought  not  to  re-elect  a  man 
to  the  office  of  Governor,  clothed  as  he  will  be  with  lit- 
tle or  no  authority,  and  at  the  same  time  that  they  may 
re-elect  your  judges,  who  are  the  highest  officers  in  the 
commonwealth,  in  what  an  inconsistent  attitude  do  you 
place  this  convention  before  the  people.  Shall  the  peo- 
ple be  denied  the  privilege  of  re-electing  the  Governor 
of  the  Commonwealth  when  the  Legislature,  by  a  report 
of  the  committee  on  circuit  courts  and  the  judiciary,  are 
to  elect  for  a  term  of  fifteen  years,  and  then  to  be  re- 
eligible,  the  judges  of  the  court  of  appeals,  the  highest 
power  in  the  commonwealth — the  men  who  are  to  pre- 
side over  the  safety  of  your  fortunes  ?  1  think  the  peo- 
ple will  not,  and  that  they  ought  not,  to  sustain  such  a 
position  if  taken  by  this  convention.  I  came  here  to  go 
first  for  the  election  of  all  the  officers  of  this  common- 
wealth, that  are  peculiarly  offices  of  the  people,  by  the 
people  themselves,  and  consequently  to  go  for  their  re- 
eligibility  to  office  upon  the  principle  that  when  the 
people  get  a  good  man  in  power  it  is  for  their  interest  to 
keep  him  there — and  they  will  do  it.  I  do  not  know 
that  the  Governor  of  Virginia  will  ever  be  elected  for  a 
second  term,  but  I  do  know  if  he  is  a  man  of  capacity 
and  qualified  to  discharge  the  high  office  he  is  elected 
to,  and  if  his  course  and  views  meet  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  people,  which  is  an  evidence  that  he  is  pecu-  < 


!  Jiarly  fitted  to  fill  the  office  and  by  his  policy  benefit  the 
;  old  commonwealth,  it  is  but  right  and  proper  that  the 
people  should  have  the  power  to  retain  him  in  office  in 
preference  to  all  others,  if  they  choose  to  do  so.    I  de- 
sire a  re-eligibility  of  the  Governor,  because  I  wish  to 
have  his  messages,  his  recommendations  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  his  views  upon  questions  of  international  poli- 
cy, discussed  and  canvassed  before  the  people  of  this 
commonwealth.    It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  while  the 
people  of  Virginia  are  better  posted  up  in  federal  poli- 
tics than  perhaps  those  of  any  other  State  in  the  Union, 
the  great  body  of  them  are  exceedingly  ignorant  of  the 
true  condition  of  their  own  State.    What  accounts  for 
your  worn  out  and  grown  up  plantations,  and  ruined  man- 
sions in  the  east  ?    What  accounts  for  the  stand-still  posi- 
tion of  Virginia  for  the  last  thirty  years,  while  other 
States  of  this  Union  have  been  advancing  to  power  and 
influence  in  this  government  ?    It  is  a  fact  that  Virginia 
has  wasted  her  time  over  idle  abstractions,  and  neglected 
the  development  of  her  vast  resources  and  the  improve- 
ment of  the  commonwealth.    Let  us  bring  home  to  the 
people  these  questions  of  domestic  policy.    Let  itbe  no 
longer  the  case  in  Virginia  that  a  jack  or  a  mule  can  be 
elected  to  office  if  he  is  only  a  whig  or  a  democrat  in 
any  whig  or  democratic  county,  as  the  case  maybe.  Let 
this  man  come  down  to  the  people,  to  the  masses  that 
are  directly  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  the  State, 
and  I  tell  you  the  old  State  will  bound  forward  in  the 
race  of  improvement  and  prosperity  with  a  rapidity 
which  will  equal,  if  it  does  not  outstrip,  the  progress  of 
the  more  liberal,  and  I  had  almost  said  the  more  enlight- 
ened, States  of  the  west.    I  desire  the  Governor  to  come 
down  from  his  gubernatorial  chair  and  mingle,  as  it  is 
sometimes  said,  with  the  mighty  unwashed.    I  desire 
to  see  him  leave  the  society  of  the  politicians  and  come 
down  and  shake  hands  with  the  great  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple.   I  desire  to  hear  him  from  the  stump  of  old  Fi  ank- 
lin,  preaching  to  my  people  a  policy  that  is  to  wake  Vir- 
ginia from  her  Rip  Van  Winkle  sleep.    I  have  done, 
young  as  I  am,  compared  with  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac,  perhaps  as  much  electioneering  as  he  has, 
and  I  acknowledge  that  when  argument  and  reasoning 
have  been  exhausted,  if  it  was  necessary  to  secure  the 
success  of  the  party  to  which  I  belonged,  I  have  thrown 
in  a  "  we  drop  of  spirit."    I  have  seen  no  evil  grow  out 
of  electioneering.    I  believe  that  the  system  of  elec- 
tioneering adopted  in  Virginia  has  made  politicians  of 
our  people,  and  the  best  politicians  on  earth.    I  only 
desire  to  change  the  struggle  from  whig  and  democrat, 
from  protective  tariff  and  distribution,  to  questions  in 
which  the  interests  of  this  old  commonwealth  will  be  in- 
volved and  promoted.    I  wish  to  interest  and  enlighten 
the  people  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvement,  and 
1  trust  that,  if  we  adopt  in  this  convention  a  liberal  con- 
stitution, that  long  before  your  locks,  sir,  are  whitened 
by  the  frosts  of  age,   I  may  come  down  upon  the 
wings  of  the  steam-horse  from  my  mountain  country, 
and  shake  hands  with  the  people  of  the  Queen  City  of  the 
South,  and  look  out  upon  her  beautiful  harbor,  whitened 
with  the  canvass  of  a  thousand  merchantmen.  God 
grant  that  something  may  be  done  here.    God  grant 
that  the  evil  influences  which  have  hung  over  the  desti- 
nies of  the  State  may  be  removed,  and  that  Virginia  may 
be  what  Nature  and  Nature's  God  intended  her  to  be, 
the  keystone  of  the  arch  of  this  Union.    But  1  am  going 
from  the  question.    Yet,  if  I  am  following  the  prece- 
dent, in  the  latitude  given  the  debate  here,  I  have,  at 
least,  confined  myself  to  home,  and  not  travelled  over 
the  world,  and  the  "  rest  of  mankind,"  to  see  what  they 
have  done.    I  shall  not  be  driven  from  my  propriety,  or 
frightened  from  any  position  I  may  have  been  author- 
ised to  take  in  this  Convention  by  my  constituents,  by 
the  cry  of  reckless  innovation,  or  by  any  sneer  that  may 
be  made  at  the  capacity  of  the  people  for  self-govern- 
ment.   This  cry  of  reckless  innovation  has  been  heard 
whenever  an  effort  is  made  to  take  from  the  hands 
of  aristocratic  wealth  its  power,  and  distribute  it  among 
the  multitude.    It  will  always  be  heard  whenever  an 
effort  is  made  to  place  the  great  body  of  the  peo- 


182 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


pie  upon  a  platform  of  equality  with  the  better  informed 
of  the  country.  There  is  nothing  in  this  cry  of  reckless 
innovation.  The  whole  system  of  American  govern- 
ment is  an  innovation — a  reckless  innovation  on  the 
usages  of  former  times.  I  claim  that  no  harm  can  grow 
out  of  an  innovation  upon  the  principles  of  1776,  much 
less  of  1829  and  1830.  What  might  have  been  a  good 
constitution  in  1776  may  fall  short,  very  far  short  of  the 
demands  of  1851.  Your  government  itself  was  then  an 
untried  experiment,  and  your  fathers  launched  the  barque 
of  their  destiny  upon  the  ocean  of  experiment.  The 
government  they  formed  may  have  been  as  wise,  as 
good,  as  perfect  as  the  genius  of  man  could  have  formed, 
under  the  circumstances,  at  that  period;  but  that  govern- 
ment became  distasteful  to  the  people  of  Virginia  as 
early  as  1829  and  1830,  and  a  convention  was  called  for 
the  purpose  of  remodeling  it,  and  in  that  convention 
were  men  of  as  gr^t  wisdom  as  ever  graced  the  ros- 
trums in  this  country.  But  theirs  was  the  expiring  light 
of  genius.  The  sun  was  setting  with  most  of  the  great 
men  of  that  convention,  and  he  who  will  look  at  the  four- 
teenth section  of  the  constitution,  as  reported  by  that 
convention,  and  every  other  clause  upon  the  right  of 
suffrage,  cannot  reproach  me  for  saying  that  it  was  a 
perfect  failure,  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  It  was 
adopted  by  the  people  because  it  went  one  step  from 
aristocracy  to  republicanism.  But  there  has  gone  up 
from  the  land,  against  that  constitution,  during  the  last 
ten  years,  the  most  unceasing  complaint,  and  a  conven- 
tion was  demanded  ;  and  when  the  bill  calling  this  con- 
vention was  referred  to  them,  the  people  adopted  it  by  a 
majority  of  thousands.  For  the  purpose  of  reforming 
that  constitution  we  are  assembled  here  at  last — I  say 
sent  here  to  give  the  people  of  Virginia,  if  it  was  in  our 
power,  a  constitution  bearing  on  its  face  sweeping  and 
radical  reforms.  I  do  not  know  that  it  will  be  in  my 
power,  or  in  the  power  of  the  radicals  upon  the  floor  of 
this  Convention,  or  of  those  who  came  here  instructed 
how  to  act  on  the  questions  which  may  arise  here,  to  give 
the  people  such  a  constitution, as,  in  my  opinion,  they  de- 
sire and  demand.  But  I  do  know  that,  humble  as  I 
am,  I  can  do  here  as  I  promised  to  do  before  the  people, 
I  can  try  to  do  it. 

Mr.  FUQUA.  I  had  no  temper  to  engage  in  this  dis- 
cussion, and  I  should  have  been  content  to  have  given 
a  silent  vote,  but  for  the  allusion  which  my  honorable 
colleague  (Mr.  Hopkins)  thought  proper  to  make  to  the 
delegation  of  which  I  am  an  humble  member.  When 
this  question  was  sprung  upon  us,  I  thought  it  was  a 
simple  affair.  I  thought  it  was  of  but  little  consequence 
how  this  body  should  determine  the  question.  I  did 
not  see  how  it  was  a  matter  of  great  consequence 
whether  we  should  elect  a  chief  executive  officer  for  two 
terms  of  four  years,  and  render  him  ineligible  the  bal- 
ance of  his  life,  or  whether  we  should  elect  him  for  one 
term  of  four  years  out  of  eight  years,  or  whether  we 
should  elect  him  for  life,  by  terms.  I  could  not  see  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  any  consequence  ;  and  if  gentlemen 
who  started  this  discussion  will  pardon  me,  I  think  they 
were  raising  a  "  tempest  in  a  teapot."  But  grave  ques- 
tions have  been  brought  into  this  discussion.  And  I 
confess  that  the  gentlemen  who  occupy  the  position  as 
friends  of  the  proposition  of  the  distinguished  gentle- 
man from  Henrico,  have  got  the  "jockey  word"  upon 
us.  They  have  declared  that  our  purpose  is  to  trench 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  to  impose  limitations 
upon  the  sovereign  will.  I  had  a  choice,  I  admit,  be- 
tween these  propositions,  when  the  question  first  arose, 
but  it  never  occurred  to  me  that  while  I  was  making 
that  choice,  I  was  attacking  the  sovereignty  of  the  peo- 
ple. I  thought  that  my  aim — certainly  it  was  my  pur- 
pose— was  to  limit  the  eligibility  of  the  governor.  I 
thought  the  restriction  was  upon  the  office,  and  not  upon 
the  people,  and  I  think  so  still.  It  has  been  said  in  this 
debate,  and  said  truly,  that  all  power  resides  with  the 
people ;  but  it  is  as  arrant  an  abstraction,  to  my  mind, 
as  can  possibly  be  brought  to  bear  upon  any  discussion. 
Though  contained  in  the  bill  of  rights,  though  all  bow 


to  it,  it  is  an  arrant  abstraction,  which  cannot  be  reduced 
to  practice.  It  occurred  to  me  that  those  very  gentlemen 
were  thinking  about  majorities,  when  they  thought  and 
spoke  of  the  people.  I  said  it  was  true  as  an  abstraction, 
and  so  it  is.  Where  all  have  declared,  and  all  obey,  there 
is  no  appeal  from  what  the  sovereign  people  will.  You 
must  be  content  with  it,  because  all  have  so  declared. 
I  thought  I  saw  that  those  gentlemen,  who  have  so  of- 
ten repeated  this  abstract  principle,  were  thinking  of 
majorities,  and  I  have  no  question  that  every  gentleman 
on  this  floor  will  declare,  both  by  his  speeches  and  his 
votes,  hereafter,  that  this  is  an '  abstraction.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  an  abstraction.  And 
the  reiteration  of  this  principle,  if  it  has  done  nothing 
else,  has  produced  a  doubt  in  my  mind  whether  it  is  not 
better  to  have  no  bill  of  rights. 

I  said  that  I  preferred  one  of  the  propositions  before 
this  committee.  I  prefer  to  limit  the  eligibility  of  the 
officer.  I  then  am  favorable  to  the  proposition  which 
was  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  to 
limit  the  Governor  to  one  term  out  of  eight  years. 
That  is  the  proposition,  and  I  maintain  that  is  not  at- 
tacking the  rights  of  the  people.  When  I  am  called 
upon  to  abandon  a  principle — when  I  am  called  upon  to 
abandon  the  practice  of  my  fathers,  I  must  be  excused 
when  I  refuse,  unless  those  who  request  me  to  abandon 
those  principles,  or  that  practice,  can  show  me  that  it  is 
necessary  for  our  wea?l.  Is  it  important  to  this  old  Com- 
monwealth whether  this  "  automaton,"  as  my  friend  who 
has  just  preceded  me  (Mr.  Claiborne)  has  called  him,  is  in- 
eligible for  a  time  and  then  re  eligible  again  ?  I  say,  is  it  a 
matter  of  great  consequence?  What  are  his  powers? 
Why  ,  he  is,  I  am  told,  to  appoint  bank  directors,  to  com- 
mission judges  and  military  officers,  and  magistrates,  and 
appoint  visitors  to  the  several  public  institutions  of  the 
country  ;  and  in  time  of  war,  to  be  commander-in-chief 
of  all  our  forces.  I  hope  the  latter  power  will  never  be 
exercised.  I  hope  there  will  never  be  any  necessity  for 
it.  I  was  struck  with  the  view  submitted  by  my  col- 
league, that,  if  you  did  not  render  him  re-eligible,  some 
great  scheme,  some  great  system  that  he  has  supported 
and  desired  to  consummate,  is  to  fall.  Why,  what  is 
this  scheme  ?  I  was  trying  to  understand  the  ration- 
ale of  my  friend's  proposition,  and  it  occurred  to  me 
that  his  imagination  was,  in  some  degree,  diseased  by 
the  raw -head  and  bloody-bones,  presented  to  it  by 
the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Accomac,  through 
his  "  southern  demon."  It  might  have  occurred  to  my 
colleague  that  when  this  southern  demon  should  en- 
ter this  old  Commonwealth,  foreign  treaties  and  al- 
liances, or  something  of  that  kind,  would  be  necessa- 
ry for  its  preservation,  which  of  course  are  first  to  be 
put  on  foot  and  then  consummated.  I  trust  in  Heaven 
such  an  event  may  never  happen. 

But  we  are  called  upon  to  abandon  the  principles  and 
the  usages  of  our  forefathers — to  abandon  the  princi- 
ples upon  which  those  questions  have  rested,  because 
of  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  great  men  who  have  pre- 
ceded this  body.  We  have  been  pointed  to  the  occasion 
of  the  federal  convention,  and  to  the  example  of  Gen. 
Washington.  If  I  have  not  misread,  when  the  question 
of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  came  before  the  national  convention,  the  entire 
delegation  from  Virginia  went  against  the  re-eligibility. 
It  is  true,  when  the  question  came  up  thereafter,  that 
they  went  for  striking  out  the  proposition  for  the  ineli- 
gibility of  the  President,  but  what  motive  was  it  that 
induced  many  in  that  convention  to  strike  out  this 
clause  of  ineligibility  ?  I  ask  if  it  was  not  because  it 
would  render  the  executive  stronger  ?  Governeur  Mor- 
ris went  for  the  re-eligibility  upon  the  ground  that  it 
would  make  him  stronger  than  would  ineligibility .  It 
was  for  that  reason  that  he  went  for  striking  out  of  the 
constitution  the  ineligibility  of  the  President,  after 
seven  years.  Wrell,  Mr.  Jefferson  has  been  quoted  by 
my  colleague,  and  I  must  be  pardoned  for  saying  that, 
if  what  Mr.  Jefferson  did  is  any  evidence  of  what  he 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


179 


against  this  assault.  I  beg  leave  to  say  to  these  gentle- 
men that  I  claim  to  be  one  of  the  people,  identified 
with  them  in  interest,  and  I  trust,  in  opinion,  and  I  beg 
leave  to  say  also,  that  I  regard  the  propo-ed  limitation 
as  no  assault  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  at  all.  I 
am  in  favor  of  all  just  limitations,  and  the  question 
which  I  propound  to  myself  whenever  one  is  proposed, 
is,  is  it  expedient  or  not  ?  It  cannot  be  tortured  into  a 
question  of  popular  sovereignty.  We  are  suggesting  a 
form  of  government  for  the  approval  of  the  people.  We 
have  not  the  power  to  impose  a  limitation  upon  them. 
And.  it  is  for  them  to  say  whether  it  is  expedient  to 
adopt  this  limitation  upon  their  own  powers.  This  is 
the  view  which  I  take  of  it,  and  therefore  I  have  no 
sympathy  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  gentlemen 
of  Henrico  and  Accomac.  But  while  this  is  my  opinion 
of  the  general  views  of  the  advocates  of  the  present  re- 
striction, I  am  nevertheless  bound  to  act  with  them  on 
this  occasion,  because  I  cannot  concur  with  my  friends 
in  the  propriety  of  this  restriction.  I  have  no  confidence 
in  the  infallibility  of  the  people.  None  whatever.  Yet 
I  do  believe  them  entirely  competent  to  elect,  and  re- 
elect a  Governor,  unaffected  by  his  official  influence  ;  and 
I  believe,  as  I  have  said,  the  influence  upon  the  incum- 
bent will  be  wholesome. 

My  object  is  accomplished  in  thus  defining  my  position. 
I  do  not  propose  to  meet  the  arguments  which  have  been 
submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  committee.  I  felt 
it  to  be  due  to  myself  to  make  this  explanation,  because 
I  stand  alone  in  my  delegation,  and  opposed  to  those 
with  whom  I  usually  act,  and  for  whose  views  I  enter- 
tain a  profound  respect.  It  is  further  proper,  because 
while  this  precise  question  was  not  discussed  in  my  dis- 
trict, there  was  a  discussion  upon  the  re-eligibility  of 
the  circuit  judges,  and  I  placed  my  views  distinctly  be- 
fore the  people  in  favor  of  re-eligibility.  It  does  occur 
to  me,  that  if  re-eligibility  be  right  in  respect  to  the 
circuit  judges,  it  is  a  fortiori  right  as  applied  to  the 
Governor.  The  first  is  a  judicial,  and  the  last  a  politi- 
cal offi.ce.  I  cannot  involve  myself  in  such  an  inconsis- 
tency, much  as  I  am  willing  to  defer  to  the  opinions  of 
my  colleagues  and  of  other  friends. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  If  I  had  any  idea  that  a  majori- 
ty of  the  committee  desired  to  vote  upon  this  question 
now,  I  would  not  make  the  motion  that  I  now  do ;  but, 
believing  that  a  majority  of  the  committee  are  not  wil- 
ling to  vote  upon  the  question  at  this  time,  I  move  that 
the  committee  rise. 

The  committee  accordingly  rose,  and, 

On  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  until  Monday 
at  11  o'clock,  A.  M. 


MONDAY,  February  10,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly,  of  the  Baptist  church. 
The  journal  of  Saturday  was  read  by  the  Secre- 
tary. 

proposition  in  relation  to  the  legislative  department. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  had  the  honor  on  Saturday  last  to 
present  a  report  to  the  Convention  from  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department.  On  that  occasion  I  had 
the  happiness  to  s:ate  to  the  House  that  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  committee  had  been  conducted  with  harmo- 
ny and  good  feeling  among  its  members.  I  have  to  re- 
gret that  their  proceedings  have  not  been  marked  with 
unanimity.  There  were  several  very  interesting  sub- 
jects referred  to  the  committee,  upon  which  there  was 
a  diversity  of  sentiment,  and  among  them,  the  great 
subjects  of  taxation,  and  providing  for  the  future  ex- 
tinguishment, or  at  least,  diminution,  of  the  public  debt. 
On  these  subjects,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  there 
was  considerable  difference  of  opinion,  and  it  is  my 
misfortune  to  differ  from  the  majority  of  the  committee 
with  regard  to  that.  I  have  felt  it  a  duty  which  I  owe 
to  my  constituents  and  the  citizens  of  the  Common- 
wealth, in  relation  to  this  subject,  to  throw  my  opinions 


into  the  form  of  amendments  which  I  intend  to  offer  to 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  proper  occasion.  I 
submit  them  now,  and  ask  that  they  may  be  laid  on  the 
table  and  printed  for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  proposition  is  as  follows  : 

PRIVILEGES  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

At  the  end  of  the  clause  requiring  a  journal  to  be 
kept,  add' 

"  And  one-tenth  part  of  the  members  present,  shall 
have  a  right  to  require  that  the  vote  on  any  question  be 
taken  by  ayes  and  noes,  and  entered  on  the  journal." 

"  Each  House  may  punish  by  imprisonment  any  per- 
son, not  a  member  of  either  House,  for  disrespectful 
and  disorderly  behavior  in  its  presence,  or  for  obstruct- 
ing the  business.  Such  imprisonment  shall  not  exceed 
ten  days  for  any  one  offence." 

"  The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall,  in  all 
cases,  except  treason,  felony,  and  breach  of  the  peace, 
be  privileged  from  arrest  during  their  attendance  at 
the  sessions  of  their  respective  houses  ;  and  going  to 
or  returning  from  the  same ;  and  for  any  speech  or  de- 
bate in  either  house,  they  shallnotbe  questioned  in  any 
other  place." 

"  No  bill  shall  have  the  force  of  law,  until,  on  three 
several  days,  it  be  read  over  in  each  House  of  Assem- 
bly, and  free  discussion  allowed  thereon  ;  unless  in  case 
of  emergency,  if  the  House,  where  the  bill  shall  be 
pending,  may  deem  it  expedient  to  dispense  with  this 
rule." 

TAXATION. 

Strike  out  the  first  and  second  clauses  of  the  article 
on  taxation,  and  insert — 

"  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to  lay  and 
collect  a  capitation  tax — tax  on  property,  tax  on  income, 
and  salaries,  licenses,  law  process  and  notarial  seals." 

PUBLIC  INDEBTEDNESS,  AC. 

Strike  out  the  article  providing  for  the  creation  of  a 
sinking  fund,  and  insert — 

"  There  shall  be  set  apart  annually,  by  law,  from  the 
revenues  of  the  Commonwealth,  a  sum  equal  to  seven 
per  cent,  of  the  State  debt  existing  on  the  1st  day  of 
January,  1852,  which  shall  be  applied  annually  to  the 
payment  of  the  interest  on  the  State  debt  and  of  such 
part  of  the  principal  as  may  be  redeemable.  If  there 
be  no  part  of  the  State  debt  redeemable,  so  much  of  the 
sum  thus  set  apart  as  shall  remain  after  the  payment 
of  the  annual  interest,  shall  be  applied  to  the  purchase 
of  bonds  or  certificates  of  debt  of  the  Commonwealth. " 

"  All  bonds  and  certificates  of  debts  redeemed  or  pur- 
chased as  aforesaid,  shall  cease  to  bear  interest  on  the 
day  of  such  purchase,  payment  or  redemption,  and 
shall  be  regularly  destroyed  by  the' Governor  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  General  Assembly,  at  the  first  session  which 
shall  be  holden  after  the  purchase,  payment  or  redemp- 
tion of  such  bond  or  certificate  of  debt." 

"  Whenever,  after  the  1st  day  of  January,  1852,  a 
law  shall  be  passed  authorising  the  creation  of  a  public 
debt,  it  shall  be  provided  in  the  same  act  that  a  sum  of 
money  shall  be  set  apart  annually  from  the  revenues  of 
the  Commonwealth,  equal  to  eight  per  cent,  on  the 
amount  of  the  said  debt,  which  shall  be  applied  annual- 
ly towards  the  payment  of  the  interest  and  principal 
of  the  debt  authorised  by  the  act,  until  the  entire  debt 
shall  be  paid,  at  which  time  the  provision  for  raising 
the  said  sum  of  eight  per  cent,  shall  expire." 

"  The  Legislature  shall  pass  all  laws  necessary  to 
carry  into  effect  the  foreg©ing  provisions  of  this  article." 

"  The  General  Assembly  shall  not  contract  loans  or 
cause  to  be  issued  bonds  or  certificates  of  debt,  which 
shall  be  irredeemable  for  a  term  longer  than  twenty- 
four  years,  and  all  bonds,  or  certificates  of  debt,  which 
shall  be  issued  hereafter,  shall  contain  a  stipulation  that 
the  holders  shall  accept  of  payments  in  conformity  with 
the  provisions  of  this  article." 

"  The  faith  of  the  State  shall  not  be  pledged  in  any 


180 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


form  for  the  debts,  obligations,  or  liabilities  of  any  in- 
dividual, joint  stock  company,  or  corporation." 

"  No  law  enlarging  the  debt  shall  take  effect  and  be 
put  into  execution  until  after  its  enactment  by  the  first 
Legislature  returned  by  a  general  election  after  its  pass- 
age." 

"  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to  autho- 
rise the  counties,  cities  and  incorporated  towns  to  im- 
pose taxes  for  county  and  corporation  purposes  ;  buf  no 
county,  city  or  incorporated  town  shall  borrow  money 
or  contract  a  debt  to  run  more  than  one  year,  until  such 
measure  shall  have  been  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of 
all  the  holders  of  real  estate  in  such  county,  city  or  cor- 
poration." 

The  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment have  had  under  consideration  various  resolu- 
tions, to  them  referred,  from  the  further  consideration 
of  which  they  ask  to  be  discharged  ;  to  wit :  of  a  memo- 
rial of  citizens  of  Jefferson  and  Rockbridge  counties, 
praying  the  removal  of  free  negroes  from  the  Common- 
wealth, and  from  the  following  resolutions,  viz: 

Resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Whittle,  Mr.  Botts  and 
Mr.  Lyons,  respectively,  on  the  29th  of  October,  rela- 
ting to  the  removal  of  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  ;  res- 
olutions offered  by  Mr.  Camden  and  Mr.  Straughan,  re- 
spectively, on  the  28th  of  October,  in  relation  to  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Senate,  the  term  of  the  Senatorial  ten- 
ure, and  the  times  of  meeting  of  the  Senate  ;  a  resolu- 
tion by  Mr.  Carlile,  offered  on  the  28th  of  October,  in 
relation  to  the  formation  of  new  counties,  and  of  taking 
the  census  of  the  State  in  1855,  and  every  ten  years 
thereafter;  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Johnson,  offered  on  the 
28th  of  October,  in  relation  to  the  organization  of  a 
Board  of  Public  Works  ;  and  a  resolution  offered  by  Mr. 
Muscoe  Garnett,  on  the  30th  of  October,  in  relation 
to  lucrative  offices,  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  priests. 

All  of  these  subjects  being  embraced  substantially  in 
the  general  report,  the  committee  deem  it  unnecessary 
to  take  separate  action  on  these  particular  resolutions, 
and  have  instructed  me  to  ask  to  be  discharged  from 
their  further  consideration. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly discharged. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  BLUE,  the  Convention  resolved  it- 
self into  committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  Watts,  of 
Norfolk  county,  in  the  chair,  on  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Executive  Department. 

re-eligibility  of  the  governor. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first 
clause  of  the  first  article  of  the  report  and  the  amend- 
ments pending  thereto. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  presume  that  the  slimness  of 
the  congregation  at  this  early  hour  will  justify  me  in 
addressing  the  committee  for  a  few  moments,  without 
any  apology.  The  importance  that  has  been  given  to 
the  question  under  consideration,  and  my  connection 
with  the  Executive  Committee,  will,  I  hope,  justify 
me  for  trespassing  upon  the  patience  of  the  commit- 
tee, I  fear,  already  exhausted  by  the  endless  debate  on 
this  subject.  It  has  been  my  fortune  to  study  the  sci- 
ence of  government  only  in  the  history  of  my  own 
country.  Instead  of  looking  back  to  the  mutilated  col- 
umns of  Athens  and  of  Sparta  for  examples,  I  have 
sought  them  in  the  giant  strides  of  our  sister  States  in 
the  West.  When  I  first  entered  the  political  arena, 
but  a  few  years  back,  I  attempted  to  banish  from  my 
mind  the  obsolete  ideas  of  the  past,  and  I  have  sought 
for  information  in  the  practical  experience  ef  the  pres- 
ent. My  first  appearance  before  my  countrymen  was 
as  an  advocate  of  a  constitutional  convention  for  re- 
form ;  and  whilst  I  claim  to  entertain  as  great  a  re- 
spect for  the  suggestions  of  the  legislature  that  adopt- 1 


ed  the  original  Constitution  of  Virginia,  and  justly  to 
appreciate  the  wisdom  of  a  few  of  the  delegates  that 
figured  in  the  Convention  of  '29  and  '30,  I  am  bound 
to  believe  that 'the  Constitution  as  it  exists  is  directly 
at  war  with  the  true  spirit  of  democratic  republicanism, 
and  decidedly  unfit  for  the  age  in  which  we  live.  It 
was  not  my  fortune,  like  my  friend  from  Petersburg, 
(Mr.  Rives,)  and  various  other  gentlemen  here,  to  print 
and  circulate  in  my  district  a  written  address,  but  I  pub- 
lished my  views  and  sentiments  from  every  rostrum  in 
the  district  when  I  went  into  the  canvass  for  the  elec- 
tion of  delegates  to  this  Convention  ;  and  I  am  here 
to  stamp  them  by  my  votes  on  every  page  in  your  jour- 
nal. I  belong  to  that  party  on  this  floor,  who  are  de- 
nominated radicals,  and  if  I  understand  the  meaning  of 
the  term,  and  I  think  Ido,  I  glory  in  the  ultraism  of  rad- 
icalism. 

I  voted  in  the  Executive  Committee  for  the  proposi- 
tion now  under  consideration,  offered  in  this  Conven- 
tion, by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  ;  and  I  gave  that 
vote  in  accordance  with  a  pledge  I  made  to  the  people 
of  my  district.  I  will  not  say  that  I  argued  and  dis- 
cussed before  the  people  this  particular  question  ;  but  I 
pledged  myself  to  go  for  re-eligibility  in  every  office  in 
the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia.  I  put  that  vote  on  the 
very  ground  that  one  of  the  highest  inducements  you 
can  hold  out  to  a  man  in  office  to  be  honest,  faithful, 
and  industrious  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  of- 
fice, was  the  hope  of  re-election.  When  this  question 
was  first  agitated  in  this  body,  I  was  a  patient  listener 
to  the  distinguished  gentlemen  who  have  taken  the 
ground  of  opposition  to  re-eligibility.  I  waited  to  hear 
some  plausible  argument  presented  on  that  side  of  the 
question  ;  and  I  propose,  for  a  few  moments,  to  exam- 
ine the  arguments  that  have  been  made  against  that 
proposition,  and  to  ascertain  if  those  arguments  will 
justify  this  Convention  in  restricting  the  powers  of  the 
sovereign  people.  Among  other  things,  it  has  been 
charged  here,  and  I  have  heard  the  cry  outside  of  the 
walls  of  this  house,  and  before  I  was  a  member  of  this 
Convention,  that  it  is  ranging  from  the  wise  principles 
laid  down  in  the  old  Constitution,  in  reference  to  this 
question,  and  is  one  of  the  dangerous  innovations  of  the 
day.  This  cry  of  innovation  is  no  new  one.  In  days 
gone  by,  when  the  manwhoseburningeloquen.ee  roused 
a  continent  to  arms,  was  stirring  the  House  of  Burgess- 
es of  Virginia  by  his  passionate  appeals  for  innovations 
in  favor  of  popular  rights,  there  was  heard  from  every 
quarter  the  cry  of  "treason  !  treason  !  "  Patrick  Henry 
was  a  radical.  He  was,  to  use  the  language  of  my 
friend  from  Accomac,  an  "infinite  radical."  I  have 
the  honor  in  part  to  represent  two  counties  in  this  Con- 
vention, one  of  which  bears  his  name,  and  if  my  hum- 
ble efforts  to  defeat  every  proposition  intended  to  restrict 
the  privileges  and  powers  of  the  people,  brand  me  as 
being  such  a  radical  and  innovator,  I  plead  guilty  to 
the  charge,  and  let  him  who  may  desire,  make  the  most 
of  it. 

The  main  arguments  upon  which  those  who  oppose 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  depend, 
is  that  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  if  he  shall  be  re-eligi- 
ble, will  become  corrupt,  and  that  he  will  use  the  pow- 
ers of  the  gubernatorial  office  to  secure  his  re-election. 
Now,  if  there  is  anything  in  this  argument,~T  contend 
that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  capacity  of  man  for  self- 
government  falls,  and  this  Convention  ought  not  to  have 
been  called.  If  the  corruption  and  abuses  of  power  by 
the  governor  while  in  office  is  to  have  any  effect  upon 
the  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  so  as  to  secure  his 
re-election  against  all  opposition,  then  I  say  the  people 
of  Virginia  are  incapable  of  self-government,  and  we 
should  stop  here  before  we  trust  them  with  more  power 
than  they  possess.under  the  constitution  as  it  is.  But  I 
deny  that  the  people  will  be  influenced  by  any  such 
causes,  by  any  such* corrupt  discharge  of  duty  on  the 
part  of  the  Governor,  or  that  he  can  possibly  secure  his 
re-election  by  a  resort  to  such  means  when  in  office. 
What  are  the  mighty  powers  of  the  Governor  of  Virgi- 
nia?  If  I  ever  heard  of  a  body  that  were  prepared  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


183 


thought — and  I  hare  no  doubt  he  never  said  anything 
that  he  did  not  think — if  what  he  has  written  is  any 
evidence  of  what  he  thought,  an  argument  sustained 
by  his  opinions  would  be  directly  against  that  ad- 
vanced by  my  colleague.  What  did  Mr.  Jefferson  de- 
clare, not  declare  merely,  but  what  did  he  arrange  and 
intend  to  propose  to  the  convention  to  be  held  at  the 
period  at  which  that  writing  took  place?  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, in  1*783,  prepared  a  projet  of  a  constitution  to  be 
submitted  to  the  convention,  should  it  be  held,  in  re- 
spect to  the  executive  officer,  which  is  as  follows : 

"The  executive  power  shall  be  exercised  by  a 
Governor,  who  shall  be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  of  both 
houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  when  chosen  shall 
remain  in  office  five  years,  and  be  ineligible  a  second 
time." 

This  was  not  a  letter,  not  a  mere  effusion  to  a  friend, 
but  it  was  the  deliberate  judgment  of  Mr,  Jefferson,  in 
reference  to  this  question  of  ineligibility  in  1783.  It 
is  to  be  found  in  his  notes  on  Virginia.  That  was  the 
deliberate  conviction  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind  in  1783. 
"What  do  we  hear  from  him  afterwards  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  re -eligibility  of  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the 
United  States  ?  He  had  the  subject  as  much  at  heart  as 
when  a  constitution  was  proposed  for  Virginia  in  1783. 
What  did  he  say  then,  with  reference  to  this  re-eligibili- 
ty of  the  President  ?  In  the  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  da- 
ted December  20,  1787,  he  uses  this  language  ;  I  quote 
from  thce^cond  volume  of  his  correspondence,  page  274, 
as  folkrj-Q — 

"  The  tvcond  feature  I  dislike,  and  strongly  dislike, 
is  the  abandonment  in  every  instance  of  the  princi- 
ple of  rotation  in  office,  and  most  particularly  in  the 
case  of  the  President.  Reason  and  experience  tell 
us  that  the  first  magistrate  will  always  be  re-elected 
if  he  may  be  re-elected.  He  is  thus  an  officer  for  life. 
This  once  observed,  it  becomes  of  so  much  consequence 
to  certain  nations  to  have  a  friend  or  a  foe  at  the  head 
of  our  affaiis,  that  they  will  interfere  with  money  and 
arms." 

This  was  what  he  said  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison.  In 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Hopkins,  dated  March  13,  1789,  his 
language  in  reference  to  the  subject  is  this :  I  quote 
from  page  489,  of  the  same  volume — "  I  disapprove  also 
of  a  perpetual  re-eligibility  of  the  President."  Now,  so 
far  as  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions  can  influence  this  commu- 
nity, and  so  far  as  his  opinions,  well  settled  and  con- 
sidered, can  influence  my  colleague,  they  are  of  a  char- 
acter that  should  induce  him  to  go  for  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania.  The  action  of  the 
last  convention  has  been  referred  to — or  rather  the  ac- 
tion of  the  distinguished  western  gentleman  in  that  con- 
vention— by  my  colleague,  which  I  must  take  the  liberty 
of  saying,  does  not  sustain  his  position  in  any  shape'or 
form.  It  did  seem  to  me,  with  due  respect  to  my  col- 
league, that  it  was  beside  the  question  altogether.  And 
he  referred  to  Mr.  Monroe's  opinion,  as  expressed  in  re- 
ference to  the  re- eligibility  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  convention  of  Virginia,  called  for  the  rati- 
fication of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  will 
bring  him  nearer  home,  and  show  him  what  Mr.  Monroe's 
opinion  was  in  reference  to  this  identical  question,  in 
the  convention  of  1829  and  1830.  I  do  not  mean  to  worry 
the  committee  by  referring  to  authorities.  Mr.  Monroe, 
in  giving  his  views  upon  this  identical  question,  in  the 
convention  of  1829  and  1830,  uses  this  emphatic  lan- 
guage, which  will  be  found  by  reference  to  the  debates 
of  this  convention,  page  482  : 

M  As  to  the  power  the  chief  magistrate  ought  to  pos- 
sess, it  is  another  question.  Whether  he  ought  to  have 
the  power  of  appointment  is  a  matter  that  hangs  on  oth- 
er considerations.  Be  his  election  by  whom  it  may, 
my  opinion  is,  that  he  should  hold  his  office  for  one  term 
only.  Then  he  is  made  independent.  He  serves  his 
one  term  and  retires.  No  selfish  motives  can  operate 
upon  him." 

I  might  go  on  to  show  that  the  distinguished  western  | 


gentleman,  to  whom  my  colleague  referred,  when  he 
favored  the  proposition  to  which  my  colleague  referred, 
and  upon  which  he  based  his  belief  that  Mr.  Doddridge 
was  in  favor  of  re-eligibility — that  the  only  object  the 
mover  had,  was  to  bring  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
legislature  should  elect  the  governor,  or  whether  he 
should  be  elected  by  the  people,  beforethat  convention. 
That  Avas  the  only  question,  I  presume,  which  operated 
on  the  mind  of  Mr.  Doddridge  at  the  time  he  offered 
the  resolution  referred  to  by  my  colleague  ;  which  was, 
with  the  exception  that  blanks  were  left  for  the  term 
for  which  he  should  be  elected,  and  a  blank  as  to  the 
number  of  years  he  should  be  ineligible,  the  very  prop- 
osition, filled  with  the  word  "  four,"  that  is  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  as  modified  by  my 
friend  from  Appomattox.  So  much  for  these  authori- 
ties. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  purification 
which  electioneering  is  to  produce.  That  may  be — I 
do  not  pretend  to  have  sufficient  experience  to  say  that 
such  will  not  be  the  case — but  I  have  learned  that  which 
I  believe  in  a  majority  of  cases  to  be  true,  that  the  way 
of  public  life  is  dirty.  So  far  as  my  experience  goes, 
— limited  as  I  concede  it  to  be, — I  have  not  yet  found 
the  fumigation  of  the  electioneering  canvass  so  very 
purifying.  I  tried  to  be  honest — I  tried  to  discard  hy- 
pocrisy and  duplicity.  I  hope  I  did.  I  designed  to  do  it. 
But  I  must  repeat  again,  that  the  path  of  public  life, 
according  to  my  experience,  is  a  dirty  one.  Am  I  no 
democrat,  because  I  utter  the  opinions  I  have  ?  I  sup- 
pose I  shall  be  read  out  of  the  church  by  the  distinguish- 
ed high  priest  per  se,  who  has  lately  been  installed,  and 
takes  the  chief  seat  in  the  political  synagogue. 

I  have  been  a  democrat  all  my  life.  I  am  a  demo- 
crat, not  for  getting  into  office.  I  am  a  democrat  be- 
cause I  believe  all  the  principles  of  democracy  are  right ; 
and  whether  I  am  read  out  of  the  church  or  no,  I  shall 
continue  to  regard  those  principles  as  right,  and  shall 
always  act  upon  them.  But  while  I  am  a  democrat,  I 
am  no  infinite  radical.  I  have  no  ultra  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  reform,  such  as  have  been  expressed  upon 
this  floor,  and  I  trust  I  shall  be  excused  by  my  distin- 
guished friend  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,) — if  he  will 
allow  me  the  privilege  of  so  calling  him — for  asking  him 
to  pause,  if  not  for  those  who  are  to  go  after  him,  at  least 
for  the  sake  of  his  own  fame,  before  he  topples  down 
the  main  pillars  of  this  temple  in  which  we  have  been 
so  long  accustomed  to  worship,  and  so  harmoniously, 
and  with  such  brotherly  affection.  I  say  that  I  hope  I 
may  be  excused  for  calling  on  him  to  pause  before  he 
lends  the  aid  of  his  name  and  influence  to  an  unholy 
work — he  will  excuse  me  for  so  characterising  it. 

Now,  I  am  going  at  the  officer.  I  thought  these  gen- 
tlemen— some  of  them  at  least — were  pledged  to  go  for 
all  sorts  of  limitations  and  restrictions  upon  the  agents 
of  the  people.  I  am  for  restricting  the  public  agent, 
and  I  wish  to  make  him  what  I  think  he  ought  to  be. 
I  do  not  desire  temptation  to  be  placed  before  him,  nor 
see  him  descend  to  the  petty  intrigues  of  office  to  be 
retained.  How  is  this  an  attack  upon  popular  rights  ? 
These  gentlemen  instead  of  going  for  any  of  the  prop- 
ositions that  are  before  the  committee,  ought  to  go  for 
a  provision  in  the  constitution  that  the  executive  offi- 
cer shall  hold  his  office  during  the  will  and  pleasure  of 
the  people.  Why  do  gentlemen  propose  to  limit  him 
for  a  term  of  four  years  ?  Are  not  the  hands  of  the 
people  as  effectually  tied  for  that  four  years  as  if 
you  were  to  say  that  he  should  go  out  at  the  end  of 
his  term,  and  they  should  select  another,  and  for  that 
four  years  their  hands  be  tied  in  reference  to  him  ?  Let 
us  hear  what  fractional  part  of  a  right  do  we  infringe 
upon  by  going  for  the  ineligibility  after  one  term  of  four 
years.  I  presume  there  are  some  ninety  or  one  hun- 
dred thousand  voters  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia. 
If  we  are  to  take  the  proposition  which  has  been  made 
by  the  committee  on  the  right  of  suffrage  and  incorpo- 
rate it  into  the  constitution,  it  will  add,  at  least,  some 
twenty  or  thirty  thousand  more  to  the  list  of  voters. 
Now,  where  is  a  man  out  of  all  this  number,  save  and 


184 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


except  the  portion  to  whom  I  shall  presently  refer,  who 
for  four  years  the  people  cannot  select  ?  Now  I  should 
like  to  see  those  gentlemen  who  are  great  at  figures  make 
the  calculation,  and  ascertain  what  fractional  part  of  a 
right  we  trench  upon  hy  thus  attempting  to  limit  this 
executive  eligibility.  I  am  somewhat  astonished  that 
these  gentlemen,  who  are  the  safeguards  of  the  people, 
par  excellence,  did  not  raise  up  their  hands  in  holy  hor- 
ror when  it  was  reported  that  the  people  should  not 
elect  to  this  office  an  individual  in  this  Commonwealth 
between  the  ages  of  twenty-one  and  thirty.  By  that 
restriction,  I  suppose,  at  least  one-half  of  the  voters 
of  this  Commonwealth  are  cut  off.  And,  yet,  we  have 
had  a  discussion  of  some  ten  days  because  it  is  propos- 
ed that  one  of  the  citizens  shall  be  ineligible  for  four 
years  1 

It  has  been  held  that  you  ought  to  make  the  Governor 
re-eligible  in  all  time  to  come,  because  it  is  necessary 
that  he  should  be  responsible  to  the  people.  Now  I  have 
not  considered  this  as  a  means  of  making  him  responsible 
to  the  people.  Why,  suppose  he  should  say  he  would 
not  be  a  candidate — do  you  mean  to  insert  a  provision  in 
the  constitution  that  he  shall  be  a  candidate  for  a  second 
term  ?  But  suppose  he  should  be  a  candidate,  and  should 
want  to  remain  in  office  as  long  as  he  can?  The  gentleman 
will  tell  me  that  the  approbation  and  the  approval  of  his 
official  course  would  be  what  he  desires  by  are-election. 
I  think,  with  due  deference  to  those  with  whom  I  differ, 
that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania 
secures  that  thing  in  a  more  eligible  form  than  any  which 
has  yet  been  submitted  to  this  Convention.  Why,  if  a 
Governor  is  in  for  four  years,  and  out  for  four  years,  it 
gives  the  people  an  opportunity  to  examine  his  conduct 
deliberately  and  calmly.  It  gives  them  an  opportunity 
not  only  to  weigh  it  well  in  their  consideration,  but  to  see 
the  practical  working  of  his  conduct  ;  and  if  he  has  been 
this  good  officer,  this  man  of  integrity,  this  man  of  emi- 
nent ability,  they  will  feel  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  such  a 
man,  and  when  the  ineligibility  shall  be  removed,  at  the 
end  of  four  years,  they  will  re-instate  him  in  the  per- 
formance of  those  duties  which  he  before  was  faithful 
in  discharging.  It  is,  I  say,  the  best  and  most  eligible 
mode  by  which  the  public  approbation  can  be  attained. 
Let  us  look  at  the  workings  of  a  rule  of  re-eligibility, 
where  it  has  been  adopted.  Let  us  look  at  the  Northern 
States — how  has  it  worked  there?  Why,  when  the  Gov- 
ernor's term  of  office  is  out  he  goes  out  of  it  ;  and,  in- 
stead of  the  approbation  of  faithful  conduct  which  these 
gentlemen  have  looked  to  see, — instead  of  that  respon- 
sibility to  the  people  to  which  they  have  referred  so  of- 
ten,— why,  he  goes  out  as  a  matter  .of  course,  by  general 
understanding,  as  I  am  informed.  Well,  do  you  want 
this  in  Virginia?  Do  you  want  a  man,  the  incumbent  of 
an  office,  the  duties  of  which,  he  has  faithfully  execu- 
ted, ejected  and  mortified,  and  perhaps  disgusted  ;  and 
all  that  without  cause  ;  because,  if  we  adopt  the  other 
principle,  he  goes  out  any  how.  If  we  suppose  that  the 
Governor  desires  to  be  elected  a  second  time,  it  is  not 
because  he  desires  responsibility  before  the  people  ;  but 
if  we  know  the  human  heart,  because  he  desires  office 
again,  or  desires  to  continue  in  the  office  to  which  proba- 
bly he  may  have  become  partial  during  the  time  he  has 
been  in  office.  Well,  if  we  are  to  elect  to  the  same  office 
the  same  individual,  if  he  is  anxious  to  remain  in  his 
office,  will  not  his  official  duties  be  performed  in  refer- 
ence to  his  getting  in  a  second  term  ?  He  will  so  dis- 
charge his  official  duties  as  to  secure  his  re-election,  that 
is,  if  he  desires  to  remain  a  second  term.  Instead  of 
looking  to  the  public  good,  recommending  such  measures 
as,  in  his  best  judgment,  the  interests  of  the  public 
weal  demand,  he  will  be  seeking  to  get  votes,  and  to  pro- 
mote his  re-election.  I  desire  that  this  chief  executive 
officer  shall  be  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  and  not  the 
tool  of  a  party. 

But  we  are  told  that  if  you  do  not  go  for  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  Governor,  you  cannot  go  for  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  Judges  ;  and  if  you  do  go  for  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  Governor,  you  must  go  for  the  re-eligibility 
of  the  Judges.    Does  this  follow  ?  Though  I  shall  go  for 


fixing  the  ineligibility  of  the  Governor,  I  claim  to  be  as 
free  as  air  upon  the  question  of  the  ineligibility  or  re- 
eligibility  of  the  Judges.  Gentlemen  appear  not  to  see  a 
distinction  between  these  two  offices.  For  the  Governor, 
you  have  the  entire  limits  of  the  Commonwealth  to  range 
in  your  selection.  Is  it  so  in  reference  to  the  Judges? 
Why,  do  you  not,  according  to  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee, confine  their  selection  to  districts?  Is  there  not  some 
reason,  then,  why  we  may  go  against  the  re-eligibility 
of  the  Governor,  and  not  against  the  re-eligibility  of 
the  Judges  ?  It  appears  to  me  the  questions  are  totally 
separate  and  distinct.  Are  we  to  tear  down  some  of  the 
pillars  of  this — I  will  not  say  good  old  constitution  ;  be- 
cause many  parts  of  it  are  extremely  objectionable  to 
me — but  are  we  to  lay  the  reckless  hand  of  vandalism 
upon  what  is  valuable  in  it  ?  If  that  be  the  feelings  and 
desires  of  any  friend  of  mine — if  he  desires  to  strike 
from  our  constitution  those  vital  portions  which  gave 
strength  and  form,  and  efficacy  to  that  instrument,  he 
will  pardon  me  when  I  say  I  cannot  go  with  him.  I 
will  march  side  by  side  with  my  friend  from  Accomac 
in  all  judicious  reforms,  and  by  judicious  reforms  I  do 
not  understand  what  some  do  by  judicious  tariffs,  and 
who  are  ready  to  go  for  the  highest  tariff  that  any  body 
wants,  or  all  the  reforms  that  any  body  may  desire. 
That  is  not  my  position.  I  am  here  to  go  for  such  re- 
forms as  the  state  of  society  demands,  and  such  reforms 
as  the  people  in  my  part  of  the  country  call  for.  Have 
we  not  already  advanced  in  the  cause  of  ref  orm  ?  Do 
we  not  propose  to  restore  to  the  people  thef  f  right  of 
electing  the  Governor?  And  is  not  that  a  which 
the  people  require  ?  But  I  deny,  so  far  as  myf16eople  are 
concerned,  that  they  have  said  that  1  shall  render  him 
re-eligible. 

The  gentleman  from  Accomac,  the  other  day,  seemed 
to  think  that  he  did  most  satisfactorily  answer  the  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Mere- 
dith,) when  he  said  if  you  do  not  render  him  re-eligible 
he  might  so  manage  it  in  the  office  of  Governor  as  to  se- 
cure his  election  by  his  party  in  the  legislature  to  the 
office  of  Senator  of  the  United  States.  Well,  if  he 
is  after  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  gentle- 
man will  pardon  me  for  saying,  that  he  will  use  the 
same  means  to  get  there  whether  he  is  re-eligible  or 
not.  He  will  pardon  me  for  saying,  that  those  whose 
duty  it  will  be  to  elect  a  Senator  of  the  United  States, 
will  not  only  have  these  means  and  appliances  brought 
into  use,  but  will  have  the  same  inducements  to  send 
him  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  if  he  is  re- 
eligible. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  do  not  think  the  gentleman  precisely 
apprehends  my  position.  Certainly  he  does  not  apply  it 
to  the  argument  either  as  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richmond,  or  the  argument  which  I  made  on  the  ques- 
tion of  re-eligibility.  I  did  not  understand  the  objection 
to  be  that,  the  gentleman  who  was  ineligible  for  Gov- 
ernor, might  electioneer  or  prostitute  his  office  for  a  seat 
in  the  United  States  Senate,  or  any  other  office.  My 
friend  will  remember  that  the  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Richmond  was  this  :  that  the  capacity  to  be 
re-elected  to  the  office  of  Governor,  was  a  temptation 
to  the  incumbent  to  prostitute  his  office.  I,  in  reply, 
said  that  it  was  re-eligibility  that  would  put  the  incum- 
bent on  his  good  behavior.  He,  in  reply  to  that,  said 
that  there  were  other  offices  than  that  of  Governor  to 
which  he  might  be  elected,  and  which  would  be  a  suffi- 
cient reward  to  put  him  on  his  good  behavior.  I,  in 
reply,  then  said  that  the  converse  proposition  was  true — • 
that  if  there  were  other  offices  to  reward  him  with  than 
this  office  of  Governor,  then  these  offices  might  tempt 
him  in  the  same  manner  to  prostitute  the  office  of  Gov- 
ernor. I  said  that  if  he  was  elected  by  a  political  ma- 
jority, and  liable  to  be  called  on  to  do  party  work,  that 
the  fear  of  the  people  before  his  eyes,  when  he  came 
before  them  for  re-election,  would  secure  the  purity  of 
his  administration  ;  and  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
said,  that  the  other  offices  to  which  he  might  succeed 
would  equally  secure  that  purity.  And  I  said  in  reply, 
that  those  other  offices  would  equally  tempt  him  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


185 


prostitute  his  office.  A  legislature  might  be  corrupt 
as  well  as  an  executive,  and  a  legislature  might  de- 
mand of  a  Governor  that  he  should  prostitute  his  of- 
fice to  their  purposes  ;  and  they  might  hold  out  as  a 
reward  to  him,  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  or 
some  other  office,  to  tempt  him  to  yield  to  their  de- 
mands ;  and  that  being  ineligible,  the  principle  of  ineli- 
gibility itself  produced  irresponsibility.  That  is  the 
argument. 

Mr.  FUQUA.  I  will  take  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  to  be  as  he  has  placed  it  be- 
fore us.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  a  gentleman  is  elect- 
ed to  the  gubernatorial  chair,  and  desires  to  be  sent 
to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  or  be  placed,  if 
you  please,  upon  the  Court  of  Appeals  bench — and  I 
am  now  supposing  the  election  of  that  body  to  be  as 
has  been  reported — I  ask  the  gentleman  what  difference 
it  will  make  whether  he  is  re-eligible  or  ineligible, 
whether  he  is  responsible  or  irresponsible  ?  If  he  se- 
cures the  appointment  through  the  prostitution  of  his 
office,  would  he  not  resort  to  that  prostitution  of  his 
office,  for  that  purpose,  whether  he  was  ineligible  orre- 
eligible  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  That  is  precisely  what  I  said  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Richmond — that  you  secure  no  more  purity 
of  office  by  making  him  ineligible,  than  you  do  by  leav- 
ing bim  re-eligible.  The  gentleman  has  come  exactly 
to  my  conclusion.  I  said  you  had  gained  nothing  in  pu- 
rity and  lost  everything  in  responsibility.  That  is  my 
ground  precisely. 

Mr.  FUQUA.  I  do  not  view  it  in  that  light.  Re- 
sponsibility because  of  re-eligibility,  when  the  very  gen- 
tleman who  is  to  look  to  a  re-election  is  conscious  of 
having  prostituted  his  office  to  accomplish  his  ends? 
Will  he  ever  present  himself  to  the  people?  I  should 
think  not.  There  is  another  view  of  this  subject, 
which  has  been  drawn  into  this  discussion,  and  that  is, 
as  to  the  features  of  this  government.  My  friend  from 
Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton)  insisted  that  there  must  be 
monarchial,  aristocratic,  and  democratic  features  in  the 
government  to  make  it  work.  I  do  not  understand  how 
it  can  be  otherwise.  1  say  that,  unless  you  infuse  into 
this  constitution,  which  you  are  called  on  to  establish, 
the  good  spices  of  every  government,  you  make  it  either 
soricketty  that  it  will  not  stand,  or  it  dies  of  plethoric. 
The  good  spices  of  every  government  must  be  infused  into 
it,  or  else  the  constitution  will  fall,  and  it  ought  not  to 
exist.  What  is  to  protect  the  minority  against  the  tyran- 
ny of  the  majority  ?  Is  it  not  the  executive  arm  ?  May 
it  not  be  called  in  requisition  to  protect  the  minority 
against  the  encroachment  of  the  majority?  And  is  not 
that  a  monarchial  feature  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can 
give  this  people  a  government  that  is  worth  having,  un- 
less the  good  spices  of  government  are  properly  infused 
into  it.  I  would  not,  if  I  could,  have  one  body  of  the 
legislature  elected  by  the  patrician  order,  and  the  other 
by  the  plebeian.  I  would  not  have  those  two  bodies  ar- 
rayed against  each  other.  My  wish  is,  to  see  a  proper 
infusion  of  aristocracy  and  democracy  in  both  these  bo- 
dies. I  say  that  the  best  government  is  that  in  which 
the  good  spices  of  every  well  regulated  government  are 
most  judiciously  and  equitably  diffused. 

I  said  in  the  opening  of  my  remarks,  that  those  gen- 
tlemen who  have  referred  so  frequently  to  the  people, 
in  my  opinion,  meant  the  majority  of  the  people.  Now, 
majorities,  founded  upon  correct  principles,  I  admit, 
ought,  within  certain  limits,  and  according  to  estab- 
lished rules,  to  govern  and  control.  What  sort  of  a 
majority  that  is,  or  may  be  by  the  action  of  this  body,  I 
do  not  know.  I  know  what  sort  of  a  majority  I  desire. 
I  shall  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania.  I  think  this  the  best  course  to  pursue. 
It  will  render  the  executive,  in  the  few  duties  he  will 
have  to  perform,  more  faithful  and  zealous  in  their  dis- 
charge, than  if  you  make  him  re-eligible  immediately  af- 
ter the  service  of  his  first  term.  I  desire  to  see  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia  the  Governor  of  the  State.  I  desire 
to  see  him  forget  his  party  connections,  if  he  be  a  party 
man.    I  desire  to  see  him  recommend  to  the  good  old 


Commonwealth  such  measures  as  in  his  judgment,  the 
best  interests  of  the  people  call  for.  I  shall  therefore 
vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsyl- 
vania to  secure  that  end. 

Mr.  ISTEESOK  I  trust  that  the  little  time  that  I 
shall  claim  the  indulgence  of  this  Convention,  will  not 
be  considered  as  a  wasteful  consumption  of  it.  although 
it  may  possibly  be  an  unprofitable  one.  It  is  well 
known  here,  at  least  among  ourselves,  to  be  a  pre-de- 
termination  of  this  body,  that  no  matter  of  constitution- 
al regulation  shall  be  determined  upon,  until  we  shall 
have  settled  the  great  absorbing  question  of  the  basis  of 
representation.  And  inasmuch  as  we  have  not  arrived 
at  that  progress  of  the  business  when  we  can  take  up 
and  consider  and  dispose  of  that  subject.  1  think  I  may 
claim  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Convention  without  ex- 
posing myself  to  the  imputation  of  a  useless  consump- 
tion of  time.  I  come  here  for  the  first  time,  receiving  a 
great  trust  from  the  people  with  whom  I  have  the  for- 
tune to  live  ;  and  I  have  felt,  since  I  arrived  here,  that 
it  was  not  only  a  great,  but  a  most  momentous  trust ; 
and  I  am  most  solemnly  impressed  with  the  high  re- 
sponsibility it  imposes  upon  me.  I  came  here  among 
those  who  believe  in  salutary  essential  reforms.  I  came 
here  not  only  to  oppose,  but  absolutely  to  resist,  by  all 
proper  means,  what  I  have  recently  learned  to  be  con- 
servative doctrines.  Among  the  great  reforms  with. 
which  I  suppose  we  shall  be  occupied  here,  because  they 
have  been  especially  desired  by  the  people — our  con- 
stituency— is,  the  affirmance  of  the  great  cardinal  prin- 
ciples of  the  government,  and  particularly  the  great  Ame- 
rican doctrine  of  popular  election. 

It  is  now  seventy-five  years  since  the  illustrious  found- 
ers of  this  republic  first  collected  together  and  proclaimed 
the  great  fundamental  principles  of  our  government. 
They  are  to  be  found  in  the  most  compendious  and  lucid 
form  in  our  bill  of  rights.  They  are  political  apothegms 
and  I  desire  to  see  them  fairly  expanded  and  practically 
applied.  I  regretted  most  seriously  to  hear  it  declared 
on  this  floor  that  it  is  to  be  deplored  we  have  a  bill  of 
rights  prefixed  to  our  constitution.  We  have  been  about 
seventy-five  years  living  under  a  government,  professed- 
ly founded  upon  these  great  fundamental  truths  in  po- 
litical science  ;  and,  yet,  up  to  this  time7  the  people  of 
Virginia  have  been  excluded  from  their  rightful  control 
or  participation  in  this  government.  Up  to  this  time, 
the  people  of  this  commonwealth  have  never  had  the 
privilege  of  electing  any  officers  of  the  State,  except  of 
two  descriptions — members  of  the  legislature  and  over- 
seers of  the  poor.  By  law  they  are  entitled  to  elect 
the  overseers  of  the  poor,  and  yet  by  law  that  most 
wretched  oligarchy,  our  odious  and  irresponsible  county 
court,  has  deprived  the  people  even  of  that  small  parti- 
cipation in  the  government  ;  and  they  do  it  while  this 
great  American  doctrine  of  popular  elections  now  per- 
vades the  broad  limits  of  this  great  confederacy,  in  al- 
most all  cases,  except  in  the  two  States  of  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina.  The  people  have  repudiated  that  im- 
propriety, and  have  come  here  to  record  their  decree 
upon  the  subject.  A  committee  of  our  body,  appointed 
for  the  purpose,  have  reported  that  the  Governor  shall 
be  elected  by  the  people,  and  in  this  particular  have 
complied  with  the  will  of  the  people  ;  and  yet,  no  soon- 
er is  that  proposition  submitted  to  the  Convention  than 
gentlemen  immediately  propose  to  restrict  the  right  of 
election  by  the  people,  in  excluding  an  incumbent  from 
a  re-election.  I  desire  to  give  my  view  of  the  true  pos- 
ture of  this  question.  I  hold  that  all  power  is  not  only 
inherent  in  the  people,  but  that  no  power  can  be  exer- 
cised by  government  which  is  not  immediately  derived 
from  them.  And  the  legitimacy  of  the  power  so  de- 
rived, is  evinced  by  the  consent  of  the  people.  I  will 
not  undertake  to  say  that  no  republican  government  can 
impose  any  restrictions  upon  the  people.  I  will  not 
undertake  to  discuss  the  position  that  no  natural  power 
of  man  is  restricted  in  the  creation  of  government. 
But  I  will  assume  the  position  expressed  years  ago  in 
this  country,  that  the  people  are  the  fountains  of  pow- 


186 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


er ;  that  the  government  and  all  public  functionaries  are 
the  depositories  of  power.  I  would  repeat  the  doctrine, 
that  the  people  are  the  great  fountains  of  power.  The 
depositories  of  power  are  the  government,  or  public 
functionaries.  If  that  be  true,  whenever  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  people  undertake  to  deprive  the  people 
of  the  exercise  of  power,  do  they  not  necessarily,  un- 
dertake to  abridge  or  restrict  that  power?  I  hold,  then, 
that  this  ineligibility  is  a  palpable  restriction  on  the 
people — an  unwarrantable  one.  The  gentlemen  who 
advocate  the  propriety  of  this  restriction  perceive  the 
dilemma  in  which  they  are  placed,  and  by  various  spe- 
cimens of  ingenuity,  and,  I  think,  by  not  a  little  tortu- 
osity of  mind,  they  attempt  to  discriminate  between  the 
restriction  on  the  people  and  the  proposed  ineligibility 
of  the  officer.  They  feel  a  necessity  for  this  discrimina- 
tion, but  I  submit  to  you  if  they  succeed  in  establishing 
a  discrimination.  Is  it  not  a  distinction  without  a  dif- 
ference ?  That  it  is  an  abridgment  of  the  powers  of 
the  people,  the  gentlemen  themselves  have  confessed, 
for  when  called  upon  to  show  reasons  for  this  depriva- 
tion of  popular  power,  they  recognize  the  obligation 
to  do  so  by  assuming  to  justify  it  by  various  modes 
of  argument.  The  obligation  devolves  on  them  to 
show  its  necessity.  This  they  have  undertaken  to  do, 
and  whether  they  have  succeeded,  it  is  my  purpose  to 
inquire. 

I  maintain  that  it  is  morally  and  physically  impossible, 
to  affix  ineligibility  upon  the  election  of  any  officer, 
without,  at  the  same  time,  destroying  the  faculty  of  the 
people  to  the  same  extent.  Now  there  are  three  propo- 
sitions pending  here.  One  is,  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee allowing  elections  to  two  terms  only  ;  another  is,  an 
amendment  prohibiting  re-election  until  an  intervening 
term  elapse ;  and  the  third  is,  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment,  admitting  re-eligibility  without  constitu- 
tional restraint.  The  question,  according  to  my  under- 
standing, assumes  this  posture  ;  whether  re-eligibility 
shall  be  allowed  in  the  executive  department  ;  and 
whether,  if  allowed,  it  shall  be  partial  or  entire — limi- 
ted or  unlimited  My  position  is,  that  it  is  right  that 
the  chief  executive  officer  should  be  endowed  with  un- 
restricted eligibility,  and  that  the  re-election  should  be 
referred  to  the  people  by  whom  its  propriety  is  to  be  de- 
termined. But  it  is  said  by  gentlemen  who  maintain  the 
propriety  of  this  restriction,  that  it  is  in  violation  of 
certain  important  doctrines,  and  is  pregnant  with  great 
mischief.  I  will  admit  that  there  are  two  conditions, 
the  fulfilment  of  which  will,  to  a  certain  degree,  justify 
restrictions  upon  the  public  will ;  and  I  will  define  what 
they  are,  that  they  may  be  perfectly  understood.  It  de- 
volves upon  those  who  maintain  the  propriety  of  a  re- 
striction to  establish — first,  that  the  restriction  will  cer- 
tainly avert  a  certain  public  mischief ;  or  second,  that 
it  will  certainly  promote  a  public  advantage  :  And  I 
affirm  that  unless  the  restriction  in  regard  to  eligibility 
falls  within  one  of  these  two  conditions,  it  is  utterly  in- 
defensible. 

I  propose  now  to  consider,  in  their  order,  certain  ob- 
jections which  have  been  urged  here  against  re-eligibili- 
ty, but  which  are  in  fact,  arguments  in  favor  of  re- 
striction. First,  according  to  the  order  in  which  I  have 
noted  them,  is  that  the  principle  of  re-eligibility  is  vio- 
lative of  the  doctrine  of  rotation  in  office.  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  at  all  hostile  to  this  doc- 
trine of  rotation  in  office,  and  what  I  say,  therefore, 
will  be  understood  to  imply  a  partiality  to  that  doctrine, 
but  modified  according  to  circumstances.  What  is  this 
doctrine  of  rotation  in  office?  When  gentlemen  pro- 
pound propositions  to  this  committee,  at  all  affecting 
popular  rights,  I  wish  them  to  define  those  propositions 
in  terms  of  more  precise  signification.  Let  them  not 
announce  certain  general  views  which  are  so  vague  that 
no  one  can  exactly  comprehend  them :  they  may  be  right, 
or  they  may  be  wrong.  What  is  this  rotation  in  office  ? 
Gentlemen,  of  greater  experience  and  observation  than 
myself,  have  ascribed  the  origin  of  this  doctrine  to  po- 
litical aspirants.  It  may  be  true.  So  far  as  my  limited 
experience  extends,  it  confirms  that  view  of  the  subject,  j 


What  do  you  mean  then  by  rotation  in  office  ?  Do  you 
mean  that  the  members  of  Congress  and  the  members 
of  the  Legislature  shall  not  be  re-elected  ?  Do  you  mean 
that  justices  of  the  peace  shall  not  be  re-eligible  ?  Or, 
on  the  contrary,  do  you  mean  that  no  officer  in  the  gov- 
ernment save  and  except  the  executive  officer — shall  be 
ineligible  ?  If  these  are  good  grounds  to  sustain  this  doc- 
trine of  ineligibility  in  the  one  case,  what  reason  is  there 
for  rendering  it  inapplicable  in  other  cases  ?  My  idea  of 
rotation  in  office  is  this — and  it  is  the  doctrine  which  I 
will  maintain — that  every  public  functionary  shall 
hold  his  public  station  for  a  definite  period,  and  at  the 
expiration  of  that  term,  he  shall  return  to  the  body 
of  the  people  whence  he  was  taken.  But  if  his  su- 
erior  qualifications  are  such  as  to  render  it  proper  that 
e  may  be  re-elected,  then,  I  say,  that  he  should  be  re- 
eligible  ;  and  I  say  so  mainly  beeause  the  people  them- 
selves, by  re-electing  him,  declare  that  he  is  entitled  to 
it.  I  have  said  that  my  observation  confirms  the  remark 
of  gentlemen  that  this  rotation  in  office,  which  appears 
now  to  be  an  exclusion  after  serving  one  term,  was  fa- 
vored rather  by  political  aspirants  than  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  people. 

I  remember  an  instance  in  my  own  region  of  country 
where  sundry  gentlemen  assembled  on  a  certain  occa- 
sion to  nominate  a  man  for  Congress.  There  was  a  gen- 
tleman in  the  district  who  stood  high  in  the  favor  of  the 
people  ;  who  possessed  high  qualifications  for  the  office  ; 
was  irreproachable  in  his  integrity,  and  considerably 
advanced  in  experience.  He  had  served  in  Congress 
several  years,  and  the  fidelity  with  which  he  had  served 
his  constituents,  had  endeared  him  to  them,  and  this  ap- 
peared to  excite  the  envy  of  certain  others  who  were 
not  his  superiors.  These  gentlemen  assembled  to  de- 
termine who  should  be  their  candidate,  and  assumed  to 
declare  that  rotation  in  office  was  a  proper  doctrine  ; 
and  rotation  in  office  required,  as  they  explained  it — 
that  after  a  man  had  served  so  many  years — just  a  num- 
ber to  cover  their  case — he  had  occupied  that  office 
sufficiently  long,  and  therefore,  no  man  falling  within 
that  proscription  should  be  entitled  to  a  nomination  by 
that  Convention.  Thus,  the  favorite  of  the  people  was 
proscribed,  and  the  favorite  of  the  office-seekers  pre- 
ferred. This  was  not  the  rotation  in  office  which  I  ad- 
mire ;  that  which  I  sustain  will  necessarily  bring  the 
man  before  the  people,  who  may  possibly,  and  will, 
probably,  if  he  has  the  requisite  merit,  be  continued 
in  his  office  by  the  esteem  and  consent  of  the  peo- 
ple. This  is  my  doctrine  of  rotation  in  office.  I  main- 
tain that  the  application  of  this  principle  of  re-eli- 
gibility is  the  safest  and  wisest  method  of  securing 
and  enforcing  that  doctrine.  I  desire  short  periods  be- 
yond which  the  incumbent  shall  not  hold  his  office,  un- 
less the  people  shall  voluntarily  re-instate  him.  The 
propriety  of  re-eligibility  is  thus  referred  to  the  great 
constituency,  who  hare  the  exclusive  right  to  decide 
the  question,  and  whose  interests  ensure  the  most  ju- 
dicious choice. 

Another  objection  to  re-eligibility  is  this  : — and  it 
came  from  a  singular  source  and  was  presented  in  a 
singular  form — that  if  you  render  the  incumbent  in  of- 
fice re-eligible  to  the  next  succeeding  term,  you  place 
him  under  great  disadvantages  in  securing  that  re-elec- 
tion. I  have  defined  what  I  believe  to  be  the  proper 
conditions  for  a  restriction  of  the  power  of  the  people, 
namely:  that  the  only  condition  which  will  justify  a  re- 
striction is,  the  certainty  that  it  will  avert  some  public 
mischief  or  accomplish  some  public  advantage.  Now, 
whether  a  particular  individual  seeking  a  re-electicn 
enjoys  advantages  or  suffers  disadvantages,  is  an  indi- 
vidual instance,  and  does  not  fall  within  the  definition 
of  the  condition  which  alone  will  or  can  justify  a  re- 
striction upon  popular  power.  This  objection  does  not 
fall  within  the  rule,  the  case  being  that  of  an  individu- 
al and  not  of  the  people.  But,  I  imagine,  if  the  incum- 
bent labors  under  any  such  disadvantages,  and  is  likely 
to  be  defeated,  he  will  not  enter  into  competition  with 
other  gentlemen  by  pressing  to  be  a  candidate,  and 
therefore,  re-eligibility  will  not  in  such  instances  pro- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


189 


is  New  Jersey,  where  the  executive  is  re-eligible  after 
an  interval  of  three  years,  another  is  Maryland,  where 
the  same  provision  applies  ;  another  is  South  Carolina, 
where  there  is  an  ineligibility  of  four  years  after  a  ser- 
vice of  two  years  ;  and  the  fourth  is  the  "  Old  Domin- 
ion," whose  example  cannot  now  be  invoked,  I  trust, 
with  very  great  effect.  I  came  here  to  reverse  that  ex- 
ample, and  I  hope  a  majority  of  this  committee  agree 
with  me.  Then,  in  point  of  truth  and  principle,  there 
is  but  one  of  these  States  which  ought  to  have  any  in- 
fluence on  this  Convention,  and  this  is  New  Jersey  ; 
and  I  will  give  you  my  reason  for  this  distinction.  The 
State  of  Maryland  is  not  entitled  to  much  consideration 
in  this  view,  because  of  her  very  peculiar  provision 
on  the  subject ;  and  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is 
certainly  not  entitled  to  any  consideration  in  the  ad- 
justment of  this  question,  for  in  that  State  the  Gov- 
ernor is  elected  by  the  Legislature.  In  fact  the  people 
in  that  old  State  have  very  little  share  in  their  gov- 
ernment. Even  the  electors  of  President  and  Vice 
President  are  chosen  by  the  Legislature,  and  not  by  the 
people. 

But  there  was  another  gentleman  who  favored  us  on 
a  second  occasion  with  an  argument  which  I  desire  to 
consider.  It  was  on  the  second  day  that  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland  addressed  this  committee.  On  the  first 
day,  as  I  have  already  stated,  he  maintained  that  the 
re-eligibility  of  the  Governor  would  result  in  great  in- 
jury and  oppression  to  the  minority — of  whom  or  what 
he  did  not  inform  us.  On  the  second  day,  however, 
when  the  gentleman  addressed  the  committee  he  was 
vehemently  desirous  of  repudiating  the  examples  which 
were  adduced  from  the  Northern  States,  and  also  from 
the  Western  States.  It  appeared  that  these  examples 
in  favor  of  re-eligibility  had  rather  militated  against  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman,  and  to  destroy  as  much  as 
possible  their  influence,  he  totally  and  utterly  rejected 
them,  because,  he  said,  they  were  from  the  northern  and 
western  people,  who  had  very  imperfect  and  improper 
ideas  in  regard  to  government,  and  more  especially  in 
regard  to  the  organization  of  the  executive  department. 
He  supposed,  therefore,  he  would  find  some  relief  by 
rejecting  them,  and  resorting  to  the  examples  furnished 
by  the  slave  States.  Now,  according  to  my  judgment, 
he  has  either  misunderstood  the  slave  States,  or  I  have 
misinterpreted  them.  1  have  examined  the  provisions 
furnished  by  the  slave  States,  and  they  present  the 
'following  result  :  Excluding  Virginia,  whose  example 
cannot  certainly  be  invoked  to  sustain  any  argument 
here,  because,  as  I  have  said,  we  have  come  to  dis- 
card the  example  furnished  by  her,  of  the  twelve  slave 
States — I  take  that  to  be  the  whole  number,  although 
there  may  be  some  few  slaves  in  other  States — eleven 
of  them  do  allow  of  re-eligibility  in  the  executive  de- 
partment. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  cor- 
rect him,  as  I  am  sure  he  does  not  wish  to  mis  state  my 
argument?  I  think  that,  on  both  occasions  on. which 
I  have  addressed  this  House,  I  expressed  my  design  to 
support  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pittsylvania,  as  modified  by  my  friend  from  Appomat- 
tox, which  is  to  elect  the  Governor  for  four  years, 
and  then  to  be  re-eligible  after  an  interval  of  a  term 
of  four  years.  I  referred  to  the  example  furnished  by 
the  Southern  States,  as  precisely  in  point,  in  favor  of 
that  proposition.  - 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  am  not  aware  that  I  misunder- 
stood the  gentleman,  and  so  I  supposed  when  he  arose 
to  correct  me.  I  now  understand  the  gentleman  to  say 
that  he  resorted  to  the  example  of  the  Southern  States, 
because  they  furnished  arguments  in  favor  of  his  po- 
sition, and  that  position  defined  by  him  is  re-eligibili- 
ty after  the  lapse  of  a  certain  interval.  He  is  then 
opposed  to  the  immediate  re-election  of  the  same  ex- 
ecutive. Well,  so  I  understood  him  before,  and  with 
that  understanding  I  now  refer  to  the  examples  furnish- 
ed by  the  Southern  States,  as  a  refutation  of  that  argu- 
ment. Eleven  of  the  slave  States,  exclusive  of  Virginia, 
allow  of  re-eligibility,  and  six  of  these  eleven  allow 


of  immediate  re-eligibility ;  that  is,  election  immedi- 
ately after  the  expiration  of  his  first  term.  Five  of 
them  allow  of  his  re-election  after  an  interlapse  of  one 
term.  Are  not  these  examples,  then,  against  the  gen- 
tleman ? 

Mr.  LEAKE.  I  stated  that  every  one  of  the  slave- 
holding  States,  with  the  exception  of  Georgia,  sanc- 
tioned the  principle  of  ineligibility,  either  after  one  or 
two  terms ;  that  is,  that  they  all  sanctioned  the  principle 
that  the  Governor,  after  serving  a  certain  length  of  time, 
be  it  one  or  more  terms,  should  then  go  out  of  office,  and 
be  ineligible  for  a  length  of  time.  Does  the  gentleman 
mean  to  say  that  the  Southern  States  da  not  sanction 
that  principle,  all  of  them,  with  the  exception  of  Geor- 
gia ?  My  statement  was,  that  all  of  them,  with  this  soli- 
tary exception,  sanctioned  the  principle  of  ineligibility 
in  one  way  or  the  other.  I  shall  not  go  into  particulars, 
but  I  suppose  that  I  am  to  understand  the  gentleman  as 
controverting  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  NEESON.  Certainly  not.  I  did  not  controvert 
it,  and  therefore,  I  did  not  see  the  propriety  of  the  in- 
terruption. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  Well,  that  was  the  statement  I  made 
and  it  was  the  only  statement, 

Mr.  NEESON.  When  I  have  finished  my  remarks 
upon  this  portion  of  the  subject,  the  gentleman  will  un- 
derstand that  I  did  not  controvert  that  position. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  That  was  the  position  I  assumed,  and 
if  the  gentleman  is  controverting  any  other,  he  is  con- 
troverting what  I  have  not  said, 

Mr.  NEESON.    That  will  do,    I  understand  it. 

Mr.  LEAKE.    I  want  you  to  understand  it.  * 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  was  remarking  that  six  of  these 
States  allow  immediate  re-eligibility — North  Carolina, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Geor- 
gia. In  Georgia,  the  provision  admits  perpetual  re- 
eligibili'y.  Now,  these  States  allow  of  four,  six,  and 
eight  years  of  continuous  service  in  the  gubernatorial 
office,  and  one  of  them  of  perpetual  service,  with  the 
consent  always  of  the  people.  The  other  Southern 
States  which  require  an  intermediate  term  to  be  occu- 
pied by  some  other  incumbent  before  the  executive  is 
re-eligible,  are  Maryland,  South  Carolina,  Louisiana, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri. 

South  Carolina,  for  the  very  obvious  reasons  to  which 
I  have  referred,  the  I  act  that  the  people  there  have  no 
participation  in  the  election  of  a  Governor,  but  that  he 
is  elected  by  the  Legislature,  cannot  furnish  an  illustra- 
tion in  this  case.  In  Maryland  there  is  a  most  remark- 
able provision,  and  since  the  gentleman  from  Goochland 
has  invoked  the  authority  of  the  Southern  States,  I  sup- 
pose it  is  for  the  purpose  of  availing  himself  hereafter 
of  the  example  of  that  Southern  State,  for  it  is  to  that 
point  all  his  argument  gravitates.  What  is  it?  Why, 
if  you  can  succeed  now  in  providing  against  the  re-elec- 
tion of  a  Governor,  in  constitutionalizing  ineligibility, 
then  you  have  accomplished  an  operation  whicri^will 
enable  you  to  accomplish  that,  the  whole  operaj^^  of 
which  is  in  the  Constitution  of  Maryland.  And  A  is 
that  ?  The  Constitution  of  Maryland  provides  thatkhe 
State  shall  be  divided  into  three  several  districts,  to  be 
numbered  1,  2,  and  3,  from  which  distric^^he  Govern- 
ors of  the  State  are  required  to  be  chojd|^fc|egular  ro- 
tation. Is  that  the  restriction  whi^^^^^Mtlemaii 
from  Goochland  desires  when  he  iiiVt^HP^M^iples 
of  slave  States  {  If  it  is,  I  do  not  wonder  tha^Jpalks 
about  the  rights  and  interests  of  minorities.  And  if  you 
can  justify  one  restriction  which  does  not  fall  within  one 
of  the  two  conditions  which  I  specified,  at  the  outset  of 
my  argument,  you  can  justify  any  other  restriction. 
Some  gentlemen  could  here,  I  think,  with  peculiar  fe- 
licity, justify  that  restriction  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Constitution  of  Maryland,  that  is,  not  to  enlarge  the  elec- 
tion of  the  chief  magistrate  to  the  whole  people,  but  to 
contract  it  within  certain  geographical  boundaries.  You 
may  elect  a  Governor,  but  you  shall  not  re-elect  him. 
You  may  choose  your  executive,  but  you  shall  not  choose 
him  unless  he  resides  within  a  certain  district,  Here„ 
then  are  two  restrictions,  the  latter  of  which,  in  regard 


190 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


to  sectional  restriction,  might  immediately  follow  the 
other  rest;  iction,  and  I  have  no  doubt  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland  would  maintain  that  proposition.  I 
wonder  that  nothing  has  escaped  his  lips  which  will  jus- 
tify me  even  in  hoping  that  he  would  not  sustain  it.  So 
much  for  the  examples  which  have  been  introduced 
here,  and  the  influence  which  has  been  claimed  by  those 
examples. 

I  have  gone  through,  I  believe,  with  all  the  arguments 
that  have  occurred  to  me  at  this  time,  in  favor  of  this 
restriction,  and  after  giving  them  a  careful  and  deliber- 
ate consideration,  I  believe  that  it  is  not  only  wholly 
unnecessary,  but  wholly  inexpedient,  and  that  the  argu- 
ments, to  give  them  the  greatest  force  allowable  in  can- 
dor, are  insufficient  and  inconclusive.  The  demonstra- 
tion of  the  propriety  of  this  restriction  rests  exclusively 
on  the  gentlemen  who  maintain  that  propriety.  They 
have  failed  to  do  so,  and  I  might  rest  the  argument  with 
saying  that  they  have  not  satisfied  my  mind,  nor,  as  I 
trust,  the  minds  of  this  committee  in  justifying  this  re- 
striction. But  I  may  go  further,  and  I  think  that  the 
friends  of  the  people,  although  that  has  become  a  sin- 
gular expression  here,  may  easily  show  that  they  remain 
fortified  by  their  adherence  to  the  propriety  of  re-eligi- 
bility. 

I  regard  the  principle  involved  here,  whichever  way 
you  may  settle  it,  as  destined  to  exert  a  powerful  influ- 
ence on  the  incumbent  of  office,  whether  he  be  in  the 
executive  or  any  other  department  of  government.  I 
consider  this  doctrine  ef  re-eligibility  as  identical  with 
the  doctrine  of  responsibility.  I  hold  that  to  be  the 
true  position,  that  re-eligibility  and  responsibility  are 
identical ;  or  if  they  are  not  identical,  they  are  insepa- 
rable. Now  we  have  had  the  doctrine  of  responsibility 
sanctioned  in  our  Constitution  for  a  great  while.  Re- 
sponsibility is  always  proclaimed  as  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  a  republic.  You  now  have  responsibility  con- 
nected with  the  executive  and  with  the  judicial  func- 
tionaries of  the  State.  But  how  is  it  to  be  exercised? 
And  how  is  it  rendered  efficacious  ?  By  the  power  of 
impeachment,  according  to  the  present  order  of  things. 
That  was  formerly  considered  the  great  instrument 
of  responsibility.  But  I  appeal  to  the  history  of  the 
whole  nation,  and  the  history  of  Virginia  to  say  whether 
that-  measure  has  produced  responsibility,  and  whether 
it  has  not  proved  entirely  nugatory.  There  is  another 
method  of  securing  responsibility  ;  and  that  is,  by  refer- 
ring the  officer  regularly  and  frequently  to  the  people  for 
their  review.  That  is  the  practically  efficacious  mode 
of  ensuring  this  great  principle,  the  great  desideratum 
of  responsibility  in  office. 

Well,  is  experience  in  office  a  matter  of  little  consid- 
eration ?  Is  it  a  matter  of  no  moment?  Sir,  every  man 
knows^and  especially  those  of  greater  experience  than 
myselripiow  infinitely  better  they  are  enabled  to  per- 
forrjM|he  duties  of  office  to  their  constituents,  and  dis- 
cha^^the  great  trusts  conferred  on  them,  and  promote 
the  jBlic  welfare,  after  a  certain  degree  of  experience. 
Carf  a  man  practice  law  without  experience  ?  Can  he 
make  shoes,  or  practice  the  healing  art,  or  do  any  thing 
else  in  comjA^ife,  with  as  great  benefit  to  those  inter- 
ested asJ^Hj^^ter  he  has  acquired  a  certain  degree 
of  expej^^^^^We  know  that  this  cannot  be  done. 
WelUg^WP^^TOther  thing,  in  the  executive  depart - 
men^^cially — mutability,  change,  and  instability  in 
the  executive  department  of  the  government,  are  more 
to  be  deprecated  than  all  the  other  departments  of  the 
government,  except,  perhaps,  the  judiciary.  How  can 
you  have  a  stable  and  permanent  judicious  admini'stra- 
tion  of  the  executive  department,  unless  you  authorise 
the  incumbent  of  the  department  to  devise,  to  propose, 
to  advocate,  and  enforce  his  measures  of  administration  ? 
Suppose  you  limit  the  executive  term  to  two  years,  and 
render  him  ineligible.  Can  any  executive  do  more  than 
write  one  message  and  deliver  it  to  the  Legislature  at 
one  biennial  session  ?  Now,  what  could  the  executive 
do?  Will  he  be  prepared  to  advise  measures  of  great 
public  concernment?  Will  he  be  energetic  in  ejiforcim 
those  measured  on  the  public  conside  .ation  ?  Certain!) 


not.  He  will  know  that  he  is  foredoomed,  that  he  will 
not  have  the  opportunity  of  administering  these  mea- 
sures, and  that  he  must  give  place  to  a  successor,  who, 
however  friendly  ne  may  be,  can  never  in  the  nature  of 
things  feel  so  deep  an  interest  in  the  execution  of  these 
great  measures,  as  the  man  to  whom  belongs  their  pater- 
nity. Every  man  takes  a  greater  interest  in  defending 
and  enforcing  the  measures  of  his  own  recommendation 
than  he  does  in  defending  and  enforcing  measures  sug- 
gested by  the  very  best  and  most  intimate  of  friends, 
It  is  so  in  the  nature  of  things. 

Here  you  have  these  three  considerations,  responsi- 
bility, experience,  permanency,  or  rather  stability,  in 
the  executive  department  to  be  advanced  and  promoted 
by  re-eligibility,  or  to  be  impaired,  if  not  virtually  de- 
stroyed, by  ineligibility.  I  can  appeal  to  the  history 
of  this  great  country,  to  bear  testimony  to  this  truth,  that 
from  the  foundation  of  our  republic  to  this  day,  if  one 
consideration  has  more  concerned  the  popular  mind  than 
another,  it  is  that  of  providing  an  efficacious  responsibil- 
ity in  the  executive  department.  Before  the  time  of 
adoption  of  the  federal  constitution,  in  all  of  the  thirteen 
States  which  composed  this  confederacy  there  were  but 
two  single  executives.  In  all  the  eleven  other  States, 
they  had  a  compound  executive  ;  that  is,  a  chief  execu- 
tive officer,  called  Governor,  and  a  council.  The  exec- 
utive, then,  was  a  compound  and  plural  executive,  in- 
stead of  a  single  one,  and  the  consequence  was,  that  re- 
sponsibility was  divided,  expedition  was  impaired,  and 
energy  was  paralyzed.  The  two  States  which  did  have 
single  executives  were  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  Now 
come  down  to  1851,  and  how  many  compound  execu- 
tives do  you  find  ?  Have  they  not  all,  or  nearly  all,  been 
repudiated  ?  Yet,  to  render  still  more  effectual  the  prin- 
ciple of  responsibility,  of  stability,  and  experience,  I 
can  appeal  to  the  history  of  Virginia  to  furnish  a  memo- 
rable example  of  her  high  appreciation  of  these  quali- 
ties. That  this  idea  of  responsibility  was  held  in  the 
highest  estimation  by  the  people  is  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  which  I  have  already  submitted  to  the  consideration 
of  the  committee,  that  in  the  executive  administration 
of  the  government,  under  the  old  constitution,  from  1776 
to  1830,  a  period  of  fifty-four  years,  there  was  but  one 
single  Governor,  according  to  my  recollection,  who 
filled  a  single  term  and  no  more.  There  may  have  been 
one  or  two  others  who  filled  a  shorter  term',  by  reason  of 
death,  or  some  other  Providential  occurrences,  but  thir- 
teen of  them  filled  the  office  for  three  years,  consecu- 
tively, as  I  have  already  mentioned.  Why  was  this  done  ? 
Was  it  not  done  to  insure  to  the  service  of  the  State 
their  knowledge,  and  their  experience  in  the  promotion  ( 
of  such  measures  as  they  had  advised,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  particularly  this  principle  of  responsibility  ? 
For  it  has  not  been  supposed  that  during  that  period  of 
fifty-four  years  so  many  instances  of  re-election  would 
have  occurred  had  not  the  incumbents  proved  themselves 
worthy  and  meritorious  of  re-election.  I  think  I  may 
then  safely  assert  that  the  history  of  this  country  proves 
that,  in  the  public  mind,  the  idea  of  re-eligibility  has 
made  a  deep  and  abiding  lodgment,  and  that  that  idea 
is  to  be  carried  out  and  rendered  more  and  more  ser- 
viceable. Ineligibility,  on  the  other  hand,  will  cer- 
tainly depreciate,  if  it  does  not  eventually  destroy  re- 
sponsibility. 

1  have  occupied  much  more  time  than  I  intended.  I 
have  said  that  the  advocates  of  this  restriction  acknow- 
ledge the  obligation  resting  on  them  to  show  its  proprie- 
ty. They  have  attempted  to  do  it.  They  did  so  cer- 
tainly with  ability  and  ingenuity  ;  but,  as  I  think,  most 
unsatisfactorily.  I  have  no  doubt  the  gentlemen  who 
concur  with  them  in  the  propriety  of  a  restriction  of 
some  sort  or  other,  perceived  that,  after  several  days  of 
discussion,  they  could  not  maintain  that  position.  And 
then  it  was  that  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr. 
Chilton,)  stepped  forward  as  their  ooadjutor.  But  he 
clearly  changed  the  posture  of  the  question.  He  con- 
tended that  the  obligation  rested  on  those  who  main- 
tained unrestricted  eligibility,  to  vindicate  its  propriety. 
He  said  that  he  had  come  here,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
reforming  the  constitution ,  but  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


187 


duce  the  mischief  apprehended.  But  if  the  Executive 
has  discharged  his  duties  with  an  eye  single  to  the  pub- 
lic service  ;  if  he  has  so  demeaned  himself  in  office  as 
to  be  worthy  of  a  re-election,  I  say  it  will  greatly  re- 
commend his  case  to  the  people,  and  if  he  does  remain 
here  (at  the  capital)  to  the  end  of  his  gubernatorial 
term,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  without  going 
abroad  to  electioneer  with  the  people  ;  if  he  is  worthy 
of  their  support,  he  will  get  it  whether  he  goes  abroad, 
or  not.  But,  while  I  am  speaking  of  this  objecti«n 
raised  by  gentlemen,  I  am  reminded  that  I  could  cite 
the  opinion  of  another  gentleman  maintaining  the  pro- 
priety of  this  restriction  upon  directly  contrary  and  in- 
compatible ground.  I  forget  who  the  gentleman  was, 
but  it  was  certainly  affirmed  here  by  a  gentleman  in  fa- 
vor of  this  restriction,  that  it  would  give  the  executive 
an  advantage  over  his  competitor  in  the  contest  for  a  re- 
election. Which  of  these  two  propositions  is  correct? 
I  Shall  not  undertake  the  invidious  task  of  discrimina- 
ting between  the  merits  of  gentlemen  who  maintain  this 
doctrine  upon  repugnant  and  opposite  grounds.  I  will 
assume  that  the  gentlemen  are  of  equal  merits,  but  in- 
asmuch as  these  are  arguments  so  directly  antagonistic, 
the  one  neutralizes  the  other,  as  the  counter  action  of 
equal  forces  produces  -  physical  quiescence.  Thus  it 
stands  according  to  these  arguments — on  the  one  hand 
the  incumbent  labors  under  serious  disadvantages,  and 
therefore  should  not  be  re-eligible  ;  on  the  other  hand, 
he  should  not  be  re-eligible,  because  he  would  possess 
undue  advantages  over  his  competitor.  I  leave  gentle- 
men to  reconcile  these  incongruous  arguments.  Anoth- 
er objection  arising  here  to  the  re-election  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  therefore  in  favor  of  this  restriction,  is  that 
indicated  by  the  gentleman  from  Goochland  (Mr.  Leake.) 
And  what  is  it  i  It  is  a  very  singular  one,  and  I  cannot 
appreciate  its  relevancy  to  the  question  in  debate.  It  is 
that  by  allowing  the  executive  to  be  re-elected,  he  might 
yield  to  his  feelings  and  prejudices,  he  might  indulge  his 
sympathies  and  antipathies,  greatly  to  the- detriment  of 
the  public  service  ;  and  when  the  gentleman  further  ad- 
vanced in  his  argument,  his  mind  betrayed  greater 
proclivity  towards  the  doctrine  of  representation  than 
the  organization  of  the  executive  department  ;  for 
directly  afterwards  he  informed  us  that  the  great  ob- 
ject of  all  government  was,  not  the  protection  of  all 
the  people  and  the  public  good,  but  the  protection 
of  the  minority.  And  I  think  he  said  that  government 
was  instituted  for  the  protection  of  the  minority.  What 
possible  objection  to  re-eligibility  does  this  argument 
present  ?  How  elucidate  the  impolicy  of  the  re-eli- 
gibility of  the  executive  ?  There  was  a  singular  inex- 
plicitness,  a  singular  ambiguity  and  mystery  connect- 
ed with  the  gentleman's  argument  on  this  subject, 
which,  however,  is  not  wholly  inexplicable  ;  for,  as  I 
suspect, 

"  Of  darkness  visible  so  much  he  lent 
As  half  to  show,  half  veil  the  deep  intent." 
I  think,  if  I  can  be  allowed  to  predict,  there  may  be 
a  covert,  oblique  purpose  to  be  accomplished  in  the 
event  of  a  successful  effort  to  restrict  the  eligibility  of 
the  executive.  There  may  be  interests  to  be  promoted 
in  the  adoption  of  this  principle  of  restriction  upon  the 
right  of  the  people  not  otherwise  attainable.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Goochland  not  only  maintained  the  impro- 
priety of  electing  the  Governor  two  successive  terms, 
because  it  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  great  interests  of 
the  minority;  but  for  another  reason,  to  which  I  will 
presently  recur,  in  considering  another  point  in  these 
objections. 

The  gentleman  from  Richmond  city,  (Mr.  Meredith,) 
who  certainly  made  a  very  fair  argument  in  this  cause, 
puts  his  objections  to  re-eligibility  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  executive  independence  would  be  debased  and 
his  integrity  depraved  by  the  admission  of  immediate  re- 
eligibility.  These  are  grave  apprehensions,  and  cer- 
tainly worthy  of  consideration.  I  propose  to  consider 
this  objection  with  as  much  brevity  as  I  can.  Dividing 
the  argument,  the  first  branch  asserts,  that  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  executive  would  put  him  at  the  mercy  of 


the  legislative  department  of  the  government — the  nat- 
ural tendency  of  which  was  to  encroach  upon  all  other 
departments  of  government  and  absorb  their  powers.  I 
know  this  idea  has  been  imposingly  presented  in  a  cer- 
tain distinguished  political  work  called  the  "Federalist." 
Mr.  Madison,  in  that  work,  elaborated  the  argument,  and 
employed  it  to  demonstrate  the  propriety  of  fortifying 
the  executive  with  power  to  repel  such  aggressions,  and 
not  to  show  the  impolicy  of  re-eligibility.  If  the  gen- 
tleman's apprehension  is  correct,  that  the  executive  de- 
partment will  become  servile  ,  and  obsequious  to  the  le- 
gislative department,  in  consequence  of  the  tendency  of 
the  legislature  to  encroach  irpon  that  department,  his 
arguments  will  never  prove  that  ineligibility  is  an  ex- 
pedient to  obviate  that  evil.  If  the  legislative  propen- 
sity to  domineer  is  so  formidable  to  the  other  co-ordinate 
departments,  and  so  mischievous  as  described,  you  must 
arm  the  executive  to  resist  it.  Suppose  you  make  the 
executive  ineligible  in  order  to  accommodate  the  view 
of  the  gentleman,  will  it  restrain  the  natural  tendency 
of  the  legislative  department  to  encroach  upon  the  oth- 
er department  ?  By  no  means.  On  the  contrary,  it  rath- 
er instigates — if  I  may  so  speak — this  encroachment. 
For  if  the  executive  officer  shall  hold  his  office  for  two 
or  four  years,  and  then  be  ineligible,  what  interest  has 
he  in  maintaining  the  integrity  of  his  station,  and  the 
independence  of  his  department  ?  What  if  he  be  en- 
gulfed in  the  legislative  department,  will  he  lose  any- 
thing by  it?  He  must  withdraw  at  the  expiration  of  a 
certain  term,  and  will  not  be  likely  to  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  the  legislative  department,  nor  embroil  him- 
self in  a  controversy  with  them,  having  no  motive  to  do 
so.  If  he  is  right,  he  must  lose  by  the  expiration  of 
his  term.  If  he  be  wrong,  he  must  lose  also.  But  with 
re-eligibility  annexed  to  his  office,  he  can  in  self-defence 
enter  into  a  contest  with  the  Legislature — their  judg- 
ment is  not  irreversible,  and  he  can  submit  to  the  people, 
who  have  the  great  power  of  ultimate  judgment,  and 
obtain  their  final  arbitrament  upon  the  question  at  issue. 
Then  his  department  is  defended  and  protected  from  the 
encroachments  of  the  legislative  department ;  but  by 
rendering  him  ineligible,  you  deprive  him  of  the  mo- 
tive to  resent  the  pressure  of  that  power  ;  and  un- 
less you  give  him  either  a  veto  or  re-eligibility,  you 
make  him  powerless  to  resist.  So  much  for  the  threat- 
ened dependence  of  the  executive  department  by  rea- 
son of  re-eligibility. 

Now,  as  to  the  executive  purity  and  integrity.  How 
do  the  gentlemen  prove  that  in  the  event  of  a  re-elec- 
tion, the  executive  officer  is  likely  to  become  base- 
ly prostituted  to  the  legislative  department  ?  If  he  is 
to.  be  re-elected,  it  is  assumed  that  his  nomination 
will  be  made  by  the  Legislature.  This  is  a  gratui- 
tous assumption,  and  contrary  to  reasonable  probability. 
Is  the  capital  in  a  central  or  accessible  portion  of  the 
State?  Is  it  not  in  some  respects  remote  and  inaccessi- 
ble ?  And,  according  to  my  supposition,  when  the  candi- 
dates for  office  are  nominated  by  their  respective  par- 
ties, it  will  be  found  that  the  place  of  meeting  for  the 
caucus  will  be  nearer  the  centre  of  the  State  than  Hen- 
rico county.  And  you  will  find  this  Convention,  for  the 
purpose  of  nominating  candidates,  composed  of  individ- 
uals fresh  from  the  body  of  the  people,  and  not  of  in- 
cumbents of  office.  I  think,  therefore,  it  is  gratuitous, 
and  contrary  to  the  probabilities,  that  he  will  receive  his 
nomination  from  legislative  caucuses.  But  still  strong- 
er reasons  disprove  the  assumption.  How  often  will  the 
Legislature  assemble  hereafter?  I  assume  that  annual 
sessions  will  be  succeeded  by  biennial  sessions.  If  we 
have  biennial  sessions,  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
will  assemble  but  once  in  two  years,  and  the  executive 
incumbent  will  hold  his  office  either  two  or  four  years. 
If  he  holds  it  for  two  years,  I  suppose  it  is  not  doubted 
that  the  term  of  the  office  will  expire  near  to  or  during 
the  session  of  the  Legislature.  Now,  let  that  be  grant- 
ed, and  it  follows  that  legislative  caucuses  cannot  nomi- 
nate a  candidate,  because  he  must  be  elected  by  or  be- 
fore that  time.  The  members  in  the  preceding  General 
Assembly  will  not  nominate  a  candidate,  because  then 


188 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  incumbent  has  just  been  inducted  into  office,  and 
there  is  no  vacancy  to  be  filled.  The  same  or  more  co- 
gent reasons  will  also  apply  if  the  term  of  the  execu- 
tive should  continue  for  four  years  instead  of  two.  It 
thus  appears,  at  least  to  my  mind,  that  the  Legislature 
never  can,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  nominate  a 
candidate  for  Governor,  and  the  jealousy  of  the  people 
will  not  permit  it. 

But  there  is  a  historical  view  of  this  subject  of  cor- 
rupting the  executive.  Under  the  old  Constitution  of 
this  State,  we  existed  as  a  Commonwealth  fifty-four 
years,  from  1776  to  1830.  During  all  that  period  of 
fifty-four  years,  the  executive  held  his  office  for  one  year 
and  was  re-eligible  successively  to  a  second  and  a  third 
term  ;  and,  according  to  my  recollection,  was  afterwards 
ineligible  for  a  period  of  perhaps  three  years.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  although  the  executive  held  his  of- 
fice for  one  year,  and  was  re-eligible  during  a  triennial 
period,  he  received  his  office  from  the  Legislature,  and 
never  directly  from  the  people.  Now,  if  you  will  make 
a  calculation,  it  will  be  found,  that  during  the  fifty-four 
years  under  the  old  Constitution — when  this  regulation 
prevailed — there  were  but  eighteen  triennial  periods. 
You  will  find  further,  on  research,  that  thirteen  execu- 
tive incumbents,  under  the  old  Constitution,  were  not 
only  elected  by  the  Legislature  to  the  first,  but  for  the 
second  and  third  terms,  thus  occupying  thirteen  of  the 
entire  eighteen  triennial  periods  from  1776  to  1830. 
Indeed,  but  one  Governor  ever  left  the  station  at  the 
expiration  of  the  first  term.  Now,  I  call  upon  gentle- 
men, who  are  so  strongly  apprehensive  that  re-eligibility 
will  produce  depravation  in  the  executive,  to  designate 
a  single  instance  in  these  thirteen — your  mere  declara- 
tion or  assertion  will  not  prove  anything  of  corruption  — 
whereby  they  secured  their  re-election.  If  they  will 
do  so,  then  I  will  admit  that  there  may  be  some  cause  for 
apprehension  ;  but  until  then,  mere  demonstration  of 
feeling  and  sentiment  on  this  floor,  will  not  influence 
me  against  the  experience  of  some  fifty-four  years.  Not 
only  did  the  Legislature  elect  the  executive  for  one, 
two  and  three  years,  under  the  old  Constitution,  but  of 
these  thirteen  Governors  who  served  a  full  period  of 
three  years,  two  were,  after  the  lapse  of  the  required 
period  of  ineligibility,  re-elected  by  the  same  Legisla- 
ture. One  of  them  was  Patrick  Henry,  for  two  years, 
when  he  retired,  in  consequence,  it  is  said  of  the  embar- 
rassed condition  of  his  domestic  affairs  ;  another  was 
James  Monroe,  who  served  after  this  one  year,  and  was 
not  ejected  from  office,  but  was  transferred  to  a  more 
exalted  station — to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  United  States.  I  think  that  the  example  of  James 
Monroe  will  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  argument  just  sub- 
mitted to  this  Convention  by  the  gentleman  from  Buck- 
ingham, (Mr.  Fuqua,)  based  upon  his  authority.  It  was 
said  that  he  was  opposed  to  re-eligibility,  and  that  he 
declared  it  to  be  an  unwise  and  dangerous  principle. 
The  same  James  Monroe  consented  to  serve  one,  two 
and  three  consecutive  terms  in  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  this  Commonwealth  ;  and  when  he  was  again 
re-eligible,  after  a  period  of  ineligibility,  he  consent- 
ed again  to  serve  one  and  doubtless  intended  to  serve 
two  or  three  terms,  had  not  the  more  attractive  office 
been  presented  to  his  acceptance.  Mr.  Jefferson's 
opinion  was  also  cited,  yet  Mr.  Jefferson  served  two 
consecutive  terms,  both  in  the  executive  of  Virginia  and 
the  executive  of  the  United  States.  If  actions  speak 
louder  than  words,  let  them  be  an  answer  to  the  opin- 
ions of  the  same  men  who  are  cited  as  authority  against 
re-eligibility. 

Now,  if  gentlemen  will  insist  on  the  corrupting 
tendency  of  legislative  nominations,  let  them  adduce 
from  the  history  of  Virginia,  which  furnishes  such  abund- 
ant examples,  one  single  instance  of  the  corrupting  ef- 
fect even  of  legislative  elections,  and  then  their  argument 
will  be  much  more  worthy  of  consideration.  I  think 
that  this  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Meredith.) 

I  now  propose  to  address  myself  to  one  argument  in- 
troduced here  first,  I  believe,  by  the  senior  gentleman 


from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Davis.)  He  has  addressed  this 
committee  on  two  several  days.  In  the  first  argument 
to  this  committee  he  denounced  this  proposition  of  re- 
eligibility  as  a  novelty,  and  as  a  total  departure  from 
precedent.  Why,  it  appears  to  me  that  in  this  labor  in 
which  we  are  engaged,  surely  precedent  will  not  be  all- 
powerful.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  minds  of  this  Con- 
vention, as  the  minds  of  the  great  body  of  the  people 
of  this  Commonwealth,  will  be  less  influenced  by  pre- 
cedent than  they  will  be  by  the  power  and  influence  of 
cogent  reasoning.  I  am  willing  to  defer  somewhat  to 
example,  but  I  do  hold  that  in  this  body,  and  in  this  na- 
tion, government  is  as  much  an  inductive  as  it  is  an 
experimental  science  ;  and  if  your  induction  is  er- 
roneous your  experience  will  correct  it.  But  so  far 
from  being  correct,  the  gentleman  is  under  a  total  mis- 
apprehension. We  are  not  introducing  a  novelty  here 
in  maintaining  the  re-eligibility  of  the  executive.  I 
would  refer  the  gentleman  not  only  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, but  also  to  the  thirty  Constitutions  of  the  States 
of  this  Union.  What  are  the  examples  furnished  us  by 
the  thirty  States  upon  this  re-eligibility?  Examples  are 
useless  per  se,  but  may,  I  admit,  be  cited  as  evidence  of 
the  result  of  experience,  and  therefore  may  enlighten  de- 
batable questions. 

According  to  my  reading,  and  I  have  extended  it  to 
the  thirty  States  composing  this  confederacy,  exclu- 
ding California,  whose  constitution  I  have  not  read, 
but  one  single  State  declares  perpetual  ineligibility  in 
the  executive  department,  and  the  constitutions  of  the 
other  twenty-nine  States  recognize  the  principle  of  re- 
eligibility.  That  is  to  say,  nine  of  them  after  an  in- 
terval ;  twenty  to  immediate  re-eligibility,  ten  of  which 
may  be  perpetual,  and  ten  for  a  limited  number  of  terms. 
So  much  then  for  the  novelty  which  the  gentleman  dep- 
recates. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  to 
correct  what  I  presume  is  a  mistake  on  his  part,  I 
will  assure  Jiim  that  I  did  not  say  that  the  principle 
of  re-eligibility  was  a  novelty.  I  avowed  myself  dis- 
tinctly in  favor  of  the  principle  of  re-eligibility  for  a 
limited  period.  And  will  the  gentleman  inform  this 
committee  how  many  States  in  this  Union  render  this 
great  officer  re-eligible  for  life  ?  I  repeat  that  I  was 
against  that  principle,  and  not  against  the  principle 
of  limited  re-eligibility — that  it  was  against  that  prin- 
ciple, and  not  against  the  principle  of  limited  re- 
eligibility,  that  I  took  the  liberty  to  make  the  objec- 
tion. 

Mr.  NEESON.  After  the  gentleman's  explanation, 
I  believe  that  I  did  perfectly  understand  him.  I 
think  the  gentleman,  by  a  little  closer  attention,  would 
have  discovered  that  I  had  already  by  anticipation  an- 
swered the  inquiry  propounded  by  him,  that  is  to  say, 
how  many  of  the  States  of  this  Union  recognise  per- 
petual re-eligibility? — for  no  one  proposes  to  elect  for 
life.  I  have  stated  already  that  ten  of  them  do  recog- 
nise that  principle.  But  since  we  are  to  invoke  the  aid 
and  the  influence  of  precedent  and  example,  I  beg  leave 
to  present  to  the  gentleman,  and  all  others  in  the  same 
predicament,  the  judgment  of  the  most  enlightened  and 
experienced  States  in  this  Union.  And  since  gentlemen 
are  fond  of  antiquity,  let  me  ask  their  attention  to  the 
old  thirteen  States,  and  their  judgment  on  this  doctrine 
of  re-eligibility.  Of  the  constitutions  of  those  "old 
thirteen  States,"  but  one  of  them  contains  constitution- 
al interdiction  against  the  re-election  of  the  executive 
officer.  There  is  perpetual  ineligibility  in  one  of  them, 
the  State  of  Delaware,  but  the  other  twelve  allow  of 
re-eligibility  under  the  folfowing  diversities,  to  wit : 
four  of  them  after  an  interval  of  time,  New  Jersey, 
Maryland,  South  Carolina,  and  Virginia,  and  eight  of 
them  immediately  upon  the  expiration  of  the  first  term 
of  office,  of  which  six  may  be  perpetual,  to  wit  :  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  and  Georgia.  I  desire  simply  to  pause  for 
a  moment  and  comment  upon  these  four  Constitutions 
of  the  original  thirteen  which  allow  of  re-eligibility 
after  an  interval  of  three  or  four  years.    One  of  them 


191 


serving  it  as  far  as  possible  ;  and  that  any  innovation 
attempted,  imposed  upon  its  authors  the  burden  of  proof 
and  argument.  In  God's  name  why  are  we  here  ?  Why 
does  this  Convention  here  assemble  ?  Is  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  hearing  and  exciting  the  ingenuity  of  gentlemen 
of  peculiar  minds  t®  suggest  difficulties  and  to  devise 
some  possible  evil  that  might  be  corrected  \  Are  we 
sent  here  to  search  out  evils  or  to  search  out  errors  ? 
The  reformation  of  this  constitution  is  a  foregone  con- 
clusion, and  the  verdict  of  the  people  has  fixed  it  inevi- 
tably. If  the  gentleman  will  continue  the  present  con- 
stitution, he  must  demonstrate  its  propriety,  for  the  peo- 
ple have  emphatically  rejected  and  condemned  it.  Yes, 
this  position  is  very  important,  when  gentlemen  feel 
that  they  cannot  maintain  the  propriety  of  this  restric- 
tion, when  the  affirmative  is  put  upon  them  and  they 
cannot  maintain  it,  after  several  days'  very  able  debate, 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  comes  in  and  shifts  the 
position,  and  announces  to  gentlemen  who  favor  reform 
here,  that  to  accomplish  that  reform,  they  must  prove 
its  propriety,  and  that  too  on  this  very  vital  question 
concerning  the  people's  rights.  I  will  notaccede  to  the 
gentleman's  views.  And  this  is  conservatism !  We 
have  had  from  that  gentleman  a  definition  of  conserva- 
tism, to  wit:  an  infusion  into  the  government  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  or  as  equivalent  to 
that,  the  preservation  of  the  existing  constitution.  I 
never  did  myself  have  a  very  exact  idea  of  it.  I  believe 
that  the  dictionaries  do  not  furnish  any  such  definition 
as  that. 

A  MEMBER.    Webster  gives  the  word. 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  believe,  though  I  have  not  seen  it, 
that  it  is  not  exactly  in  the  form  that  is  presented  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier.  But  now,  I  do  understand 
it.  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  has  certainly  an- 
nounced doctrines  in  this  committee  that  are  as  excep- 
tionable to  my  mind,  as  abhorrent  to  my  soul,  as  any 
political  heterodoxy  can  be.  I  of  course  do  not  apply 
this  remark  to  the  gentleman  personally.  I  speak  of 
his  doctrines,  and  I  say  that  they  are  utterly  repugnant 
to  the  honest,  unsophisticated  minds  of  republicans,  at 
least.  We  are  told  by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier, 
much  as  we  were  told  by  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land, that  the  great  object  of  the  government  was,  not 
to  secure  the  rights  of  all  the  people,  but  the  rights  of 
the  minority,  expressly. 

Mr.  LEAKE.  The  gentleman  is  ascribing  to  me  a 
sentiment  that  I  never  uttered.  I  never  said  that  a  go- 
vernment was  not  intended  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole. 
I  said  that  the  great  object  of  government  was  to  pre- 
serve the  rights  of  the  minority,  for  the  majority  could 
always  take  care  of  themselves.  But  I  never  meant  to  as- 
sert the  idta  that  government  was  not  for  the  benefit  of 
the  whole  ;  on  the  contrary,  I  believe  it  to  be  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  NEESON.  The  difference  between  the  gentle- 
man and  myself  is  this  :  that  he  is  particularly  anxious 
to  protect  the  rights  of  the  minority,  whereas  I  am  anx- 
ious to  protect  the  rights  of  all,  discriminating  in  no  re- 
spect between  the  majority  and  minority.  It  is  for  that 
purpose  that  government  is  instituted.  But  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier  maintains  that  it  is  impossible  to  es- 
tablish and  sustain  a  free  government,  without  a  strong 
infusion  into  that  government  of  the  principles  of  monar- 
chy, aristocracy  and  democracy  combined.  1  thank  God 
that  such  a  doctrine  is  not  likely  to  take  root  either  here 
or  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  Virginia.  They  have  been 
repudiated  long  ago.  And  according  to  my  recollection 
Locke  and  Hampden,  who,  the  gentlemen  said,  two  hun- 
dred years  ago  understood  the  principles  of  free  govern- 
ment, did  maintain  more  wholesome  principles — more 
in  harmony  with  genuine  freedom.  These  are  the  prin- 
ciples of  those  great  men.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
the  gentleman  did  not  intend  to  commend  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  Locke,  but  intends  to  refer  to  the  memorable 
example  furnished  us  in  suggesting  a  government  for  the 
Carolinas.  He  may  possibly  have  alluded  to  that  form 
of  government  as  containing  the  genuine  principles  of 
Locke,  in  which  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  [ 


the  State  were  blended  and  lodged  in  the  same  hands — 
a  miserable,  unnatural  and  insupportable  oligarchy, 
Such  doctrines  I  will  not  respect  as  true  doctrines  whe- 
ther they  come  from  Locke,  or  any  other  eminent  man. 
Locke  certainly  was  a  man  of  pre-eminent  wisdom,  and 
in  the  philosophy  of  the  human  mind  perhaps  has  nev- 
er had  any  superior.  The  gentleman  himself  is  a  man 
of  superior  wisdom  ;  and  if  I  understand  his  position, 
upon  this  floor,  is  so  greatly  superior  in  wisdom  to  his 
constituents  that  he  will  not  regard  their  sentiments 
when  he  is  called  upon  to  act  officially  in  this  Conven- 
tion.   Such  I  understand  to  be  his  position. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  said  no  such  thing  ;  but  I  will  not 
interrupt  the  gentleman  now. 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  beg  pardon  for  misrepresenting  the 
gentleman,  and  prefer  that  he  would  interrupt  me. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  prefer  not  to  interrupt  you  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  WISE.  He  said  that  he  would  not  inquire  into 
the  sentiments  of  his  constituents. 

Mr.  NEESON.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac  cor- 
rects me  by  saying  that  the  remark  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  was,  that  when  he  came  to  consider  sub- 
jects before  this  Convention,  he  would  not  inquire  into 
the  sentiments  of  his  constituents.  I  certainly  under- 
stood him  stronger  than  that.  1  may  have  misunderstood 
him,  however.  Here  is  a  position  in  which  I  do  not 
misunderstand  him.  And  that  is,  a  declaration  that  de- 
mocracy was  an  abstract  idea,  an  utterly  impracticable 
idea,  and  he  refers  us  to  the  examples  furnished  us  by 
Greece  and  Rome.  They  never  pretended  to  have  a  rep- 
resentative democracy.  The  principle  of  representation 
is  of  modern  origin,  and  never  had  prevailed,  either  in 
Greece  or  in  Rome.  And  moreover,  the  pure  or  the 
simple  democracy  which  they  endeavored  to  exercise 
there,  was  restricted  to  a  very  small  number  of  individ- 
uals, who  never  did  equal  one-tenth  of  the  people.  There 
was  no  democracy  there  at  all.  But  in  this  country  we 
have  adopted  the  principle  of  representative  democracy, 
and  that  is  the  only  practical  principle  of  democracy, 
and  the  only  just  principle  of  government.  The  gentle- 
man has  directed  our  minds  to  the  consideration  of  a 
celebrated  work  published  by  the  elder  Adams  about  the 
time  of  the  formation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  ;  and 
according  to  the  gentleman's  opinion,  although  there 
may  be  some  errors  in  it,  he  considers  it  the  ablest  and 
best  demonstration  of  political  science  that  he  has  ever 
met  with.  I  have  seen  the  work  ;  and  certainly,  in  some 
place  in  that  book,  the  elder  Adams  does  declare  that 
a  republican  government  depends  upon  the  consent,  and 
is  the  exponent  of  the  will  of  the  people.  But  his  great 
object,  in  writing  that  work,  was,  not  to  advocate  or  to 
sanction  the  doctrine  the  gentleman  advances,  that  mon- 
archy and  aristocracy  are  essential  to  a  good  govern- 
ment, but  to  answer  the  idea  presented  by  that  famous 
Frenchman,  Turgot,  a  very  distinguished  man  in  his  day. 
He  made  an  attack  on  the  American  constitutions.  The 
Frenchman  complained  that,  instead  of  a  single  delibe- 
rative body,  the  Americans  had  given  the  legislative 
power  to  two  bodies.  He  maintained  that  pure  democ- 
racy and  proper  government,  required  the  representa- 
tion of  the  people  in  a  single  body,  which  should  pos- 
sess and  exercise  all  the  powers  of  government.  It  was 
to  correct  that  notion,  to  combat  that  idea,  the  elder 
Adams  wrote  and  published  that  celebrated  work  of  his, 
a  Defence  of  the  American  Constitutions.  It  was 
not  to  maintain,  as  I  understood  the  gentleman  to 
say,  that  every  just  and  proper  government  neces- 
sarily contains  an  infusion  of  monarchy  and  aristoc- 
racy. 

I  have  now  occupied  much  more  time  in  addressing 
the  committee  than  I  intended.  And  the  apprehension 
that  I  have  trespassed  upon  the  indulgence  of  this  house 
beyond  my  deserts,  admonishes  me  that  I  must  conclude. 
I  might  enlarge  on  the  various  propositions  announced 
here,  and  somewhat  improve  the  proposition  I  have  ad- 
vanced. But  I  feel  that  I  have  occupied  as  much  of  the 
time  of  the  committee  as  I  am  entitled  to.  I  wish  gen- 
tlemen, if  any  shall  deem  it  worthy  to  consider  my  po- 


192 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


sition,  to  remember  what  it  is,  that  to  justify  any  re- 
strictions upon  ihe  power  of  the  pe  pie,  the  restric- 
tions must  fall  within  the  conditions  which  I  have 
enumerated,  namely  that  the  restrictions  will  certain- 
ly avert  some  public  mischief,  or,  second,  that  the 
restriction  will  certainly  accomplish  some  public  bene- 
fit. Not  falling  within  one  of  these  two  conditions, 
I  repudiate  any  restriction  whatever  on  the  powers  of 
the  people. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.    I  move  that  the  committee  rise. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  My  reason  for  moving  that  the 
committee  should  rise  was  that  we  had  reached  the 
usual  time  for  adjournment,  having  been  in  session  up- 
wards of  three  hours.  I  had  not  proposed  to  address 
the  committee  until  to-morrow,  and  I  confess  that  now 
I  should  prefer  to  address  them  to-morrow  rather  than 
to-day. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  am  ready  to  fill  up  the  time  before  the 
adjournment. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  suggest  that  there 
can  be  no  understanding  between  gentlemen  as  to  who 
shall  occupy  the  floor  hereafter. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  Certainly  not,  sir.  At  the  sugges- 
tion of  friends,  I  will  however  wait  until  to-morrow  be- 
fore I  address  the  committee. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  did  not  contemplate  engaging  in  this 
discussion,  until  the  views  of  my  colleague  from  Pow- 
hatan (Mr.  Hopkins)  made  it  necessary,  in  my  opinion, 
that  our  views  should  go  out  before  the  country  togeth- 
er, for  in  the  attitude  in  which  we  now  stand,  one  or 
the  other  of  us  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  misrepre- 
sent our  constituents.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  there 
fore,  I  have  thought  it  proper  that  the  opinions  I  enter- 
tain in  opposition  to  him,  should  go  out  to  the  public,  so 
that  if  our  constituents  felt  an  interest  in  this  question, 
they  might  have  an  opportunity  of  giving  us  their  coun- 
sel. I  differ  from  my  colleague  in  relation  to  the  duties 
and  powers  that  we  possess  in  relatiou  to  the  various 
questions  of  reform  that  have  been  submitted  to  us  here, 
and  I  wish  on  this  occasion  to  define  the  position  that  I 
occupy  upon  these  questions.  It  is  this  :  that  wherever 
the  people  at  the  polls  or  in  the  canvass  have  called  on 
us  for  reform,  I  will,  whether  right  or  wrong,  give  them 
that  reform  ;  but  when,  without  any  demand  on  the  part 
of  the  people,  and  without  any  attempt  to  show  that  a 
particular  clause  of  the  Constitution  has  worked  ill,  it 
is  proposed  that  we  are  to  take  the  Constitution  up  upon 
any  system  of  a  priori  reasoning,  independent  of  the 
wish  of  the  people,  and  without  some  strong  reason, 
showing  that  such  a  provision  is  an  improper  one,  that 
is,  occupying  a  ground  of  reform  which  I  will  not  un- 
dertake in  this  Convention,  so  farifcs  my  duties  are  con- 
cerned. Now  what  is  this  restriction  ?  Gentlemen  have 
admitted  that  this  question  was  not  argued  before  the 
people,  and  ask  us  to  go  into  this  subject  and  be 
governed  by  our  mere  theoretical  speculations  on  the 
spur  of  the  occasion,  and  insist  we  must  go  for  a  re- 
form in  every  case,  where  any  individual  may  deem 
that  a  reform  ought  to  be  made.  What  is  the  condi- 
tion in  which  we  stand  here  in  reference  to  this 
subject.  In  1830,  this  odious  restriction,  as  it  i->  termed, 
was  placed  by  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth  up- 
on themselves  ;  this  ineligibility  of  the  Governor  after 
one  term,  I  say,  was  sanctioned  by  the  people  them- 
selves in  1830. 

I  ask  my  colleague  if  he  has  heard  from  any  part  of 
his  district,  a  dissent  on  the  part  of  the  people  to  that 
restriction  ?  If  he  has  not,  then  I  stand  on  impregnable 
ground  in  defending  what  the  people  did  in  1829 ,  and  have 
not  complained  of  up  to  this  hour.  The  gentlemen  who 
have  taken  the  position  that  the  provision  should  be 
stricken  out,  are  bound  to  show  some  reason,  and  con- 
vince my  judgment  that  it  is  wrong.  That  is  the  point 
and  the  issue  between  parties  on  this  floor.  What 
are  the  reasons  that  have  been  urged  why  it  should 
be  stricken  out  ?  Why,  gentlemen  tell  us  in  ambig- 
uous phrases  that  this  is  a  restriction  upon  popular 
rights  ;  and  that  it  is  a  question  of  popular  pow- 


er. When  this  discussion  first  commenced,  it  was  con- 
sidered a  question  of  expediency.  But  when  it  had  pro- 
gressed, and  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan  and  from 
Montgomery,  and  the  gentleman  who  has  spoken  to-day 
had  expressed  their  views,  it  ceased  to  be  a  matter  of 
expediency,  and  became  one  of  those  great  fundamental 
principles  that  are  to  be  acted  upon  here.  Can  you  make 
a  principle  when  you  please,  and  of  what  you  please «  I 
be]  ieve  that  nobody  would  claim  the  bill  of  rights  was 
not  comprehensive  enough.  Yet  gentlemen  who  have 
broached  this  argument  have  attempted  to  introduce 
some  new  great  principle  for  us  to  act  upon  in  reference 
to  this  restriction  of  popular  rights.  No  such  principle 
is  to  be  found  in  the  bill  of  rights.  It  is  a  principle  adopt- 
ed for  the  occasion.  Where  does  it  come  from,  and 
whence  did  it  originate  ?  And,  by  the  by,  there  was  one 
gentleman  (Mr.  Hoge)  who  undertook  to  carry  out  this 
principle  to  the  last  extreme.  He  saw  a  difficulty  in  his 
way  whenever  he  was  brought  down  to  the  question  ; 
and  like  a  prudent  soldier,  he  took  a  prudent  stand, 
and  went  so  far  as  to  say  in  reference  to  the  great 
principles  that  were  laid  down,  that  the  only  reason  why 
he  would  not  permit  minors  or  ladies  to  occupy  the 
highest  office  in  the  State  was  that  they  were  not 
citizens  of  the  State.  Now  I  like  to  see  gentlemen 
carry  out  their  principles  as  my  friend  from  Montgome- 
ry did. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  dislike  very  much  to  interrupt  a  gen- 
tleman while  he  is  speaking,  but  I  must  correct  the  gen- 
tleman's misapprehension.  My  proposition  was  this, — 
and  here  I  beg  leave,  if  the  gentleman  will  pardon  me — 
but  for  a  moment  to  say,  that  while  engaged  in  speak- 
ing on  the  subject  yesterday — the  first  time  I  have  ever 
spoken  in  a  deliberative  body — perhaps  I  did  not  make 
myself  very  clear,  owing  to  the  embarrassment  so  natur- 
al under  the  circumstances.  The  position  I  attempted  to 
maintain  was  this  :  that  a  disfranchised  individual  was 
not  a  citizen.  My  friend  knows  that  the  writers  on  the 
subject,  from  the  earliest  period  down  to  the  present 
time,  define  a  citizen  to  mean  one  who  has  the  right  to 
exercise  political  power.  My  position  then  was  not  as 
stated  in  the  papers  this  morning',  that  ladies  and  mi- 
nors were  inhabitants,  for  so  long  as  they  were  dis- 
franchised, they  could  not  be  citizens  in  the  technical 
meaning  of  the  word,  because  none  could  be,  according 
to  that  meaning,  except  one  possessing  political  rights 
and  power. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  very  well  understood  the  gentleman, 
but  does  he  not  see  the  extent  to  which  this  doctrine  of 
re-eligibility  would  carry  him — provided  that  the  diffi- 
culty of  citizenship  was  out  of  the  way?  Citizenship 
is  itself  a  restriction,  and  this  is  the  time  and  place  to 
remove  it  if  necessary,  and  according  to  the  gentle- 
man's view,  the  first  clause  ought  to  be  so  amended 
that  it  should  read  governor  or  governess.  That  would 
meet,  exactly,  the  idea  of  the  gentleman,  if  his  theory 
is  to  be  fully  carried  out.  I  can  understand  what  gen- 
tlemen mean  when  they  argne  this  question  as  a  mat- 
ter of  expediency  ;  but  when  they  place  it  on  the  ground 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pulaski,  or  the  gentleman  last 
up,  as  a  broad  principle,  which,  if  applied  in  one  case, 
it  is  bound  to  be  applied  in  all  cases,  without  a  single 
exception,  I  confess  I  do  not  so  clearly  understand 
them.  If  that  principle  is  to  be  acted  on  in  this  Con- 
vention, I  hope  and  trust  that  these  gentlemen  will  test 
that  doctrine  by  striking  out  all  restrictions.  Let  us 
have  their  argument  stripped  of  all  doubtful  positions  ; 
let  us  allow  the  foreigner  not  only  to  elect,  but  to 
be  elected  as  governor  ;  and  I  suppose,  then,  instead  of 
the  gentleman  from  Richmond  city  addressing  the 
Dutch,  we  shall  have  an  address  from  the  Dutch.  That 
is  a  restriction,  and  when  you  take  the  broad  ground, 
or  principle,  in  opposition  to  all  restriction,  then  the 
enormity  of  the  doctrine  is  manifest.  Will  you,  on  the 
nice  question  on  which  my  colleague  and  myself  will 
have  to  act  in  relation  to  the  restriction  of  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  strike  it  out  ?  I  believe  the  committee  have 
reported  this  restriction  on  that  class  of  men,  thus  ex- 
cluding, not  an  individual  as  governor,  l*ut  a  whole  class 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


193 


of  men  unsurpassed  for  usefulness,  intelligence  and  vir- 
tue. That  whole  class,  according  to  this  report,  and 
by  the  present  constitution,  are  restricted.  And  has 
there  been  any  complaint  from  the  people,  that  this  re- 
striction was  an  unwholesome  one  ?  And  yet,  gentle- 
men, if  they  carry  out  their  doctrine,  must  do  away 
with  that  restriction,  and  every  other  restriction.  The 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  itself,  con- 
tains a  restriction,  for  while  it  goes  to  make  a  govern- 
or re-eligible  during  his  whole  life,  it  adds,  "  provided, 
nevertheless,  that  he  shall  not  accept  any  other  office 
during  his  term  of  service.  "  That  is  certainly  another 
restriction  on  the  executive  power,  and  a  restriction  on 
the  people.  I  contend,  as  was  properly  maintained  by 
the  gentleman  from  Spottsylvania,  (Mr.  Conway,)  that 
this  is  not  a  principle,  but  a  mere  matter  of  expediency, 
that  may  be  applied  to  one  officer  according  to  his  duty, 
and  may  be  withheld  from  another  as  necessity  may  re- 
quire, and  that  will  decide  the  course  I  shall  take  in 
relation  to  all  the  cases  that  may  come  up  before  this 
Convention.  Gentlemen  seem  to  have  derived  their 
arguments  from  Alexander  Hamilton  himself,  and  this 
extreme  of  democracy  and  that  extreme  of  federalism 
seem  to  have  come  together  on  this  occasion  by  some 
strange  process.  N  You  may  take  that  principle  of  feder- 
alism in  which  the  re-eligibility  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  is  maintained  by  Mr.  Hamilton,  who 
makes  the  very  same  argument  which  has  been  adduced 
before  this  committee  in  favor  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the 
governor.  He  was  in  favor  of  a  strong  government, 
and  of  giving  the  executive  that  stability  of  power  the 
gentleman  (Mr.  Neeson)  just  now  spoke  of.  That  was 
the  idea  of  Alexander  Hamilton  in  relation  to  the  office 
of  President  of  the  United  States  ;  and  his  argument 
was  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  gentlemen  who  desire 
to  make  the  executive  stable  and  strong.  Summing  up 
in  a  very  brief  manner,  I  shall,  therefore,  (for  I  do  not 
propose  to  occupy  much  time  in  the  committee,)  refer 
to  the  great  body  of  arguments  which  have  been  ad- 
duced here  in  favor  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor 
of  the  State.  I  do  not  recollect  the  names  of  the  speak- 
ers, but  I  think  the  arguments  may  be  classified  some- 
thing as  follows  : 

One  of  the  objections  was  that  the  Governor  may  be 
at  the  head  of  the  army  when  his  time  expires  ;  that  his 
ambition  may  induce  him  to  cut  his  way  to  a  second  term 
by  means  of  a  revolution  ;  that  he  will  not  be  able  to 
complete  and  carry  out  his  measures  ;  and  that  he  will 
have  no  stimulus  to  discharge  his  duties,  unless  a  second 
term  is  held  out  to  him.  This  constitutes  the  substance 
of  all  the  arguments  that  have  been  adduced  before  this 
committee.  Did  it  never  occur  to  gentlemen  that  all 
those  extreme  and  improbable  cases  could  never  be  pro- 
vided for  in  a  fundamental  law?  Did  it  never  occur  to 
gentlemen  that  in  framing  the  fundamental  law  it  should 
have  reference  to  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  executive, 
and  that  no  human  wisdom  is  competent  to  the  framing 
of  a  government  that  in  its  application  will  guard  against 
all  these  extreme  and  improbable  cases  ?  All  that  we 
can  do  in  the  formation  of  our  constitution  is  to  lay  down 
certain  general  principles,  and  these  extreme  cases  must 
take  care  of  themselves.  One  leading  argument  that 
has  been  adduced  here,  and  that  was  adverted  to  by  the 
gentleman  last  up,  is,  that  if  you  do  not  give  the  govern- 
or a  second  term,  you  will  not  give  him  length  of  time 
sufficient  to  carry  out  his  measures  and  plans.  What 
plans  has  a  governor  to  mature  in  this  commonwealth  ? 
Can  he  make  a  canal,  or  a  railroad,  or  any  other  public 
•work  ?  I  ask  if  the  governor,  conceding  that  he  is  to 
^propose  great  plans  and  measures,  will  not  have  ample 
time  within  the  term  proposed  by  the  committee  to  car- 
ry them  out?  What  is  the  difficulty  in  the  President's 
carrying  out  his  policy  during  his  first  term  of  office  ? 
So  soon  as  a  man  is  known  to  be  a  candidate  for  re- 
election, the  whole  power  of  the  party  opposed  to  him 
and  the  party  press  will  be  arrayed  against  every  one  of 
his  measures  ;  and  what  is  the  effect  ?  They  destroy  the 
measures  of  the  administration.  Certainly  the  most  vio- 
lent opposition  ever  made  to  the  measures  of  the  Presi- 


dent is  during  his  first  term  of  service.  Such  will  be 
the  case  also  with  the  Governor,  should  he  be  re-eligi- 
ble. But  suppose  he  should  be  allowed  to  hold  for  a  sin- 
gle term  only,  what  would  be  the  result  ?  Why  the 
measures  to  which  my  colleague  referred  might  be  pro- 
posed and  carried  out,  and  would  meet  with  no  organ- 
ized opposition  from  any  man  or  set  of  men.  They 
would  say  that  he  was  about  to  depart  from  office  with- 
out the  right  of  being  again  a  candidate,  and  they  would 
have  no  motive  not  to  give  his  measures  a  full  and  candid 
consideration.  But  if  he  should  be  allowed  to  be  a  candi- 
date for  the  second  term,  his  opponents  in  the  Legisla- 
ture would  be  continually  engaged  in  efforts  to  thwart 
his  measures  and  render  him  odious  before  the  people 
with  the  view  of  defeating  him  in  the  election.  There- 
fore, I  say  that  the  Executive  would  have  a  far  greater 
chance  of  fairly  carrying  out  any  system  of  measures 
which  he  might  devise  were  he  rendered  ineligible,  than 
he  would  if  he  were  re-eligible. 

There  was  another  argument  upon  another  branch  of 
this  subject,  from  my  colleague  from  Powhatan,  I  think, 
that  to  place  such  a  restriction  as  ineligibility  on  an 
ambitious  man  might  be  to  induce  him,  influenced  by 
this  passion  of  ambition,  when  he  found  his  term  was 
about  to  expire,  to  seek  to  sever  that  restriction  with 
the  sword.  Well  this  comes  within  a  class  of  cases 
which,  as  I  before  remarked,  are  of  very  rare  occur- 
rence, and  cannot  be  provided  for  in  the  organic  laws, 
and  which  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  be  guarded  against 
either  by  this  principle  of  re-eligibility.  But  suppose 
you  have  put  an  ambitious  man  of  this  character  in  of*- 
fice,  will  he  be  less  likely — after  his  appetite  for  office 
has  been  whetted  by  an  enjoyment  of  the  treasury  pap 
for  eight  years— be  less  likely  to  draw  his  sword  and  at- 
tempt to  cut  his  way  to  a  third  term  if  the  people  should 
refuse  to  give  it  to  him  ?  When  was  it  that  the  lust  for 
power  was  ever  satisfied  or  lessened  by  possession  ?  The 
experience  of  the  world  teaches  us  that  in  proportion  to 
the  length  of  time  a  man  retains  power,  just  in  that  pro- 
portion does  his  love  and  desire  for  it  increase.  Accord- 
ing to  the  theory  of  the  gentleman,  to  prevent  the  oc- 
currence of  a  case  of  this  kind,  you  must  permit  the  Ex- 
ecutive to  remain  in  office  for  life.  That,  on  his  ground, 
must  be  the  only  remedy  the  people  can  have  agains  t 
such  an  evil. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  the  people  ought  to  have  the  right 
of  selecting  in  all  cases  as  well  as  of  electing  their 
agents  ;  and  in  order  to  illustrate  and  give  force  to  his 
views  on  that  subject,  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan 
cited  the  case  of  the  late  President  Van  Buren,  and  said 
that  he,  during  the  whole  of  his  first  term,  was  sound 
and  true  to  the  South.  Well,  that  is  all  we  propose  to 
give  to  any  man — one  term — and  then  we  shall  keep 
him  as  sound  as  was  Mr.  Van  Buren .  But  there  is  anoth- 
er view  of  that  case,  from  which  a  very  different  moral 
may  be  drawn.  Suppose  that  you  put  a  man  in  the  gu- 
bernatorial chair  for  four  years  with  this  unlimited  right 
of  selecting  him.  The  gentleman  who  last  addressed  us 
showed  that  of  thirteen  out  of  eighteen  governors  here- 
tofore elected,  every  man  held  on  to  the  ultimate  extent 
of  his  term,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
love  of  office  or  power  has  decreased  since  that  period. 
Now  this  governor  who  has  been  elected  for  four  years 
and  is  re-eligible  for  four  years  more,  may  happen  to 
prove,  as  did  Mr.  Van  Buren,  not  very  palatable  to  you, 
and  what  may  be  the  result  ?  Why,  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  in 
for  one  term,  and  remained  true,  but  the  very  moment  he 
found  that  you  were  determined  not  to  re-elect  him,  he 
turned  against  you  and  upset  the  party.  That  will  be 
the  result  of  this  glorious  privilege  of  selecting  your  go- 
vernor as  a  candidate.  He  may  determine  to  be  re- 
elected whether  you  desire  it  or  not,  and  in  the  end, 
perhaps,  it  will  take  a  two-thirds  vote,  as  it  did  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  to  get  rid  of  him.  That  will  be 
the  practice  under  this  principle  of  re-eligibility.  The 
Governor  will  take  his  stand  and  insist  upon  being  a 
candidate,  under  the  threat,  if  he  be  not  gratified  in  his 
desire,  that  he  will  overthrow  the  party  ascendancy ;  and 
thus  he  will  make  himself  a  candidate,  and  the  desire  to 


194 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


preserve  party  ascendancy  will  be  likely  to  secure  his 
election.  What  then  becomes  of  this  so  much  talked  of 
privilege  of  selecting  your  candidate  as  you  choose  ? 

I  did  not  intend  to  submit  but  a  very  few  remarks  in 
relation  to  this  question  of  re-eligibility.  I  have  believed 
from  the  first  that  the  one-term  principle  would  secure  in 
the  executive  office  more  independence,  and  more  purity 
in  its  administration,  and  that  it  would  not  connect  itself 
with  the  party  politics  of  the  country,  as  was  the  case 
in  relation  to  the  Executive  of  the  United  States.  You 
may  look  at  it  as  you  please,  and  you  will  find  that  all 
the  corruption  complained  of  in  that  office,  has  been  the 
result  of  this  principle  of  re-eligibility  as  applied  to  the 
incumbent.  That  is  the  great  source  of  evil,  and  if  the 
Governor  has  the  patronage  which  it  is  possible  may  be 
bestowed  upon  him,  the  very  same  corrupting  practices 
in  relation  to  the  exercise  of  patronage  and  power  will 
follow  and  attach  itself  to  the  Governor,  as  it  has  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  My  proposition  is  to 
place  him  in  power  for  a  single  term.  Let  there  be  no 
temptation  to  turn  him  to  the  right  or  to  the  left,  for  if 
the  idea  of  getting  into  office  again  is  held  out  to  him, 
I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  measures  of  the  Executive 
will  be  fashioned  more  with  reference  to  the  interests  of 
himself  and  his  party  than  the  great  interests  of  the 
country.  And  if  he  be  not  re-eligible,  is  it  expected  that 
the  men  whom  the  people  will  place  in  this  station  will 
not  have  their  patriotism,  their  love  of  country  and 
their  own  reputation,  sufficient  stimulants  to  good  con- 
duct and  an  efficient  administration  of  their  duties,  with- 
out the  hope  of  re-election  to  this  same  office  ?  It  is 
impossible  for  us  to  say  what  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
or may  be  hereafter.  The  legislature  will  have  it  in 
their  power  to  bestow  on  him  a  vast  amount  of  patron- 
age in  the  way  of  appointments,  and  becau.3  we  cannot 
know  what  it  may  be,  and  because  I  believe  that  re-eli- 
gibility to  a  second  term,  or  to  one  immediately  after 
his  first  term  is  calculated  to  impair  the  usefulness  of 
the  executive  and  render  him  corrupt  in  the  discharge 
of  his  duties,  I  am  compelled,  very  reluctantly,  to  dis- 
sent from  my  colleague  in  his  views  on  this  question. 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  McCOMAS,  the  Commit- 
tee rose. 

GRANTING  THE  USE   OF  THE  HALL. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT  stated  that,  at  the  request  of  some 
of  the  good  people  of  Richmond,  he  would  offer  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Convention  will  not  object  to  any 
arrangement  which  the  owners  of  this  house  shall  make 
with  Mr.  Vandenhoff  for  its  use,  provided  the  arrange- 
ments for  the  accommodation  of  the  Convention  are  in 
no  wise  interfered  with. 

The  question  was  then  taken — a  count  being  had — 
and  there  were  ayes  40,  noes  26 — no  quorum. 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  TAYLOR,  the  Conven- 
tion adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  11  o'clock,  A.  M. 

TUESDAY,  February  11,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  Rev.  Dr.  Empie. 

The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

GRANT  OF  THE  USE  OF  THE  HALL. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  the  first  business  in  order 
to  be  the  unfinished  business  of  yesterday,  being  a  res- 
olution offered  by  Mr.  M.  Garnett,  granting  the  use  of 
the  hall  to  Mr.  G.  Vandenhoff,  for  the  delivery  of  a 
course  of  dramatic  lectures. 

The  resolution,  after  an  explanation  by  Mr.  GAR- 
NETT that  it  was  offered  at  the  instance  of  the  propri- 
etors of  the  church,  was  agreed  to. 

REPORT  OF  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department  of  the  government,  have,  according  to  or- 
der, had  under  consideration  various  resolutions  to 
them  referred,  to  wit: — A  resolution  of  Mr.  Floyd, 


adopted  on  the  2d  day  of  November,  in  relation  to  "tax- 
ing the  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  of  the  non-slave- 
holding  states  ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Hays,  adopted  on 
the  8th  day  of  January,  in  relation  to  "  a  restriction  of 
the  process  casa  ;"  a  resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  Cam- 
den, and  adopted  on  the  10th  of  January,  in  relation 
to  securing  "a  preference  to  bill  holders  of  insolvent 
banking  associations  and  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Botts, 
adopted  on  the  17th  of  January,  in  relation  to  the  ab- 
olition of  capital  punishment  and  imprisonment  for 
debt.  On  these  subjects  the  committee  have  instruct- 
ed me  to  report,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  make  these 
provisions  in  the  Constitution.  Unless  some  member 
desires  that  the  resolutions  shall  be  read,  I  will  move 
that  they  lie  on  the  table. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  wish  to  understand  if  the  report  just 
submitted  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department  is  one  in  fact,  asking  to  be  dis- 
charged from  the  further  consideration  of  certain  pro- 
visions. If  so,  I  presume  that  they  ought  to  be  print- 
ed, just  as  well  as  those  the  committee,  in  their  wis- 
dom, have  thought  proper  to  adopt. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  report  of  the  committee  is  not 
one  asking  to  be  discharged  from  the  further  consider- 
ation of  these  subjects,  but  declaring  that  it  is  inexpe- 
dient that  they  should  be  inserted  in  the  constitution. 

Mr.  "WISE.  That  is  the  same  thing.  It  is  the  voice 
of  the  committee  against  the  propositions.  Now,  this 
body  may  not  concur  with  the  committee  in  their  views 
of  expediency.  I  suppose  there  will  be  a  number  of 
propositions  in  which  the  committee  will  not  concur, 
and  this  I  expected  when  the  committee  was  raised. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  lay  on  the  ta- 
ble ,  and  therefore  is  not  a  debatable  one. 
Mr.  GOODE.  I  will  withdraw  the  motion. 
Mr.  WISE.  I  am  not  opposing  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table.  But  I  hope  the  propositions  rejected,  as  well 
as  those  adopted  by  the  committee,  will  be  printed,  be- 
cause the  Convention  may  reverse  the  action  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  request  of 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac  ;  but  I  would  suggest  to 
him  and  the  Convention,  that  perhaps  every  resolution 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment has  been  already  printed  for  the  use  of  the  mem- 
bers. If  the  Convention  desire  them  to  be  printed  over 
again,  certainly  I  have  no  objection  to  it.  It  was  sug- 
gested to  me  that  the  proper  course  would  be  to  lay  the 
resolutions  collectively  on  the  table  ;  and  when  any 
gentleman,  who  felt  interested  in  any  one  of  them, 
might  submit  any  motion  in  regard  to  it,  which  in  his 
wisdom  he  may  deem  expedient,  it  could  then  be  taken 
up. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  simply  remark  that  the  very 
reason  urged  against  the  printing  the  resolutions  reject- 
ed by  the  committee,  might  be  urged  against  the  print- 
ing of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  committee,  and 
with  equal  force.  They  have  all,  I  believe,  been  print- 
ed ;  but  they  were  merely  printed  for  the  purpose  of 
indicating  to  the  Convention  at  the  time,  as  to  what 
was  referred  to  the  committee.  The  moment  the  res- 
olutions were  referred  to  the  committees,  I  presume 
they  were  given  up  immediately  to  their  consideration. 
The  time  had  net  come  for  the  Convention  to  consider 
them  itself.  Now,  unless  they  are  printed,  members 
will  n©t  have  them  in  their  possession,  and  an  opportu- 
nity to  examine  them  carefully  and  in  their  rooms. 
Now,  I  have  myself  offered  some  resolutions  which  I 
should  like  the  Convention  to  consider,  which  I  am  in- 
formed the  committee  have  rejected.  I  never  expect- 
ed that  this  committee  could  consider  all  the  proposi- 
tions submitted  to  them  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  they  re- 
jected many  propositions  for  the  want  of  consideration. 
And  with  a  view  that  they  may  be  in  the  hands  of  mem- 
bers here,  and  at  their  chambers,  and  by  them  in  their 
seats,  that  they  may  know  when  they  are  called  up  for 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention  what  they  are,  I 
move  to  print  the  propositions  which  have  been  reject- 


ed,  so  that  I  may  see  and  know  what  it  is  the  commit- 
tee have  rejected,  as  well  as  what  it  is  they  have  adopt- 
ed. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  gen- 
tleman should  be  accommodated  in  the  printing  of  these 
reports  ;  and  I  only  wish  to  say  to  him,  tt  at  no  one  of 
the  resolutions  of  which  he  is  the  author,  is  embraced 
in  the  report  made  to-day.  If  other  gentlemen  shall 
desire  to  have  their  resolutions  printed,  I  am  content. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  not  made  the  motion  for  my  own 
benefit.  Not  at  all.  But  other  gentlemen  have  sub- 
mitted propositions  to  that  committee,  which  I  believe 
have  been  considered,  and  which  I  shall  not  have  the 
opportunity  to  consider  unless  my  attention  is  called  to 
it  in  the  same  manner  it  will  be  to  the  report  of  the 
committee  itself,  by  beingprinted  and  put  in  my  hands, 
that  I  can  examine  it  at  my  convenience.  I  move  that 
the  report  be  printed. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  ask  for  a  division  of  the  question, 
to  be  taken  first  on  the  motion  to  print. 

The  motion  to  print  was  agreed  to,  a  count  being 
had,  ayes  43,  noes  38,  and  then  the  report  was  laid  on 
the  table. 


THE  REPORT  OP  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BASIS    OF  REPRE- 
SENTATION. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  report  from  the  Committee 
on  the  Basis  of  Representation  having  been  printed  and 
distributed,  I  rise  now  for  the  purpose  of  moving  its 
reference  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  which  I  shall 
do  before  I  sit  down.  I  beg  leave  to  state  that  there 
seems  to  be  a  very  general  desire,  in  which  I  concur 
fully,  that  the  subject  should  occupy  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  at  an  early  day.  That  seems  to  have 
been  the  understanding  from  the  beginning  :  and  with 
out  going  into  the  question  of  the  relative  importance 
of  the  various  subjects  that  have  been  reported  upon, 
it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say,  at  this  time,  that  there 
seems  to  be  an  opinion  that  the  subject  with  which  that 
committee  was  charged,  should  be  disposed  of  at  as 
early  a  day  as  practicable.  In  order  that  the  time  may 
be  fixed  for  taking  up  and  considering  that  report,  I 
now  move  its  reference  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  that  it  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Thursday 
next. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  cannot  make  an  order  of 
the  day  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  did  not  ask  to  make  such  an  or- 
der in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  But  it  is  certainly 
competent  in  the  Convention  to  give  any  instructions  to 
that  committee  which  it  may  think  proper! 

The  PRESIDENT.  So  it  may  be,  by  resolution  ; 
but  the  house  cannot  make  any  order  of  the  day  in  the 
committee. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  do  not  profess  to  have  any  ac- 
quaintance with  the  rules  of  order.  But  I  did  sup 
pose  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  like  any  other 
committee,  was  subject  to  the  Convention,  and  that  the 
Convention  might  indicate  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  as  they 'may  to  any  other  committee,  the  order 
of  priority  in  which  they  desire  subjects  of  business  to 
occupy  their  attention.  The  making  of  this  report  the 
order  of  the  day  for  a  given  day,  is  but  one  form  of 
instructing  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  it 
prior  to  other  matters  before  it.  It  is  not  material, 
however,  how  this  matter  is  reached,  and  if  the  Presi- 
dent is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  competent  for  the 
Convention  to  make  it  the  order  of  the  day  for  any 
specified  day,  I  may  be  able  to  attain  the  same  end, 
by  giving  notice  that  on  Thursday,  I  will  move  that 
the  Convention  shall  resolve  itself  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  on  the  Basis  Question.  1  have  stated  Thurs- 
day, and  although  gentlemen  may  prefer  an  earlier  or 
2l  letter  dciy— 

SEVERAL  MEMBERS.  Say  to-morrow.  Say  Mon- 
day. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  hear  some  voices  suggesting  to- 
morrow and  others  suggesting  Monday  next.  There 
seems  to  be  something  like  an  equality  for  to-morrow 


|  and  Monday.  I  think  I  will  adhere  to  my  own  propo- 
sition and  give  notice  that  I  shall  move  to  make  it  the 
order  of  the  day  for  Thursday. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole  has 
entire  control  over  its  own  business,  unless  they  act  un- 
der the  instructions  of  the  Convention.  The  expe- 
rienced gentleman  from  Norfolk,  (Mr.  Watts,)  sug- 
gested to  me,  that  there  could  not  be  an  order  of  the 
day  made  in  committee,  that  it  must  be  by  the  Conven- 
tion, and  having  looked  into  the  subject,  I  have  become 
satisfied  that  the  Convention  has  a  right  to  make  any 
direction  to  the  committee  they  choose  ;  for  instance, 
when  a  debate  shall  close,  or  when  a  vote  shall  be  ta- 
ken, or  what  business  shall  first  be  considered.  The 
course  indicated  by  the  gentleman  will  accomplish  his 
object. 

The  report  of  the  committee  was  then,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  SUMMERS,  taken  from  the  table,  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WESTERN  LAND  TITLES. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  directed  by  the  Select  Com- 
mittee on  the  Western  Land  Titles  to  make  a  report, 
which  I  send  to  the  Chair,  and  move  that  it  be  read, 
as  it  is  a  very  short  one,  laid  on  the  table  and  printed. 

The  report  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  committee  appointed  on  the  subject  of  western 
land  titles,  &c,  have,  according  to  order,  had  under 
consideration  the  subjects  referred  to  them,  and  have 
agreed  to  the  following  provisions  to  be  incorporated 
into  the  constitution,  to-wit : 

No  person  shall,  for  and  during  the  term  of  twenty- 
one  years  next  after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
make  an  entry  on,  or  bring  an  action  to  recover,  any 
land  lying  west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains,  but  within 
seven  years  next  after  the  time  at  which  the  right  to 
make  such  entry,  or  to  bring  such  action,  shall  have  first 
accrued  to  himself  or  herself,  or  to  some  person  through 
whom  he  or  she  claims.  After  the  expiration  of  said 
term  of  twenty-one  years  the  limitation  of  such  entry 
and  right  of  action  shall  be  prescribed  by  law  :  Provi- 
ded, nevertheless,  that  if  any  person  who  is,  or  shall  be, 
entitled  to  any  such  action  upon  his  or  her  own  seizure 
or  possession  was  under  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  or 
non  compos  mentis,  at  the  time  such  action  accrued,  or 
shall  accrue,  every  such  person  shall  and  may,  notwith- 
standing the  seven  years  are  or  shall  be  expired,  bring 
and  maintain  such  action  within  one  year  next  after 
such  disabilities  are  removed,  and  not  after.  And  pro- 
vided, also,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  con- 
strued to  affect  any  such  action  which  may  have  been 
instituted,  and  is  now  depending,  or  which  may  hereaf- 
ter be  instituted  within  one  year. 

No  grant  or  patent  shall  hereafter  issue  to  any  per- 
son for  forfeited  or  waste  and  unappropriated  land  ly- 
ing west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains,  except  upon  sur- 
veys made  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  and  which  shall 
be  returned  to  the  land  office  before  the  first  day  of  Oc- 
tober next.  But  such  land  may  be  proceeded  against 
and  sold  under  decrees  of  the  circuit  or  superior  court 
of  the  county  in  which  the  same,  or  the  greater  part 
thereof  may  lie,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  prescribed 
by  law. 

The  report  was  then  laid  on  the  table  in  order  to 
printed. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor,  re- 
sumed the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
(Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk,  in  the  Chair)  of  the  report  of 
the  Committe  e  on  the  Executive  Department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  Chair  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first  clause 
of  the  first  article  of  the  report,  and  the  amendments 
pending  thereto. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  I  perhaps  owe  this  committe  an 
apology  for  trespassing  upon  their  time  at  this  late  pe- 
riod in  the  discussion  of  the  question.    I  am  aware  that 


196 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


nothing,  either  in  my  position,  my  experience,  or  any 
thing;  which  belongs  to  me,  is  calculated  to  win 
the  attention  of  this  Convention  or  to  add  force  to  what 
I  say.  At  first,  I  had  no  idea  of  entering  into  the  dis- 
cussion, or  of  participating  in  the  efforts  on  either  side  ; 
but  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  in  the  progress  of  the  de- 
bate, the  subject  has  been  thrown  entirely  out  of  its  le- 
gitimate channel.  At  that  time  I  had  conceived  that,  if 
others  than  myself  did  not  express  the  views  I  enter- 
tained, that  I  would  lay  them  myself  before  the  com- 
mittee. I  had  hoped  that  the  debate  would  have  come 
to  a  conclusion  long  before  this.  But  it  has  gone  on 
from  day  to  day,  and  the  discussion  has  taken  the  wi- 
dest latitude  ;  and  it  is  but  lately,  as  I  conceive,  that  it 
has  been  turned  to  the  principle  which  is  really  involved 
in  the  question.  I  am  happy  that,  after  a  number  of 
days,  the  discussion  has  come  back  within  the  last  day 
or  two  within  the  true  grounds  on  which,  I  think,  this 
subject  ought  to  be  discussed.  We  listened  for  a  num- 
ber of  days  in  the  early  part  of  this  discussion  to  every 
thing  but  the  question — to  every  possible  collateral  issue 
that  it  seems  to  me  could  be  raised  on  any  question. 
Now,  I  contend  that  there  is  a  principle  involved  in  this 
question — that  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  way,  and 
that  the  right  way  is  demonstrable,  and  can  be  made 
clear,  and  that  if  this  Convention  would  earnestly  turn 
its  energies  upon  this  subject,  with  no  other  object  than 
to  arrive  at  the  truth,  there  would  not  be  such  a  variety 
and  difference  of  opinion  as  seems  to  exist  among  mem- 
bers here.  I  make  this  as  a  part  of  my  apology  for  ad- 
dressing the  committee  at  this  time  ;  because,  although 
this  subject  has  been  discussed  for  a  long  time,  it  has, 
as  I  think,  been  in  fact,  under  discussion  hardly  at  all 
till  within  the  last  three  or  four  days.  Although  it  has 
been  ably  discussed  in  many  of  its  points,  and  many  able 
speeches  have  been  delivered,  yet  speeches  are  not  al- 
ways upon  principle.  I  have  been  myself  entertained 
by  these  speeches,  and  I  care  not  how  many  of  them  are 
made,  so  far  as  I  am  individually  concerned,  because 
I  can  listen  to  them  with  great  pleasure.  But  as  I  have 
said,  I  repeat,  that  this  subject  can  be  brougnt  down  in- 
to a  definite  compass,  that  I  think  every  man's  mind,  and 
the  minds  of  the  people,  whom  we  are  to  reach  by  means 
of  our  discussion,  can  at  once  be  brought  to  know  what 
is  the  right  and  what  is  the  wrong.  I  wish  to  state 
what  I  understand  to  be  the  distinct  position  of  the  op- 
position to  re-eligibility,  for  there  are  a  number  of  pro- 
jects before  this  committee,  all  of  which  to  me  are  upon 
principle  equally  erroneous.  I  shall,  in  the  remarks 
that  I  shall  submit,  advocate  the  propositicn  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henrico,  for  the  perpetual  re-eligibility, 
not  only  of  this  officer,  but  of  every  officer  in  the  State, 
so  long  as  the  sovereign  power  may  desire  his  services. 
What,  when  brought  into  a  distinct  compass,  are  the  ob- 
jections raised  to  this  proposition,  and  which  has  been 
assumed  in  opposition  to  it  r  It  has  been  diversified, 
some  taking  one  and  some  another,  yet  almost  the  whole 
of  them,  so  far  as  I  remember  and  can  think  of  them, 
may  be  reduced  into  three  distinct  propositions.  One 
class  of  gentlemen  deny  that  in  their  opposition  to 
this  principle  of  re-eligibility,  they  are  trespassing 
upon  or  curtailing  the  rights  of  the  people.  They  say 
that  they  are  not  restricting  the  rights  ef  the  people. 
The  next  proposition  which  they  assume  is,  that  they 
have  a  right  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the  people,  and 
that  the  very  object  of  a  constitution  is  to  restrict  the 
rights  of  the  people.  These  are  conflicting  it  is  true. 
In  the  third  place  they  tell  us  that  we  are  estopped  from 
denying  that  the  people's  power  should  be  restricted, 
because  we  are  willing  to  support  equal  ?nd  simi- 
lar restrictions  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  ;  and, 
in  the  fourth  place,  that  taking  for  granted  they  have 
the  right  lo  restrict  the  people's  power,  that  this  is 
a  justifiable  instance  in  which  that  right  should  be  ex- 
ercised ;  in  other  words,  that  expediency  indicates  such 
a  course. 

But  I  will  not  state  all  the  grounds  which  were  raised 
at  present ;  but  I  undertake  to  say  that  there  has  been 
nothing  said  to  this  committee  in  relation  to  this  subject 


that  bears  upon  the  principle  at  all,  which  is  not  com- 
prehended under  one  of  these  heads.  I  propose  to  take 
them  up  and  consider  them  very  briefly,  and  see 
whether  there  is  any  real,  substantial  truth  in  the 
positions  which  they  take,  not  "whether  on  collateral  is- 
sues they  may  not  make  a  faint  attack  or  an  efficient  de- 
fence, but  whether  brought  home  honestly  and  in  truth 
to  the  hearts  of  a  republican  people,  there  is  any  truth 
or  reason  in  the  position  they  have  taken.  It  is  always 
easy,  in  a  desultory  debate,  to  spring  upon  the  Conven- 
tion a  proposition  before  they  are  prepared  to  examine 
into  any  of  the  deta'ls  of  the  question,  and  to  suppose  a 
thousand  difficulties  which  the  committee  are  for  the  mo- 
ment unprepared  to  guard  and  defend  against. 

I  adopt  the  principle  of  Jefferson  that,  in  laying  down 
the  forms  for  a  republican  government,  whenever  we  get 
a  true  principle,  we  should  hang  on  to  it,  and  grapple  to 
it  to  the  last,  and  follow  it  out  in  all  its  legitimate  con- 
sequences. Get  hold  of  the  true  republican  chart,  and 
there  is  no  difficulty  about  it.  Let  us  see,  and  here  I 
wish  more  particularly  to  address  my  friend  from  Buck- 
ingham, (Mr.  Ftjqua,)  who,  notwithstanding  it  was  very 
freely  discussed  by  the  gentleman  who  preceded  him, 
on  the  same  side,  repeated  on  yesterday  that  he  did 
not  regard  himself  as  taking  away  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple by  the  vote  he  was  about  to  give.  I  wish  to  appeal 
to  my  friend — I  know  I  may  call  him  so,  after  my  inti- 
macy with  him — if  he  will  not  recognise  this  one  truth, 
that  if  you  should  put  no  restrictions  at  all  in  your  consti- 
tution on  this  subject,  would  not  the  people  have  a  right 
to  re-elect  their  Governor.  I  know  my  friend  will  not 
deny  this.  Well,  why  do  you  make  a  restriction  at  all? 
Then  the  people  have  a  right  tore-elect,  and  do  you  not 
take  that  right  away.  The  gentleman  tells  us  that  he  is 
restricting  the  rights  of  the  Governor,  and  not  of  the 
people.  Let  us  look  at  it.  Do  you  restrict  the  office  of 
the  Governor  ? — for  when  you  speak  of  him  as  Govern- 
or, you  speak  of  him  in  his  official  capacity,  and  not 
personally.  Do  you  check  his  power  of  acting  as  an  Ex- 
ecutive, in  any  shape  or  form?  Has  he  any  right  as  Gov- 
ernor, that  he  cannot  have  as  Governor  if  you  adopt  this 
restriction  ?  None.  You  restrict  no  right  of  his  as  an 
officer.  Then,  do  you  restrict  it  as  an  individual?  How 
does  this  matter  stand  ?  The  people  say,  to  a  man,  we 
desire  some  one  to  perform  the  duties  of  our  agent  in 
the  executive  department  for  four  years,  and  we  will 
give  you  a  salary  of  five  thousand  dollars  to  perform  our 
duties  for  us  during  that  term.  He  accepts  it,  and  at 
the  end  of  that  term  he  proposes  again  to  become  the 
people's  agent.  He  has  ceased  to  be  the  Governor — he 
has  no  claims  upon  them.  His  contract  is  at  an  end., 
and  he  himself  comes  to  them  just  as  any  other  member 
of  the  community.  Then  does  he  have  any  right,  as  an 
individual,  to  an  election  ?  Certainly  not.  No  man  will 
claim  that  we  have  a  right  to  force  the  people,  in  a  re- 
publican government  to  take  for  a  Governor  any  individu- 
al whom  we  may  prescribe.  Then  whose  rights  are  left  to 
be  restricted,  but  those  of  the  people?  You  make  a  restric- 
tion, and  it  must  mean  something,  or  you  would  not  put 
it  in  your  constitution.  Then  whose  rights  have  you  to 
restrict?  Suppose  the  Governor  has  rights.  Suppose 
that,  in  fact,  as  Governor,  or  as  an  individual,  rr  as  both, 
he  has  rights,  and  that  among  those  rights,  if  unrestrict- 
ed would  be  the  right  to  offer  himself  for  re-election  ? 
Does  not  the  fact  that  he  may  offer  himself  for  re-elec- 
tion pre-suppose  the  right  of  the  people  to  re-elect  him? 
Then  you  can  put  the  restriction  only  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  a  general  restriction  upon  the  Governor  and  the  peo- 
ple both,  for  the  very  right  of  the  Governor  to  offer  him- 
self to  the  people  for  a  re-election  pre-supposes  the  right 
of  the  people  to  re-elect  him.  What  if  you  do  thwart  the 
Governor's  right,  you  do  not  the  less  thwart  the  right 
of  the  people.  And  I  believe  gentlemen,  if  they  will 
look  at  the  subject  directly,  fairly,  and  candidly,  will  see 
that  they  cannot  claim  that  they  are  not  restricting  the 
rights  of  the  people.  And  the  very  next  position  which 
they  take,  shows  that  they  are  restricting  the  rights  of 
the  people,  and  is  proof  of  it.  For  the  breath  has  scarcely 
passed  warm  from  their  lips,  in  denying  that  they  are 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


197 


taking  away  from  the  rights  of  the  people  at  all,  when 
they  tell  us,  what  I  have  assumed  to  be  their  second 
proposition,  that  they  have  a  right  to  take  away  the  rights 
of  the  people,  and  that  this  case  is  a  justifiable  instance 
of  their  exercising  that  right.  With  these  facts  before 
them,  and  constantly  reiterated  before  the  committee, 
why  will  gentlemen  assume  the  position  that  they  are 
not  restricting  the  rights  of  the  people  ?  With  due  defer- 
ence, I  must  say  that  I  regard  it  as  sailing  under  false 
colors.  New,  if  you  really  believe  that  the  people 
ought  to  be  restricted,  do  not  say  that  you  are  not  re- 
stricting them.  Come  out  like  men — come  out  like  my 
friend  from  Fauquier,  and  say  that  you  have  the  right  to 
restrict  them,  and  that  you  intend  to  exercise  that  right. 
You  may  give  reasons  for  it,  and  I  am  willing  to  meet 
you  upon  those  reasons;  and  here  I  am  compelled  to 
notice  a  few  of  them  which  have  been  offered,  not  at 
length,  but  simply  by  the  statement  of  a  few  opposite 
reasons  which  I  think  will  be  regarded  as  axiomatic. 
I  will  here  state,  however  startling  it  may  be,  or  how- 
ever radical  it  may  seem  to  gentlemen,  that  I  am  against 
any  and  every  restriction  upon  the  people  ;  and  although 
I  admit  that  they  may  possibly  restrict  themselves — 
that  they  may  say  they  will  not  do  a  thing,  and  may 
abide  by  that  declaration — still,  I  say  that  it  is  always 
wrong  to  restrict  the  rights  of  the  whole  people.  And  I 
am  prepared  to  show,  that  of  all  those  restrictions  which 
they  have  spoken  of,  all  they  can  rightfully  claim  to  im- 
pose is  a  restriction  on  the  government,  and  not  upc  n  the 
people.  Now,  how  many  restrictions  can  you  impose 
on  the  people?  I  have  looked  over  the  whole  ground, 
and  I  am  able  to  conceive  that  there  are  but  two  cases 
of  restriction  that  any  will  ever  dare  to  think  of  placing  on 
the  people.  And  one  is  this  very  restriction  on  the 
choice  or  selection  of  candidates  for  office  ;  and  the  oth- 
er, a  restriction  upon  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
people.  We  all  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  true  doc- 
trine that  all  power  is  in  the  people  —  that  sover- 
eignty not  only  comes  from,  but  resides  with  the 
people,  and  that  the  sovereignty  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred from  the  people.  In  our  federal  government 
the  people,  by  express  grants,  have  delegated  out  a 
portion  of  that  sovereignty,  which  is  designated  by  dis- 
tinctly marked  lines,  and  placed  under  the  control  of 
their  federal  agents,  and  the  residue  of  the  power  is  re- 
served to  themselves.  A  portion  of  this  power  thus  re- 
served to  themselves  they  have  delegated  to  the  State 
governments,  and  the  residue  they  retain  as  unappropri- 
ated power.  In  the  federal  government  the  people  have 
specifically  designated  every  grant  of  power,  because 
there,  from  the  nature  of  the  powers,  they  can  do  it. 
The  nature  of  the  duties  of  a  State  government  are 
too  indefinite  for  such  a  grant.  And  therefore,  for 
convenience,  the  grant  is  indicated  by  a  reservation 
of  powers  by  way  of  exception  to  the  people,  in- 
stead of  putting  it  down  in  express  terms.  The  peo- 
ple, who  do  this,  are  the  grantees  to  their  agents. 
They  do  not  transfer  their  sovereignty  at  any  time, 
they  but  transfer  the  exercise  of  the  power  to  their 
respective  agents  in  the  offices  of  the  government. 
What  then  are  these  restrictions  that  are  proper  to  be 
pat  in  the  constitution?  A  constitution,  1  understand 
to  be  a  contract  between  the  sovereigns,  as  individuals, 
setting  forth  the  number  and  kind  of  representatives 
or  agents,  that  they  choose  to  carry  out  and  exercise 
the  powers  which  they  intend  to  be  exercised  Jjy 
the  particular  government  which  they  are  creating. 
I  understand  that  the  restrictions  that  are  proper  to  put 
in  a  constitution  are  these:  A  fair  declaration  and  sav- 
ing of  the  inalienable  rights  of  man  as  an  individual,  in 
the  first  place  ;  for  all  power  does  hot  reside  with  the 
the  people — no  government  on  earth  has  all  power. 
There  are  rights  which  are  secured  to  man,  which  are 
secured  to  him  as  between  himself  and  his  Maker,  and 
of  which  no  government  can  deprive  him.  Then,  a  re- 
•  servation  of  those  powers  which  the  people  determine 
that  they  will  not  exercise,  not  that  they  do  not  possess 
and  may  not  exercise  at  any  moment  they  choose  to  do 
it,  but  which  they  do  not  choose  the  particular  kind  of 


agents  'which  they  are  forming  shall  exercise.  That  is 
all.  In  every  kind  of  governme  t  which  you  may  form, 
there  will  be  certain  powers  of  the  people,  which, 
from  the  very  nature  of  things,  they  will  be  unwilling  to 
trust  to  any  agent,  and  they  will  consequently  reserve 
these  powers  to  themselves.  Another  species  of  reser- 
vation is,  that  although  the  people  may  trust  their  agent 
with  a  particular  power,  yet  they  will  not  permit  him 
to  exercise  it  except  in  a  particular  way,  and  they  direct 
the  way  in  which  he  shall  exercise  it.  Another  kind  or 
species  of  reservation  is,  that  their  agents  shall  ex- 
ercise the  granted  power  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  or 
by  a  greater  vote  than  a  majority,  or  even  by  a 
unanimous  vote  of  their  agents.  Now,  all  these 
things  are  restrictions.  But  they  are  restrictions 
upon  what,  and  upon  whom  ?  Is  it  not  upon  their 
agents?  Look  over  your  constitution,  and  examine 
the  restrictions  that  have  hitherto  been  imposed,  or 
which  are  now  proposed,  and  show  me  a  single  one  ex- 
cept in  relation  to  those  inalienable  rights,  which  are 
contained  in  the  bill  of  rights,  or  those  which  appertain 
to  the  selection  of  officers,  that  applies  to  the  restriction 
of  the  sovereign  rights  of  the  whole  people.  They  are 
restrictions  upon  the  agents,  and  I  say,  unequivocally, 
because  I  will  not  detain  the  Convention  by  enlarging  up- 
on it — that  it  is  a  perfectly  demonstrable  and  clear  propo- 
sition that  you  ought  never  to  restrict  the  rights  of  the 
people,  and  that  you  cannot,  with  any  propriety,  do  so. 
A  government  of  all  is  made  for  the  good  of  all.  The 
public  opinion  as  expressed  through  its  agents,  for  the 
time  being,  is  the  law  of  the  land.  The  people  cannot 
speak  except  through  this  organized  agency,  so  long  as 
the  constitution  exists  ;  but  if  they  choose  to  speak,  no 
human  power  can  prevent  them,  and  it  is  useless  to  try, 
for  with  the  very  breath  they  determine  to  exercise  the 
power  they  will  blow  to  the  winds  the  restrictiens  you 
have  placed  upon  them.  It  is  not  only  useless,  it  is  wrong. 
This  is,  in  short,  the  position  which  I  take  with  regard 
to  the  restrictions  on  the  rights  of  the  people.  I,  of 
course,  will  be  compelled,  when  I  come  to  other  parts 
of  the  propositions,  to  speak  of  those  exceptions,  which 
gentlemen  think  we  are  willing  to  make,  and  I  will  answer 
them  without  equivocation  or  hesitation.  We  are  told 
that  we  are  estopped  from  denying  this  restriction  upon 
the  rights  of  the  people,  because  forsooth,  we  are  willing 
to  make  equal  and  similar  restrictions  upon  the  rights  of 
the  people,  and  that  this  debars  us  from  asserting  the  con- 
trary. They  tell  us  that  we  are  willing  to  make  an  excep- 
tion against  aliens.  Now,  with  regard  to  aliens,  I  will 
simply  say  this,  that  the  people  have  no  right  to  elect  an 
alien,  and  therefore,  we  do  not  restrict  their  rights.  By 
the  law  of  nations  every  sovereignty  is  presumed  to  have 
power  over  its  subjects  ;  and  they  are  under  the  power 
and  protection  of  that  sovereign,  go  where  they  may, 
whether  in  this  country  or  any  other.  He  owes  alle- 
giance to  another  sovereignty,  and  it  would  be  a  viola- 
tion of  the  law  of  nations  and  a  wrong  to  another  sov- 
ereignty. I  therefore  deny  that  the  people  have  any 
right  to  elect  an  alien.  You  may  elect  him  to-day, 
and  yet  to-morrow  his  services  can  be  called  for  by 
the  sovereignty  to  which  he  owes  his  allegiance.  It 
is  in  vain,  then,  to  talk  about  the  people  having  any 
such  right  as  this,  because  there  is  a  superior  and 
adverse  right  to  theirs.  We  are  told  that  infants 
are  excluded,  and  persons  under  thirty  years  of  age 
will  be  excluded.  Now,  I  say  that  I  will  not  do  any 
such  thing  by  my  vote.  In  the  first  place,  I  be- 
lieve that  if  a  man  has  become  a  freeman,  an  adult,  af- 
ter he  has  arrived  at  the  age  which,  by  the  common 
consent  of  this  Anglo-Saxon  race  of  ours  stamps  him  as 
a  man,  if  the  people  choose  to  elect  such  a  man,  they 
are  welcome  to  d©  it,  for  me.  Nor  will  I  restrict  the 
people  from  choosing  an  infant  under  twenty  one,  and 
why  ?  Because  I  will  not  insult  mankind  by  any  such  re- 
striction. There  is  no  necessity  for  it.  The  people 
would  never  exercise  that  right.  And  if  they  did,  they 
would  have  a  right  to  do  so.  It  is  an  insult  to  offer  to 
impose  any  such  restriction.  And  in  this  report  the 
committee  do  not  restrict  the  people  from  electing  idiots , 


198 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


persons  of  unsound  mind  or  penitentiary  convicts. 
And  why  have  they  not  done  this  ?  Why  Rave  they  not 
restricted  the  people  from  the  choice  of  men  who  have 
been  guilty  of  the  commission  of  in  famous  crimes?  Be- 
cause they  would  not  insult  the  understanding  of  man- 
kind by  such  a  restriction.  And  such  is  my  feeling  with 
regard  to  the  whole  of  them.  Then  gentlemen  say  that 
we  are  willing  to  restrict  the  selection  to  a  native  Vir- 
ginian. I  will  do  no  such  thing.  I  will  hold  to  a  prin- 
ciple that  is  right  till  dooms-day.  There  is  no  necessity 
for  it.  The  people  of  Virginia  will  never  elect  an  alien, 
never  elect  a  man  that  is  from  out  of  the  State,  except 
he  ought  to  be  elected,  and  there  are  times  when  he 
ought  to  be  elected.  There  are  a  thousand  instances, 
and  I  can  cite  them  at  once.  General  Scott,  we  know, 
was  born  in  the  State.  But  suppose  he  had  been  born 
in  New  York — with  all  the  laurels  around  his  brow, 
which  he  has  gathered  during  the  last  thirty  years,  and 
with  all  the  love  and  admiration  his  fellow-citizens  en- 
tertain for  him — and  suppose  he  had  been  a  resident  of 
Virginia  for  two  or  three  years,  and  circumstances  had 
made  it  expedient  to  elevate  him  to  the  gubernatorial 
chair,  would  any  gentleman  think  that  any  harm  or 
wrong  had  been  done  to  the  people  who  had  elected  him  ? 
I  c®nfess  that  as  a  general  proposition,  a  man  born  out 
of  the  commonwealth,  or  who  has  resided  in  it  but  a 
short  time,  ought  not  to  be  elected.  Neither  ought  an 
idiot,  a  lunatic,  or  an  infant  under  twenty-one  years  to 
be  elected.  But  where  a  man  should  not  be  elected,  the 
people  will  never  elect  him.  The  people  will  never 
elect  a  man  who  would  be  subject  to  the  restrictions 
which  gentlemen  propose,  unless  there  should  be  trium- 
phant reasons  why  they  should  elect  him.  That  is  the 
ground  I  take  ;  and  I  will  insult  my  constituents  and 
the  people  of  Virginia  by  no  such  restriction.  The  la- 
dies are  brought  into  this  argument.  And  yet,  I  have 
looked  over  this  report,  and  I  have  seen  no  restriction 
on  the  women  at  all — none  in  the  world.  It  may  be 
that  gentlemen  know  that  there  is  already  on  the  la- 
dies, that  which  is  higher  than  any  restriction  that  they 
can  make,  and  that  is  that  they  will  not  have  your  offices. 
They  do  not  wish  power.  We  are  told  that  we  make  a 
restriction  on  the  people  by  limiting  them  to  an  election 
every  four  years. 

I  have  not  heard  this  idea  answered  at  all,  although  it 
was  put  forth  with  great  boldness  that  it  was  a  restric- 
tion on  the  rights  of  the  people,  such  as  we  were  con- 
tending against,  to  say  that  they  should  elect  only  every 
two  or  four  years.  That  will  do  to  throw  in  as  a  stum- 
bling block  when  you  are  in  a  hurry  and  very  hard 
pushed.  But  there  is  no  one  who  will  look  at  the  thing  as 
it  is  but  will  at  once  see  the  necessity  for  it,  and  that  it 
does  not  in  reality  thwart  the  people's  rights  in  the  least 
degree.  An  individual  and  a  unit  may  appoint  an  agent 
to-day,  and  if  he  find  that  he  is  discharging  his  duties 
improperly  he  may  discharge  him  ^to-morrow.  The 
people,  however,  are  not  a  unit,  but  an  infinite  number 
of  units,  and  they  cannot  act  in  concert,  and  express  the 
general  views  of  all,  except  at  stated  periods.  Then 
there  is  a  necessity  for  periodical  elections,  not  in  prin- 
ciple, but  from  the  necessity  which  exists  from  the  na- 
ture of  things.  Therefore,  there  is  nothing  in  that 
idea.  There  was  another  point  which  was  intro- 
duced by  the  gentleman  from  Buckingham,  (Mr.  Hill,) 
and  that  was  that  we  were  willing  to  impose  a  restriction 
upon  ministers  of  the  gospel.  That  is  a  subject  to  the 
consideration  of  which,  I  come  with  great  pain^because 
I  am  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  all  true  republican 
ideas  forbid  us  to  exclude  this  class  of  men  from  a  full 
participation  in  the  rights  which  belong  to  every  other 
class.  The  fact  is,  that  in  the  early  part  of  our  histo- 
ry, the  world  had  so  recently  rid  itself  of  priest-craft 
and  ecclesiastical  tyranny,  that  this  restriction  was 
thought  by  our  fore-fathers  to  be  necessary.  There  is 
no  principle  of  republicanism  that  will  forbid  a  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  from  the  enjoyment  of  any  right 
which  any  other  citizen  can  claim.  I  know  not  how  1 
shall  vote  when  I  come  to  the  consideration  a  f  that  sub- 


ject. But  depend  upon  it,  if  I  vote  to  exclude  thes< 
men,  I  will  acknowledge  frankly  that  I  violate  republi 
can  principles,  and  that  I  have  done  injustice  to  a  clas 
of  my  fellow-citizens,  either  through  my  own  preju 
dices  or  in  representing  others' prejudices.  I  say  tha 
now,  though  I  do  not  pledge  myself  to  vote  eithe 
way.  But  I  will  not  shrink  from  the  position  I  have  as 
sumed. 

I  believe  I  have  gone  through  with  the  most  of  th 
reasons  which  are  urged  why  we  are  estopped  from  de 
nying  these  restrictions  on  popular  rights.    And  I  com 
now  to  the  last  proposition  which  gentlemen  on  the  otl 
er  side  have  urged,  and  that  is,  that  policy  demands  thi 
restriction.    I  might  at  once  leave  the  subject  by  sayin 
that  I  do  not  believe  that  policy  demands  any  restric 
tion  ;  but  I  propose  very  briefly  to  examine  the  reasor 
which  alone  can  and  have  been  urged  for  the  policy  <! 
this  restriction.    They  tell  us  that,  to  render  him  r< 
eligible  would  be  to  hold  out  an  inducement,  or  to  giv 
facilities  to  the  Governor  to  abuse  the  power  of  his  o 
fice,  to  secure  a  re-election.    Now,  I  appeal  to  all  tl 
members  of  this  committee,  if  that  has  notsbeen  tl 
sole  ground  upon  which  the  policy  of  this  restriction  h; 
been  urged  here.    What  does  this  pre-suppose?  It  pr 
supposes  first,  that  the  Governor  of  this  commonweal 
will  be  a  corrupt,  a  truckling,  and  a  drivelling  politicia 
It  pre-supposes,  in  the  second  place,  that  this  office 
Governor,  as  we  propose  to  organise  it,  will  posse 
dangerous  powers,  in  this  particular.     In  the  thi 
place,  it  announces  to  the  good  people  of  Virgin) | 
that  they  either  cannot  see,  or  will  not  heed  ;  that  th 
are  either  incompetent  for  self-government,  or  too  d 
honest  to  heed  the  trickery  of  candidates.    I  am  stati 
the  proposition  in  strong  language,  but  nevertheless, 
is  the  exact  truth  of  it,  when  reduced  to  the  simple, 
contend  that  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  although  he  m 
be  a  politician,  it  is  hardly  probable  will  be  a  man  w 
will  be  guilty  of  the  low  disgusting  knavery  that  gent 
men  suppose  he  will  be.    And  I  was  amused  by  so 
part  of  the  argument  by  one  of  my  friends,  who,  w" 
he  was  told  that  you  would  lose  the  responsibility  of  i 
officer  by  making  these  restrictions  upon  him  ,  said) 
would  have  that  responsibility  in  the  honesty  and  inl 
rity  of  the  incumbent.    Now,  that  same  gentleman  h 
but  three  minutes  before,  been  arguing  most  perte 
ciously  the  corruption  of  all  politicians.    I  will  not  si 
to  talk  about  that,  for  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  n 
elevated  to  power  by  the  people,  and  politicians  g 
erally,  who  are,  to  some  extent,  personally  interest 
like  all  other  men,  are  liable  to  be  led  into  error.  J 
I  will  £ay  that  the  politicians  have  received  a  drubh 
in  this  house,  to  which  I  think  they  are  not  exactly 
titled,  particularly  in  this  place.    The  members  of  1 
Convention  are,  perhaps,  as  respectable  and  influen 
a  body  of  politicians  as  you  can  find  in  Virginia, 
yet  1  hope  we  have  very  many  honorable  and"  emin 
men  among  them — indeed,  I  trust  that  all  of  them  ar 
the  class  who  would  scorn  to  stoop  to  the  paltry  de£ 
dation  which  they  suppose  that  a  Governor  of  Virgi 
will  be  willing  to.    I  will  leave  that  alone.    I  am  ' 
an  advocate  of  the  honesty  and  capacity  of  sii 
individuals.    I  am  for  checking  and  guarding  ui 
and  I  go  for  the  honesty  and  capacity  of  the  gJi 
aggregate  of  men  ;  and  not  of  the  single  person.  B 
confess  I  am  unable  to  see  the  dangerous  power  wi 
this  Governor  is  to  possess.    We  are  told  that  he 
have  the  power  of  appointing  visitors  to  the  old  col. 
of  William  and  Mary,  (where  there  are  some  twe 
five  students,  I  understand,)  to  the  military  institute, 
to  the  university  in  the  town  of  Charlottesville,  a  di 
tor  or  two  in  the  banks,  and  it  may  be  that  he  wj$l| 
point  a  guager  for  the  city  of  Richmond,  or  inspeet( 
oysters,  or  possibly  a  dog  muzzier.    I  do  not  see  "V 
else  he  will  have  to  do.    For  it  seems  to  be  agreed  h 
I  believe,  without  a  solitary  exception,  that  we  s| 
throw  the  appointment  of  all  the  officers  of  governrrJ) 
from  the  Governor  down  to  the  overseer  of  roads 
the  hands  of  the  people.    There  is,  in  the  judiciar  1 
port,  an  exception,  which,  in  God's  name,  I  trusl* 


bette 
toryi 
soul 

fie::; 

udl 
(trth 

kr 

theTv 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


199 


Convention  will  not  agree  to  accept,  and  this  is,  the  judg- 
es of  the  court  of  appeals.    I  can  see  nothing,  therefore, 
of  this  tremendous  power,  the  abuse  of  which,  it  is  sup- 
posed, is  to  be  apprehended,  by  those  who  maintain  this 
restriction.    And  I  ask  gentlemen  what  power  over  the 
mass  of  the  people  of  Virginia  the  Governor  can  have 
through  the  exercise  of  any  power  which  it  is  proposed 
in  this  Convention  he  shall  have  ?    It  is  even,  I  believe, 
proposed  to  take  away  from  him  the  power  of  acting  as 
a  member  of  the  board  of  public  works.    Then  I  under- 
stand all  the  duties  of  the  Governor  hereafter  are  to  be, 
that  he  shall  announce  at  the  commencement  of  each 
session  of  the  legislature,  the  startling  fact  that,  through 
the  Providence  of  God,  Virginia  still  continues  to  exist  ; 
then  to  dabble  a  little  in  politics,  and  then  again  to  say, 
at  the  end  of  all,  that  he  trusts  in  God  that  Virginia 
will  still  continue  to  exist  for  a  year  longer,  which 
event,  in  all  human  probability,  would  happen,  if  the 
Governor  had  not  said  so.    This,  I  understand,  will  be 
the  chief  duty  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia  hereafter. 
During  the  residue  of  the  year  he  may  button  up  his 
coat,  and  walk  stately  around  the  streets  of  Richmond. 
We  never  know  who  the  Governor  is,  unless  some  of  us 
are  obliged  to  send  to  Richmond  to  get  a  man  pardoned 
out  of  prison.    And  then  we  go  to  the  man  who  has 
received  the  last  commission  in  the  militia,  and  ask  his 
name.    [Laughter.]    I  know  not  how  it  will  be  with 
gentlemen  who  live  nearer  the  city  of  Richmond  ;  but 
on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio,  the  people  will  never  be  ef- 
fected by  this  tremendous  influence  of  the  Governor. 
I  consider  the  Governor's  position  to  be  a  ridiculous 
farce.    He  is  a  mere  "  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cym- 
bal"— a  mere  show — a  name — a  pompous  representa- 
tion of  the  glorious  sovereignty  of  Virginia — and  her 
M  State  rights."    That  is  all  I  regard  as  belonging  to 
this  Governor  of  Virginia.    I  appeal  to  gentlemen — 
not  as  lawyers,  for  I  believe  you  all  are,  pretty  much — 
but  as  honest  citizens,  to  put  it  home  to  yourselves  fair- 
ly and  coolly  to  think  it  over,  whilst  you  are  comparing 
him  with  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  im- 
mense power  and  vast  patronage  which  that  officer  holds. 
Do  think  what  you  are  talking  about,  when  you  are  com- 
paring him  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia.    But  we  are 
told,  in  this  Convention,  that  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
is  to  use  his  office  to  secure  his  re-election.    "Well,  I 
have  heard  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  and  I  must  say 
to  my  friend  from  Marion,  what  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico  (Mr.  Davis)  said  to  his  colleague,  that  I  am  both 
hurt  a  little,  and  very  much  pleased.    I  am  hurt  a  little, 
because  he  had  the  opportunity  to  get  the  floor  first  and 
speak  this  part  of  my  speech ;  and  I  am  very  much 
pleased  that  he  has  said  what  I  had  to  say  on  this  subject, 
a  great  deal  better  than  I  could  say  it  myself.    I  am 
gratified  that  he  has  had  the  opportunity  to  do  so.  I 
will  only  say,  with  regard  to  the  powers  of  the  Governor 
in  this  particular,  that  they  can  only  be  prostituted  in 
the  event  of  the  legislature  being  the  caucus  or  body  that 
is  to  nominate  the  candidates  for  Governor.    That  mat- 
ter I  think  has  been  pretty  well  determined,  and  had 
better  be  left  with  the  people.    If  I  understand  the  his- 
tory of  the  federal  government,  the  action  of  Congres- 
sional caucuses  for  the  nomination  of  President,  satis- 
fied the  people  that  it  was  a  system  that  would  not  do, 
and  I  cannot  think  there  is  any  danger  that  they  will  re- 
sort to  it  again.    I  have  understood  that,  for  a  long  num- 
ber of  years,  the  people  have  indicated  distinctly  that 
they  would  not  suffer  the  public  officers  to  be  nominated 
by  legislative  caucuses.    That  is  the  only  way  in  which 
it  is  argued  that  the  Governor  can  exercise  an  undue 
influence  over  the  people,  by  the  abuse  of  his  power  for 
re-election  ;  the  physical  impossibility  has  been  demon- 
strated by  the  gentleman  from  Marion.    Again  there  are 
always  more  men  out,  wanting  office,  than  you  ever  can 
stick  into  office,  and  if  the  people  cannot  see  the  abuses 
that  are  practiced  upon  them,  the  politicians  will,  and 
the  eyes  of  the  opposite  party  will  always  be  gloating 
over  every  single  error  he  may  make,  or  over  every  ma- 
chination in  which  he  may  engage,  against  the  rights  of 


to  supplant  the  incumbent  in  office  will  do  it — even  those 
of  his  own  party.    With  all  these  means  to  inform  them, 
I  appeal  to  every  man,  if  there  is  any  probability  that 
the  people  will  err,  or  of  their  being  deceived  as  to  the 
character  of  their  candidates  who  have  filled  the  office 
already.    I  refer  gentlemen  to  what  has  occurred  in  our 
Presidential  canvass,  if  the  people  ever  erred  in  taeir 
selection  of  them.    If  they  have,  it  has  always  been 
with  new  men,  sprung  upon  them  with  a  committee  on 
conscience,  or  a  judicious  tariff,  or  some  trickery  or 
other  of  deceit  or  concealment ;  and  the  people  in  that 
way  have  been  for  the  moment  humbugged  and  deluded. 
But  whenever  a  man  shall  come  out  boldly  on  the  ground 
of  principle,  or  upon  his  official  acts,  and  they  are  such 
as  the  people  do  not  concur  in,  my  word  for  it,  the  sov- 
ereigns will  cut  him  down.    The  reason,  as  it  is  admit- 
ted by  our  whig  friends,  that  Mr.  Clay  could  never  be 
elected,  was,  because  he  was  too  well  known.    There  is 
no  doubt  about  it.    Were  there  many  who,  before  his 
nomination,  knew  Mr.  Polk?    And  does  not  every  man 
know  that  Mr.  Clay  was  the  most  popular  man  "in  the 
Union  ;  that  he  had  more  warm  personal  friends  than 
any  man  ever  did  have,  who  lives' in  it ;  that  he  was  the 
idol  of  his  party  ;  and  that  he  had  kissed  the  ladies  by 
miles  ?    [Laughter.]    But  he  had  been  a  bold  and  frank 
and  fearless  man.    He  had  been  placed  in  positions  in 
which  he  had  been  compelled  to  show  his  foot ;  and  it 
proved  to  be  a  cloven  one  in  the  eyes  of  the  people,  and 
they  rejected  him.    This  is  of  course  according  to  my 
democratic  opinion.    Now,  I  venture  to  assert  that  he 
who  has  not  only  avowed  his  opinions,  but  is  compelled 
to  abide  by  his  acts,  will  ever  wort  to  disadvantage 
against  a  cunning  adversary,  who  will  take  unknown 
and  uncertain  grounds.    And  that  is  the  main  difficulty 
in  the  re-election  of  a  Governor.    Nothiag  but  the  most 
triumphant  demonstration  will  save  him  against  the 
cunning  of  the  hungry  aspirants,  and  all  those  of  his 
own  party,  who  may  desire  that  he  shall  be  set  aside, 
and  not  be  re-nominated.    My  experience  as  a  politi- 
cian is  very  limited.    I  have  not  been  among  the  people 
much.    But  I  have  rode  the  creeks  and  hollows,  the 
mountains  and  cross-roads  some,  and  I  tell  you,  and  I 
intend  to  act  upon  that  sentiment  as  long  as  I  am  a 
member  of  this  Convention,  that  the  proper  and  true 
way  to  secure  the  confidence  of  mankind,  is  to  be  ab- 
solutely and  honestly  determined  to  deserve  it.  Trickery 
and  cunning  may  triumph  for  a  while  ;  but  if  you  come 
out  openly  and  above-board,  my  word  for  it,  the  people 
will  not  only  appreciate  it,  but  the  shafts  of  calumny  will 
fall  harmless  at  your  feet.    It  is  in  vain  to  talk  about  it. 
Mankind  are  more  capable  and  more  honest  than  they 
are  given  credit  for. 

But  we  are  told  that  these  doctrines  of  ours  are  ab- 
stractions.   Says  my  friend  from  Buckingham,  (Mr. 
Fuqua,)  this  doctrine  that  all  power  resides  in  the  peo- 
ple is  an  abstraction.    We  were  told  also  by  another 
gentleman,  a  colleague  of  his,  that  these  principles  of 
ours  are  a  vague,  unknown  and  undefined  something. 
Now,  I  do  not  understand  it  so.    I  maintain  that,  when 
we  say  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  people,  and  that 
they  are  the  sources  of  all  power  legitimately  belonging 
to  the  government,  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  an 
abstraction.    What  do  gentlemen  mean  by  abstraction  ? 
I  have  heard  this  cry  often.    I  have  heard  it  often  from 
the  federal  papers  of  the  country.    Yes,  sir,  I  have  heard 
the  glorious  doctrines  of  '98- '99  denounced,  because 
they  were  abstractionists.    And  old  father  Ritchie,  who 
has  stood  and  battled  all  his  life  for  these  principles, 
has  almost  been  thrown,  together  with  states  rights, 
into  ridicule,  by  this  single  cry  of  abstraction.  You 
have  only  to  call  a  thing  an  abstraction  and  you  kill  it 
at  once,  for  it  means  nothing  and  it  means  everything. 
What  is  an  abstracticn?    Is  it  a  lie  or  a  truth?    Is  it  an 
abstract  truth  or  an  abstract  falsehood  ?    If  it  is  an  ab- 
stract truth,  if  it  is  a  principle,  upon  what  is  it  found- 
ed ?    Upon  what  is  all  principle  founded  ?    Is  it  not  the 
stewed  down  essence  of  facts  ?    [Laughter.]    Is  it  a 
true  principle?    If  it  is,  it  must  work  right.    And  if 


the  people.    If  the  people  will  not  doit,  those  who  wish  J  it  is  a  false  principle,  it  is  not  an  abstraction  it 


200 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


simply  a  falsehood.  Why  will  gentlemen  bring  up 
this  time-worn  federal  cry  against  us  ?  I  am  tired  of 
this  cry  of  abstraction,  and  never  hear  it  that  1  do 
not  tremble  for  the  consequences  to  the  rights  of  man. 
You  cannot  legislate  for  the  people,  or  preserve  the 
rights  of  mankind,  without  an  often  recurrence,  as  Jef- 
ferson says,  to  fundamental  principles.  It  is  in  vain  to 
try  it. 

My  friend  from  Buckingham  speaks  of  the  vandalism 
of  tearing  away  the  sacred  relics  of  the  past.  I  will 
not  go  into  what  has  already  been  so  well  done,  and 
show  the  gentleman  that  a  divided  vote  was  had  on  this 
very  subject  in  the  last  Convention.  I  will  not  go  over 
the  ground  which  has  been  occupied  by  other  gentle- 
men, and  show  him  that  in  no  instance  heretofore,  un- 
der the  Constitution  of  Virginia,  has  this  principle  ever 
come  up.  Heretofore  it  was  a  restriction  on  the  Legis- 
lature, because  the  people  did  not  appoint  their  agent, 
but  authorized  their  legislative  agents  to  appoint  him, 
and  only  restricted  the  work  of  their  agents.  I  will 
not  talk  about  this  thing,  but  I  will  talk  about  this  idea 
of  vandalism.  Gentlemen  talk  about  breaking  down 
tbe  Constitution  because  we  propose  to  give  the  peo- 
ple the  right  to  re-elect  a  man  after  he  has  served  them 
well.  Strange  and  startling  proposition,  I  admit.  Eve- 
ry man  in  this  Convention  and  out  of  it  will  admit  that 
sometimes  an  officer  ought  to  be  re-elected.  None  de- 
ny that.  They  admit  that  the  people  have  all  capacity, 
that  they  have  confidence  in  those  whom  they  call 
the  "  dear  people,"  and  yet  they  are  unwilling  to  say, 
when  this  does  happen,  that  the  people  shall  have 
that  privilege.  It  is  a  startling  innovation,  they  say, 
while  we  are  in  the  very  act  of  making  a  new  Con- 
stitution. It  is  vandalism,  and  we  are  laying  the  hand 
of  a  Gothe  upon  the  Capitol  of  Rome.  But,  if  I  did 
that,  I  did  not  wish,  like  my  old  democratic  friend,  to 
lay  my  hand  on  the  Constitution  of  Virginia,  and  rip 
from  it  the  entire  bill  of  rights — the  whole  embodiment 
of  man's  rights. 

Mr.  FUQ.UA.  I  do  no  remember  my  language. 
But  I  think  I  said  that  this  discussion  had  well  nigh 
made  me  doubt  the  propriety  of  attaching  a  bill  of 
rights  to  the  Constitution — not  that  I  was  for  expung- 
ing it. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.    Well,  I  am  sorry  that  my  friend 
doubts.    There  is  but  one  step  between  doubt  and  de- 
spair.   One  step,  tnd  he  is  over  to  the  enemy.  [Laugh- 
ter.]   "We  are  told  a  great  deal  about  this  idea  of  au- 
thority and  precedent.    I  do  not  know  how  other  gentle- 
men feel  about  this  idea  of  authority — it  may  be  a  great 
thing  ;  but  I  will  tell  you  how  it  strires  me,  very  deci- 
dedly.   Gentlemen  who  come  here  thus  to  make  altera- 
tions in  the  instrument,  have  no  regard  for  authority 
when  they  wish  to  carry  out  their  own  peculiar  principle  ; 
but  when  another  principle  comes  up,  in  which  they  do 
not  concur,  at  once  they  begin  to  cry  out  " precedent.' ' 
It  looks  to  me  not  only  unfair,  but  like  a  man  who  was 
very  hard  pushed,  and  had  nothing  else  to  say.    It  looks 
to  me  as  if  a  man  was  hard  pushed  on  principle,  or  he 
would  not  resort  to  authority.    Why  should  we  call  upon 
authority  at  all  ?    Have  we  not  all  the  facts  on  which 
all  authority  has  heretofore  been  based,  to  form  an  opin- 
ion? Or  are  we  going  to  follow  the  opinion  of  any  man, 
because  it  is  his  opinion  ?  Now,  no  man  on  this  floor  will 
say  that.    Will  you  consent  to  yield  your  judgment  to 
the  judgment  of  any  body  else  ?    If  you  will  not,  why 
appeal  to  authority  ?  Why  not  take  the  reasons  on  which 
these  men  have  their  opinions  founded,  and  give  them 
to  us  to  convince  our  reason  ?,   Why  appeal  to  these  as 
authority  and  precedents?    Do  gentlemen  consider  how 
far  this  will  take  them  back,  if  they  carry  out  their  idea? 
We  call  on  the  Convention  of  '29  for  authority,  and 
what  did  they  do?    Go  back  and  read  what  they  did, 
andjou  will  find  that  they  called  on  the  former  Conven- 
tion as  authority  for  them.    And  what  did  they  do  ? 
They  appealed  to  the  bill  of  rights  of  1688.    And  what 
did  they  do  in  1688?    They  battled  about  the  rights  of 
Englishmen  under  the  magna  charta,  and  appealed  to  the 
days  of  King  John.    Do  not  gentlemen  see  the  ope- 


ration of  it,  that  it  will  lead  them  back  to  barba- 
rism? It  seems  to  me  that  they  cannot  fail  to  see  that 
this  is  not  a  fair  way  of  argument  at  all.  We  not  only 
have  the  light  which  they  had,  but  we  have  all  the  light 
which  they  had,  and  more  too.  Why  not  then  act  upon 
our  own  lights,  with  all  the  facts  before  us,  and  abide 
by  our  principles?  I  wish  to  say  a  word  to  my  friend 
from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Davis,)  if  I  may  call  him  my 
friend.  I  regretted  to  hear  a  remark  which  he  made. 
It  did  not  offend  me  in  the  least — it  did  not  even  touch 
a  sensitive  nerve.  But  I  notice  it,  because  I  think  the 
gentleman  was  not  perhaps  aiding  that  which  it  is  the 
object  of  this  Convention  to  arrive  at— truth.  Nor  do  I 
think,  that  by  taking  that  course,  we  are  likely  to  ar- 
rive at  truth.  The  gentleman  said  that  he  was  himself 
happy  to  learn  that  this  principle  for  which  we  are  con- 
tending, originated  not  in  the  east,  but  came  from  the 
west,  the  extreme  north-west.  I  am  sorry  my  friend  has 
so  poor  an  opinion  of  western  members,  but  I  must  say 
to  him  that  it  is  very  possible  for  truth  to  spring  from 
the  north-west  of  Virginia,  and  that  it  is  better  to  an- 
swer it  than  to  decry  it  because  it  did  not  come  from 
the  east.  I  think  it  a  highly  probable  thing  that  truth 
might  spring  from  the  west.  When  I  oppose  a  propo- 
sition, I  will  not  do  it  because  of  eastern  origin.  I  will 
fight  you  fairly  upon  it,  and  if  you  whip  me,  I  will  cry 
enough.  I  promise  the  gentleman  that  I  will  do  that. 
My  friend  is  known  to  be  a  perfectly  brave  man.  His 
ability  in  argument  is  well  tested,  for  we  have  seen  it 
exhibited.  And  I  ask  the  gentleman  if  it  is  hardly  fair 
or  magnanimous  when  a  matter  of  pure  principle  is  up, 
and  he  knows  us  to  be  in  the  minority,  to  throw  him- 
self behind  his  bulwarks  and  cry  "  Marmion,  to  the  res- 
cue." I  beg  pardon  for  having  tendered  advice  to  so 
old  a  gentleman. 

There  is  another  little  matter  which  I  wish  to  suggest 
to  the  committee.  It  is  something  in  relation  to  northern 
and  southern  examples.  Now,  I  can  talk  about  this  sub- 
ject, for  although  it  is  not  known  here,  those  whom  I  con- 
sider to  be  most  particularly  interested,  that  dear  constitu- 
ency, do  understand  most  distinctly  that  I  am  a  southern 
man.  I  have  felt  its  effects  too  clearly  not  to  know  that 
my  constituents  do  not  misunderstand  that  fact.  I  am 
even  a  chivalry  man  at  home.  I  do  not  know  what  I 
shall  be  here.  1  will  tell  you  what  1  do  think,  and  will 
say  it  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  I  spoke  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Richmond  just  now. 

I  do  say  that  I  see  Virginia  dwindling  into  insignifi- 
cance— that  I  see  her  energies  paralyzed,  and  that  I  see 
her  greatly  deficient  in  all  that  makes  a  people  proud, 
envied  and  happy.  I  have  seen  Virginia  scoff  many  a 
good  thing,  as  I  think,  because  it  was  of  northern  ori- 
gin. I  think  all  this  to  be  wrong — to  be  little  and  un- 
worthy of  ourselves.  I  am  as  willing  to  accept  a  good 
thing  from  the  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  as  I 
am  if  it  came  from  the  south  of  that  line.  Would  to 
God  that  we  could  cheat  the  north  out  of  half  the  good 
things  which  they  have — not  that  I  would  deprive  them 
of  it  ;  1  mean  cheat  them  so  as  not  to  take  it  away  from 
them.  [Laughter.]  I  would  take  a  good  principle 
from  any  quarter.  I  would  take  a  principle  from  Tim- 
buctoo  if  I  could  get  a  good  one.  And  I  trust  that 
while  we  see  the  practical  effects,  and  the  operations  at 
the  north,  we  shall  shake  off  this  listlessness,  idleness, 
and  false  pride,  and  follow  their  example.  Why  is  it 
that  we  find  the  blush  of  shame  flushing  to  our  cheeks 
every  time  that  we  turn  to  the  north  ?  Follow  their 
virtues,  and  we  shall  have  no  further  cause  to  blush. 
I  trust  that  we  shall  here  no  more  of  this  decry- 
ing a  principle  merely  because  it  may  be  of  northern 
origin. 

There  is  another  idea  of  which  I  wish  to  speak,  and 
that  is  that  the  dignity  of  this  kingly  representative  is 
to  ba  preserved.  And  why  ?  You  have  added  no  pow- 
er to  the  Governor.  You  have  taken  away  from  him  his 
position  as  a  member  of  the  board  of  public  works,  and 
you  have  raised  his  salary  from  $3,000  to  $5,000,  and 
all,  I  suppose,  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the  dignity 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


201 


of  what  gentlemen  wish  to  be  the  monarchical  feature 
of  the  government. 

I  am  tired  of  this  old,  and  should  be  worn  out  feeling 
in  Virginia.  There  is  a  false  feeling  and  false  notion, 
as  I  humbly  conceive,  upon  this  subject  of  dignity. 
Why  does  this  idea  of  dignity  and  irresponsibility  stand 
tiver  in  association  with  the  Governor  or  Senate  in  pre- 
ference to  the  House  of  Delegates  ?  Why  ever  cling  to 
the  mind  of  a  certain  class  of  politicians  whenever 
those  branches  of  government  which  are  supposed  to 
represent  monarchy  or  aristocracy  are  mentioned  ?  Does 
it  not  arise  from  a  slumbering  and  but  half  concealed, 
though  perhaps  unconscious  feeling  of  veneration  and 
awe  for  kingly  power?  Are  we  not  at  heart,  bowing  in 
humble  vassalage  to  the  forms  and  feelings  of  the  past  ? 
Else  why  do  they  never  speak  of  giving  to  the  House 
of  Delegates — that  body  which  they  all  propose  to  bring 
nearest  the  people,  the  true  sovereigns?  Sir,  I  confess 
I  have  no  veneration,  no  reverence,  for  such  dignity.  I 
would  not  give  executive  power  to  a  single  man  to  rep- 
resent kingly  power,  or  impersonate  royal  dignity,  but 
because  executive  power  is,  from  its  very  nature,  a  unit. 
I  would  not  organize  a  Senate  to  represent  aristocracy, 
and  the  irresponsibility  of  aristocracy,  for  the  purpose 
of  checking  the  more  popular  branch,  but  as  a  co-rep 
resentative  and  co-deliberative  body,  producing  checks, 
not  by  the  character,  but  by  the  number  of  deliberative 
bodies.  That  while  one  body  of  representatives  may 
be  sw.ayed  by  eloquence,  party  leaders,  or  intrigue,  the 
other  shall  have  time  to  deliberate,  and  may  correct  the 
errors  and  impulses  which  will  creep  into  all  delibera- 
tive bodies,  however  formed.  Sir,  I  would  have  every 
department  of  government  the  plain,  substantial,  and  re- 
publican representation  of  a  plain,  republican,  and  hon- 
est people. 

But  this  would  not  satisfy  gentlemen.  The  dignity 
of  Virginia,  and  the  dignity  of  this  type  of  royalty  must 
be  preserved.  Sir,  Virginia  has  already  stood  upon  her 
dignity  until  she  has  nothing  else  to  stand  upon — until 
the  weight  and  burden  of  that  dignity,  te>o  great  for  her 
overtasked  powers,  is  like  to  press  her  to  the  earth. 
She  prates  of  it  till  it  has  become  a  mockery  and  a  jest. 
Dignity,  indeed!  Sir,  Virginia  stands  attitudenizing — 
diving  upon  the  memory  of  her  great  names,  swelling 
and  bloating  with  false  pride,  while  the  vampires  of 
aristocracy  are  draining  the  very  currents  of  her  life. 
What  a  picture  to  the  eye  of  the  true  patriot  has  this 
false  notion  helped  to  make  Virginia  already,  and  yet 
they  would  still  pander  to  the  feeling.  You  have  here- 
tofore given  a  Governor  a  mansion  and  $3,000  a  year 
to  sustain  this  load  of  idle  pomp,  (for  you  might  have 
hired  a  justice  of  the  peace  to  perform  his  labors  for 
$25  per  year.)  This  sum  has  proved  sufficient  for  all 
ordinary  purposes  of  this  ridiculous  notion  of  pomp  ; 
an4  yet  they  must,  without  adding  to  his  utility,  take 
$2,000  a  year  more  from  the  pockets  of  the  people. 
And  why  %  I  suppose  for  this  great  purpose  of  enhancing 
his  dignity,  and  to  enable  him  to  pray  more  fervently 
for  the  Commonwealth,  and  to  announce  still  more 
solemnly  once  a  year  that  it  still  continues  to  exist. 
[Laughter.] 

Virginia  should  check  this  idea  of  dignity — this  false 
dignity.  It  is  a  relic  of  barbarism  and  of  monarchy; 
and  springs  from  a  source  which  has  been  our  ruin.  She 
may  swell  with  all  the  pride  and  dignity  of  a  Highland 
chief  or  Spanish  Don,  but  it  will  put  no  money  in  her 
pocket.  She  may  stalk  forth  with  the  haughty  tread  of 
a  Carrolianus — her  form  is  not  the  less  withered  like  a 
Richard  the  Third. 

Sir,  I  repeat,  I  am  tired  of  seeing  old  Virginia 
like  a  withered  mummy,  dressed  in  all  the  robes  and 
dignity  of  a  Roman  Senator.  Let  us  hear  no  more 
of  dignity  until  we  shall  have  something  to  De  dignified 
about ! 

Gentlemen  say,  as  another  argument,  for  the  retention 
of  this  restriction,  that  this  reform  is  not  desired  or  de- 
manded by  the  people.  I  would  ask  them  how  they  be- 
came so  knowing  on  the  subject?  How  do  gentlemen 
know  what  I  voted  for  in  sustaining  the  call  of  thisCon- 
14 


vention,  or  what  my  constituents  demand  in  this  hall  ? 
is  it  because  it  has  not  been  demanded  in  the  east? 
If  so,  how  do  they  know  that  it  has  not  been  demand- 
ed in  the  west,  and  beyond  the  mountains  ?  Do  gen- 
tlemen mean  to  set  themselves  up  as  the  exclusive  judges 
of  what  the  people  demand  ?  And  will  they  tell  me 
that  my  people  are  not  demanding  this  reform,  and  that 
I  am  not  representing  my  constituents  ?  How  do  gentle- 
men know  this  thing  ?  I  will  not  refer  to  that  subjeet 
further. 

Gentlemen  desire  rotation  in  office,  and  that  is  a  prin- 
ciple which,  as  a  democrat,  I  am  in  favor  of.  I  am  in 
favor  of  rotation  in  office,  but  I  want  the  people  to  make 
that  rotation  in  office,  and  I  know  perfectly  well  that 
they  will  do  it.  You  will  see  other  subjects  come  up 
before  this  Convention  before  it  has  concluded  its  la- 
bors, and  you  will  hear  it  said  that  the  people  are  so 
fickle  and  so  changeable,  and  so  ungrateful,  as  has  al- 
ways been  said  of  republics,  that  they  will  not  re-elect 
and  hold  to  a  good  officer.  That  is  the  argument  used 
for  a  life  office.  The  conservative  party  heretofore, 
when  they  have  wished  a  man  to  stay  in  office  for  life, 
have  declared  that  the  people  were  so  fickle  that  they 
would  not  re-elect  a  good  officer.  Now,  to  answer  the 
same  purpose  in  another  direction,  they  tell  us  that  the 
people  are  too  constant.  I  will  tell  gentlemen  that  they 
are  neither.  If  a  man  suits  the  people ,  they  will  re-elect 
him.  If  not,  they  will  tell  him  to  stand  aside  ;  he  has 
been  a  good  servant,  but  they  have  another  man  whom 
they  wish  to  honor.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  people 
will  understand  this  thing  most  distinctly,  and  I  go  for 
rotation  in  office,  and  I  have  no  doubt  when  my  time 
comes,  the  people  will  rotate  me  out.  I  shall  not  grum- 
ble at  it  either.  [Laughter.] 

I  wish  to  say  a  single  word  with  regard  to  an  idea 
which  it  seems  to  me,  has  not  been  exactly  answered  by 
any  gentleman  who  has  addressed  this  committee  before. 
Gentlemen  have  labored  a  long  while  in  trying  to  show 
that  the  principle  of  ineligibility,  although  not  recog- 
nised in  the  federal  constitution,  had  been  established, 
so  far  as  the  Presidency  was  concerned,  by  the  example 
of  Washington,  or  somebody  else.  Now,  did  it  never 
occur  to  gentlemen  how  beautiful  the  people  had  regu- 
lated this  thing,  and  without  any  restriction  upon  them, 
either.  Look  for  a  moment  at  the  various  Presidential 
elections,  and  see  how  little  the  people  have  been  influ- 
enced by  all  this  immense  power  and  patronage  of  which 
gentlemen  have  talked  so  much.  Washington  was  elect- 
ed for  two  terms,  and  does  any  body  object  to  that? 
John  Adams,  the  federalist,  was  elected  for  only  one 
term,  and  I  believe  the  world  has  not  regretted  that  he 
was  not  re-elected.  Thomas  Jefferson,  I  have  a  slight 
idea,  was  elected  for  two  terms,  and  the  people,  neither 
of  the  north  nor  south,  have  never  grumbled  at  that. 
Madison  and  Monroe  were  both  elected  for  two  terms, 
and  nobody,  I  believe ,  objects  to  that.  Then  came  John 
Q.  Adams,  who  was  rather  a  federalist;  or,  at  any  rate, 
came  from  rather  a  suspicious  source,  and  was  elected 
for  only  one  term.  Then  Jackson  was  elected  for  two 
terms,  ^ind  was  followed  by  Matty  Van,  who  could  not 
be  re-elected  to  a  second  term  to  the  regret,  not  of  the 
democratic  party,  certainly.  Then  Gen,  Harrison  fol- 
lowed. Providence  did  the  work  ;  the  people  did  not. 
John  Tyler  took  up  the  fag-end  of  the  term,  and  went* 
out  with  his  corporal's  guard.  Mr.  Polk  then  came  in, 
and  at  the  end  of  four  years  retired.  There  was  a  man 
who  has  immortalized  his  name  by  the  principles  which 
he  carried  out  and  vindicated,  and  yet,  at  the  end  of  his 
term,  he  retired,  worn-out  and  broken-hearted,  and  the 
people  forgave  him  and  sent  him  home  as  he  asked  them. 
Mr.  Polk  was  followed  by  General  Taylor,  and  Provi- 
dence took  him  off  before  he  had  served  one-half  of  his 
term.  Mr.  Fillmore  has  taken  up  the  fag-end  of  the 
term  and  you  may  rely  on  it  that  he  will  be  followed 
by  a  democrat. 

I  do  not  mean,  in  what  I  have  said,  any  disrespect  to 
either  party,  and  I  am  willing  to  avoid  these  instances  of 
modern  times,  and  refer  to  the  examples  of  the  earlier 
Presidents,  and  I  will  ask  gentlemen  if  the  people  and 


202 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Providence  together  have  not  most  signally  taken  care 
that  this  doctrine  of  rotation  in  office  should  be  carried 
out?  Has  it  not  so  happened,  that  under  the  guidance 
of  a  kind  Providence,  the  people  have  wielded  the  power 
of  re-election,  when  unrestricted,  most  ably  and  for 
their  own  good  ?  Let  gentlemen ,  then ,  not  come  raising 
objections  against  politicians,  and  the  want  of  capacity 
in  the  people  to  determine  for  themselves  in  this  mat- 
ter, until  they  can  show  by  examples,  or  by  some  other 
reasons  than  mere  declamation,  that  they  have  not  done 
it.  I  have  been  talking  about  everybody's  opinion  ex- 
cept my  own,  and  now  I  am  going  to  tell  you  what  my 
own  is.  I  have  saved  it  for  the  last,  not  because  it  was 
best  in  the  estimation  of  the  people,  but  because  I  think 
it  to  be  best.  I  have  said  that  I  have  become  tired  of 
this  kind  of  dignity  which  heretofore  existed  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  I  wish  to  turn  the  sentiments  and  people  of 
Virginia  into  another  channel.  In  a  word,  I  wish  to  see 
this  government  popularized  in  every  department  and 
feature  of  it.  I  find  Virginia  to  be  sectionalized  in  eve- 
ry sense  of  the  word.  I  find  a  democrat  on  this  side  of 
the  mountains  desiring  a  palpable  admixture  of  aristoc- 
racy, in  so  many  terms,  in  both  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment, while  a  western  democrat  scouts  at  the  very  idea. 
[Laughter.]  An  eastern  whig  tells  us  that  he  goes  for 
a  sprinkling  of  aristocracy  and  monarchy,  while  the 
very  salt  wells  of  Kanawha  would  bubble  afresh  at  the 
bare  idea  of  such  a  thing.  I  find,  on  the  subject  of  in- 
ternal improvements,  a  feeling  in  the  east  one  way,  and 
I  find  in  the  west  a  feeling  another  way.  You  can  pro- 
pose no  one  thing  for  the  good  of  a  section,  that  all  the 
rest,  like  the  dog  in  the  manger,  do  not  pounce  upon  it 
at  once.  I  find  one  people  divided  and  torn  asunder  by 
every  diversity  of  feeling  and  opinion.  Now,  without 
saying  who  is  right  or  who  is  wrong,  I  attribute  the  de- 
cline of  Virginia,  in  a  great  measure,  to  this  state  of 
things.  The  whole  power  of  the  State  has  been  taken 
from  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  thrown  into  the  hands 
of  cliques.  The  masses  themselves  must  be  awakened, 
and  power  given  into  their  hands.  Nothing  can  regen- 
erate Virginia  but  a  heaving  up  from  the  very  bottom. 
I  tell  you  it  no  longer  depends  on  one  man's  arm,  or  the 
aristocratic  arm,  or  the  sectional  arm.  It  depends  upon 
a  mighty  struggle  of  the  whole  people  to  make  Virginia 
what  she  should  be.  Say  it,  but  think  it,  and  Virginia  is 
redeemed  already. 

I  would  make  this  Governor  an  electioneering  officer. 
I  would  not  have  him  go  into  ©very  county  of  the  State, 
but  I  would  send  him  to  every  quarter  of  the  State,  so 
that  he  might  understand  and  know  the  interests  of  all 
quarters  and  all  sections.  I,  am  under  instructions  in 
this  matter.  My  constituents  made  me  pledge  myself  to 
them  to  use  every  exertion  in  my  power  to  present  to 
them  a  live  Governor.  [Laughter.]  Yes,  they  would  give 
more  to  see  one  than  they  would  to  see  Jenny  Lind  her- 
self. I  never  saw  a  Governor  in  my  life  until  I  came  to 
Richmond  !  What  a  condition  of  things  is  this  for  a  re- 
publican government.  Send  this  man  among  the  peo- 
ple— let  him  understand  our  local  and  our  sectional 
questions,  too,  if  you  please.  Heretofore  everything 
has  been  either  whig  or  democrat,  but  you  have  never 
had  any  State  politics.  Yeu  have  clung  to  the  resolu- 
tions of  1798  and  '99  like  grim  death,  sinking  with  them 
in  your  teeth  !  You  have  never,  for  one  moment,  arous- 
ed the  old  Commonwealth  to  the  consideration  of  great 
questions  of  State  Policy.  This  is  what  I  desire  this 
Governor  to  do.  You  propose  to  give  him  a  salary  of 
#5.000  rW  annum.  But  if  he  is  not  to  engage  in  this 
labor,  I  will  never  consent  to  give  him  a  salary  of  more 
than  $200  a  year  to  represent  your  dignity,  with  the  pri- 
vilege, perhaps,  of  a  clerkship  in  the  second  auditor's 
office.  [Laughter.]  No,  let  him  go  among  the  peo- 
ple and  he  may  know  better  whom  he  is  to  represent, 
and  be  better  prepared  to  understand  their  interests. 
If  he  be  an  eastern  man,  let  him  rub  a  little  against 
the  hunting-shirts  and  moccasins  of  the  mountains. 
It  will  increase  his  digf  stion  and  brighten  his  percep- 
tions. If  he  be  a  west,  rn  man,  he  will  be  more  likely 
to  appreciate  the  grievai  ces  of  the  slaveholder  of  Al- 


bemarle, the  tobacconist  of  Lynchburg,  or  oysterman 
of  Accomac. 

Once  produce  this  state  of  things,  (which  can  alone 
be  done  through  the  office  of  Governor,)  and  the  sharp 
angles  of  sectional  opinions  will  be  worn  off  by  discus- 
sions and  concessions,  a  State  policy  will  be  formed — 
progressive  and  conservative  parties,  a  go-ahead,  and  a.. 
stand-still  party  will  be  formed  over  the  whple  State. 
The  State  elections  will  become  more  important  and 
more  interesting  as  deciding  the  present  policy  of  the 
State.  They  will  turn  the  eyes  of  the  State  to  her 
own  interests  instead  of  spending  millions  in  instruct- 
ing  the  general  government,  which  but  ends  in  ridicule 
and  contempt.  This  policy  may  make  Virginia  cease 
to  think  of  everybody's  business  but  her  own — may 
nerve  her  people  to  an  effort  to  regain  their  forme/ 
greatness.  If  so,  1  shall  be  content.  Sir,  I  shall  vote 
for  every  measure  tending  to  increase  the  interest  in,  or 
the  responsibility  of,  this  office* of  Governor,  believing 
that  it  is  the  true  means  to  secure  Ms  State  policy-  I 
tender  my  obligations  to  the  committee  for  their  very 
kind  attention  to  my  unpremeditated  and  much  embar- 
rassed effort. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  ask  the  attention  of  this  commit- 
tee for  a  very  few  minutes,  while  I  endeavor  to  explain 
to  them,  some,  at  least,  of  the  reasons  that  have  brought 
my  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  committee  of  the 
whole  I  shall  vote  against  the  re-eligibility  of  the  gov- 
ernor at  the  end  of  his  first  term.  I  say  that  I  shall  so 
vote  in  committee  of  the  whole.  How  I  shall  vote 
hereafter  I  know  not,  but  I  feel  myself  impelled  by  the 
spirit  of  candor  to  say,  that  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that 
the  committee  of  the  whole,  or  that  this  body  sitting 
in  Convention,  will  or  can  so  organize  this  great  execu- 
tive department  as  to  induce  me  to  vote  for  the  re-eli- 
gibility of  the  governor.  I  cannot  vote  for  it  now,  at 
all  events,  nor  do  I  think  that  any  gentleman  upon 
this  floor  ought  to  vote  for  it  in*  this  committee  of 
the  whole.  I  •am  one  of  those  who,  without  having: 
much  experience  in  parliamentary  affairs,  or  without 
being  authorized  to  pronounce  any  decided  opinion  about 
this  matter,  think  that  this  whole  discussion,  from  be- 
ginning to  end,  is  entirely  premature.  I  am  of  opinion 
that  this  question  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor 
ought  to  have  been  the  very  last  question  connected 
with  the  executive  department,  which  we  should  have 
discussed  and  decided.  Does  any  gentleman  doubt,, 
who  has  bestowed  any  reflection  upon  this  subject,  that 
the  materiality  of  this  question  of  re-eligibility,  de- 
pends in  a  great  degree,  upon  the  power  and  the  patron- 
age with  which  you  propose  to  clothe  this  officer  ?  Is 
it  not  so  ?  Does  it  not  depend  upon  the  length  of  his 
term  ?  Should  not  both  of  these  questions  have  been 
settled  before  we  came  to  consider  the  question  of  re- 
eligibility  ?  But  the  report  of  the  committee  is  before 
us.  In  the  month  of  October  last,  the  committee  was 
raised.  Their  report  came  in  about  ten  days  ago,  and 
the  subject  has  been  discussed  during  these  ten  days, 
upon  the  single  isolated  question  whether  he  should  or 
should  not  be  re-eligible  at  the  end  of  his  first  term.  A 
skilful  debater  never  exhausts  the  whole  of  his  powe  r 
in  arguing  his  propositions.  No.  The  best  part  of 
his  skill  is  exhausted  in  the  mode  of  stating  his  propo- 
sition, and  nobody  understands  that  better  than  the 
gentleman  who  now  sits  before  me,  and  is  honoring  me 
with  his  attention — my  friend  from  the  county  of  Hen- 
rico, (Mr.  Botts,) — and  I  am  not  like  some  gentlemen 
here,  for  I  encounter  no  risk  in  calling  him  friend.  How 
does  he  state  the  proposition  upon  a  question  which,  if 
any  question  upon  earth  be  so,  is  eminently  of  a  prac- 
tical character.  We  are  met  by  the  objection  that  we 
are  imposing  restraints  upon  the  sovereign  power  of 
the  people.  Well,  it  is  a  very  imposing  mode  of  sta- 
ting the  objection.  There  is,  at  least,  great  plausibility 
in  it,  but  it  is  not  the  only  mode  in  which  this  question 
may  be  stated,  by  any  means.  It  can  be  stated  in  an- 
other way,  quite  as  pertinent  to  the  matter  in  hand, 
and  a  little  less  likely  to  mislead  the  judgment.     It  is 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


203 


this :  Here  is  a  great  executive  officer  about  to  be  ere-  j  execution  any  judgment  or  decree  of  any  court  that  they 
ated  by  this  constitution.  There  is  an  amount  of  power  may  create?  No,  sir.  What  then?  Do  what  this 
and  patronage  inseparable  by  the  wit  and  wisdom  j committee  has  recommended  by  their  report — make  a 
of  men,  from  this  executive  department;  and  judging j governor.  Put  all  this  immense  power  into  the  hands 
by  all  past  experience,  by  the  history  of  executive  power  of  one  man.  It  may  be  a  hard  necessity,  but  is  it  not  a 
in  every  part  of  the  world,  we  know  that  the  power  and  j  necessity  ?  That  is  the  question  ?  Is  it  not  a  political 
patronage  will  be  abused  for  the  benefit  of  the  holder,  j  necessity  from  which  we  cannot  escape,  that  this  im- 
if  he  be  interested  in  so  abusing  it  ;  and  the  true  ques-  imense  power  of  the  executive  department  is  to  be — and 
tion  is  this:  Is  it  wise  or  proper — not  for  us,  we  can  im-  jmust  be,  whether  we  will  or  no — placed  in  the  hands 
pose  no  restraints  upon  the  power  of  the  people — is  it  j  of  one  man  i  And  while  there,  for  whatever  term, 
wise  or  proper,  in  our  judgment,  deputed  here,  as  we  whether  three  months  or  six  months,  or  four  years,  the 
are,  to  settle  these,  among  other  questions,  for  the  peo-  executive  power  of  the  people  is  also  annihilated,  as 
pie  themselves,  in  the  exercise  of  their  sovereign  pow-  well  as  in  the  case  of  the  legislature  and  judiciary.  It  has 
er,  to  impose,  not  a  restraint  upon  their  sovereign  will,  jgone  from  them,  and  they  cannot  recall  it  until  a  vacancy 
but  to  impose  a  disability  for  three  years  upon  one  of  j  occurs,  when  they  must  again  delegate  it  to  other  hands, 
their  high  public  officers  rather  than  encounter  the  risk  j  Is  not  the  question  here  then  one  of  pure  expediency? 
of  abusing  his  power,  so  as  to  prevent  the  operation  of  |The  principle  of  giving  all  executive  power  to  one  man 
their  own  freedom  of  election  ?  That  is  the  mode  of  j  may  be  a  bad  one  for  aught  I  know,  but  can  you  escape 
stating  the  question.  I  do  not  believe  that  anybody  jit?  Is  not  one  better  than  two,  three,  or  five?  "We 
will  find  it  necessary  to  catechise  me  in  regard  to  my  must  do  it.  And  is  not  the  question  for  how  long  a 
political  opinions  and  principles.    I  mean  to  confine  my- 1  period  you  will  delegate  this  executive  power,  one  of 

pure  expediency,  to  be  decided  by  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  ? 

It  seems  to  me — and  I  have  listened  with  the  utmost 
attention  to  the  gentlemen  who  have  discussed  this 


self  to  the  discussion  of  the  question  before  us.  I  do 
not  mean  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  other  questions  which 
are  not  before  the  committee,  and  which  are  to  come  be- 
fore it  in  a  definite  shape  for  discussion  and  decision ; 


rive  at  the  truth — that  I  cannot  put  my  vote  on  the 
proposition  under  consideration  on  any  ground  of  ab- 


but  I  will  say  now  that  I  am  a  full  and  firm  believer  in  'question  here,  and  with  the  most  earnest  desire  to  ar- 
the  doctrine  that  the  sovereign  power  of  this  State  re- 
sides in  the  people  of  the  State,  and  that  power,  for  the 

purposes  of  government,  is  divided  into  legislative,  ju-  stract  principle  whatever.  I  have  said  it  is  a  question 
dicial,  and  executive.  It  is  in  the  people;  it  resides  of  practical  character.  The  gentleman  from  Marion 
there  ultimately,  and  cannot,  by  any  power,  be  rightly  (Mr.  Neeson)  yesterday  stated  this  question,  in  my 
taken  from  them.  But  does  that  advance  us  one  solitary  judgment,  fairly,  and  the  gentleman  from  Cabell,  (Mr. 
inch  in  the  discussion  of  this  question?  No,  sir;  not  McCoiiAS,)  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  has  stated  that 
at  alL  the  principal^  argument  that  has  been  urged  against 

The  gentleman  who  addressed  us  on  yesterday,  and  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  is,  first  and  mainly, 
to  whose  address  I  listened  with  great  pleasure — -an  that  he  would  abuse  the  power  and  patronage  with 
address  that  I  take  pleasure  in  saying  did  him  the  high-  which  he  was  clothed.  The  answer  to  that  was  of  a 
est  credit — said  that  he  was  in  favor  of  having  biennial  two-fold  character — that  we  should  not  presume  he 
sessions  of  the  legislature.  And  what  does  he  mean  by  would  so  abuse  it — that  we  had  no  right  to  assume  that 
that  ?  He  means  that  a  body  having  the  power  to  tax,  he  would  become  corrupt ;  and  if  that  argument  was 
limited  only  by  the  ability  of  the  people  to  pay — no  not  conclusive,  the  next  was,  viz  :  that  he  had  no  pow- 
other  limit,  none,  none — a  body  whose  taxing  power  has  er  and  patronage,  and  that  he  was  but  a  sounding 
no  limit  but  the  ability  of  the  people  to  pay — which  brass,  and  a  tinkling  cymbaL     Both  of  the  argu- 

-  ments  

Mr.  McCOMAS.  My  position  was  this :  They  con- 
tended that  the  governor  would  use  the  power  of  his 
office  for  the  purpose  of  securing  his  re-election.  To 
maintain  their  argument,  they  had  to  pre-suppose  them- 
selves these  things.  These  are  arguments  put  into  their 
mouths,  and  which  I  had  to  pre-suppose.  They  were 
not  original  arguments  of  mine. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  The  governor  of  Virginia  either  will 
or  will  not  abuse  his  power  and  patronage.  And  I  un- 
derstand the  gentleman  to  maintain  that  he  would  not, 
in  opposition  to  the  argument  used  upon  the  other  side' 
that  he  would. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  I  have  not  used  that  argument. 
Mr.  JANNEY.  Very  well,  then,  I  have  nothing  fur- 
ther to  say.  Then,  the  argument  made  upon  my  side  of 
the  question  that  i.he  governor  would  probably  abuse 
his  power  anc  patronage  is  unanswered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cabell,  and  therefore  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  he  finds  force  in  that  objection.  Will  he,  or  will  he 
not  abuse  it  ?  That  is  the  question.  Look  back,  if  you 
please,  through  the  history  of  the  United  States  for  the 
last  thirty  years.  Has  there,  during  the  whole  time, 
been  a  President  of  the  United  States  in  power,  that 
about  one  half  the  nation  did  not  charge,-  and  did  not 
honestly  believe,  that  he  was  abusing  his  power  and  his 
patronage  for  his  own  purposes  or  for  the  purposes  of 
his  party?  I  care  not  who  was  in  p'ower — the  very  mo- 
ment that  the  administration  of  a  particular  party  cast 
was  succeeded  by  its  opposite,  all  the  others  instantly 
settled  down  upon  the  opinion  that  he  too,  like  his  pre- 
decessor, was  abusing  his  power  and  patronage  for  his 
own  selfish  ends. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  here  about  the  infallia- 
bility  of  the  people.    I  know  of  no  respectable  school, 


has  the  right  to  prescribe  a  law  that  shall  take  away  the 
life  and  liberty  of  the  people,  shall  hold  their  power 
for  two  years,  during  which  time  the  legislative  power 
of  this  sovereign  people,  about  which  so  much  has  been 
said  here,  is  as  effectually  out  of  their  hands  as  if  it 
were  annihilated  by  the  power  of  Omnipotence.  Is 
it  not  so?  Surely.  What  is  the  question,  then?— 
One  of  principle?  No,'  sir.  But  is  it  expedient  for 
people,  instead  of  delegating  their  legislative  power  to 
their  servants  one  year,  to  delegate  it  for  two  ?  Surely 
this  is  a  question  about  which  we  may  well  differ  in 
opinion,  without  raising  any  test  upon  it  in  regard  to 
our  radicalism,  conservatism,  democracy,  or  aristocracy. 
What  has  that  to  do  with  it  ?  Take  the  judicial  department 
of  the  government — the  power  to  pass  vn  questions  of 
life  and  death,  and  liberty,  and  property — the  power 
that  in  the  course  of  a  period  of  ten  y£ars  disposes  of  a 
mass  of  property  equal  to  more  than  half  of  that  which 
is  held  in  the  whole  State,  real,  mixed,  and  personal. 
The  sovereign  people  cannot  exercise  judicial  power  in 
their  primary  capacity.  Nobody  pretends  it.  What, 
then,  is  to  be  done?  It  is  delegated  to  a  chosen  body 
of  agents,  and  while  so  delegated,  is  it  not,  for  the  time 
beiug,  gone  from  the  people  as  effectually  as  if  it  were 
annihilated? 

I  beg  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  (Mr.  Hoge) 
to  ponder  upon  these  observations,  for  they  are  address- 
ed as  much  to  his  consideration  as  to  that  of  any  gen- 
tleman in  this  assembly. 

"What  makes  the  executive  department  of  the  govern- 
ment necessary?  Can  the  one  million  five  hundred 
thousand  people  of  Virginia — to  be  two  millions  five 
hundred  thousand  in  less  than  twenty  years — can  they 
exercise  executive  power  ?  Can  they  execute  any  one 
law  passed  by  the  legislature,  or  can  they  carry  into 


204 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


either  in  politics  or  in  theology,  in  which  any  such  doc- 
trine is  taught.  I  know  that  I  am  fallible,  and  I  take 
it  for  granted  that  every  gentleman  who  sits  here  asso- 
ciated with  me  in  this  Convention,  would  admit  that  he 
was  fallible,  and  it  would  he  a  most  extraordinary  spec- 
tacle of  a  body  consisting  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  - 
five  men,  all  fallible,  representing  an  infallible  constitu- 
ency. The  Governor  of  Virginia,  if  you  give  him  the 
power  and  the  patronage,  will  do  like  other  men,  and  I 
will  not,  in  the  performance  of  our  duty  here,  base  this 
constitution  upon  confidence,  except  in  those  cases  where 
confidence  is  indispensable.  But  he  has  no  power  and 
patronage ;  and  according  to  the  gentleman  from  Ca- 
bell, is  a  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbaL  Aye,  is 
it  so? 

Your  report  does  not  propose  to  take  that  which  he 
now  has  away  ;  it  proposes  to  give  him  more :  and  I 
am. called  upon  now  to  vote,  not  upon  the  idea  that  you 
will  take  away  from  him  what  he  has,  but  upon  what 
he  has  got  under  the  laws  of  the  land ;  for  all  that  you 
do  not  take  from  him,  he  will  retain  under  the  law  of  the 
land,  which  law  this  body  cannot  change,  unless  you 
provide  for  it  in  the  constitution.  I  am  to  vote  upon 
this  amendment  now,  upon  the  power  which  he  has  got, 
and  I  state  here,  without  the  fear  of  successful  contra- 
diction, that  at  this  very  moment  the  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  proportion  to  the  number  of  people  and  the 
number  of  interests  over  which  he  rules  as  governor, 
has  more  power  of  a  dangerous  character  than  Millard 
Fillmore  or  Victoria  the  First ;  and  what  he  has  is  noth- 
ing to  what  he  will  have  in  times  that  are  to  come.  I( 
have  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  there  is,  inseparable 
from  the  executive  department  of  the  government,  a 
mass  of  power  and  patronage  which  may  and  which 
will  be  used  in  a  conflict  with  the  people,  to  turn  the 
scale,  whenever  the  parties  are  equally  balanced  in  the 
State.  Can  you  foresee  the  new  offices  that  must  be 
created  in  this  State  in  our  onward  march — and  she  has 
within  her  limits  all  the  elements  of  greatness,  to  a  de- 
gree unprecedented  by  any  other  of  the  thirty-one — can 
you  foresee  all  the  influence  of  the  different  offices  that 
will  become  necessary,  and  that  will  be  created  by  law  ? 
and  can  you,  in  this  constitution,  provide  a  depository 
for  the  powers  and  patronage  that  will  be  incident  to 
the  creation  of  these  offices?  No,  it  cannot  be  done. 
The  legislature  of  Virginia,  at  its  session  at  the  White 
Sulphur  Springs,  gave  a  specimen  and  foretaste  merely 
of  what  can  be  done  by  a  legislative  body  in  the  way  of 
enlarging  executive  power  and  patronage,  and  in  a  short 
bill  of  some  twenty  lines,  they  have  clothed  him  with 
the  appointment,  not  merely  of  a  gauger  in  the  city  of 
Richmond,  as  the  gentleman  from  Cabell  said  this  morn- 
ing, but  they  have  clothed  him  with  the  power  of  ap- 
pointing every  inspector  in  the  whole  Commonwealth 
of  Virginia,  from  one  side  of  it  to  the  other,  and  they 
have  enumerated  in  that  bill,  fifteen  articles  of  mer- 
chandize for  each  one  of  which  he  is  authorized  to  ap- 
point an  inspector,  limiting  him  to  one  for  each  city 
and  town,  and  six  for  each  county,  and  beyond  that, 
each  one  of  these  inspectors  so  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor, may,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  only  of 
his  excellency,  appoint  a  deputy  ;  and  that  would  give 
him,  in  the  city  of  Richmond  alone,  a  patronage  equal 
to  the  appointment  of  thirty  officers;  and  in  the  county 
of  Henrico,  if  he  exercises  his  power  to  the  full  extent, 
he  may — for  Richmond,  as  it  were,  is  overflowing  her 
corporate  limits,  and  invading  the  county  of  Henrico — 
he  may  have,  under  the  existing  laws,  the  appointment, 
in  that  county  alone,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty  public  officers. 

A  man  of  ordinary  imagination,  I  should  suppose, 
having  his  attention  particularly  drawn  to  the  subject, 
might  be  able  to  calculate  the  influence  of  the  exercise 
of  that  power  upon  a  closely  contested  election  in  the 
metropolitan  district  of  Virginia.  Would  it  not  turn 
the  scale  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten.  But  that  is  not  even 
the  beginning.  You  have,  by  law,  a  great  State  cor- 
poration called  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  and  the 


governor  is  made  a  member  of  that  corporation  and 
president  of  the  body,  and  that  corporation  appoints 
its  proxies  to  represent  the  Commo  lwealth  in  all  those 
great  internal  improvements  which  are  stretching  through 
the  Commonwealth  from  North  to  South,  and  from 
East  to  West,  and  not  only  proxies,  but  wherever  the 
State  owns  three-fifths  of  the  stock,  the  Board  appoints 
three-fifths  of  the  directors  of  the  companies.  And  if 
that  were  all,  it  might  be  tolerable.  What  else  ?  You 
have  a  bank  capital  of  nearly  ten  millions  of  dollars, 
and  for  the  years  '49  and  '50,  the  average  loans  and  dis- 
counts of  these  banks  amounted  to  from  eighteen  to 
twenty  millions  of  dollars,  and  this  governor,  called  the 
"  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbal,"  has  now,  while 
I  speak,  the  power  of  appointing  three  out  of  every 
seven  of  the  directors  of  all  the  banks  spread  all  over 
the  Commonwealth,  and  four  out  of  nine  of  all  the  di- 
rectors of  the  mother  bank,  with  a  further  power  ex- 
pressly reserved  by  law  to  give  to  him,  whenever  the 
legislature  may  please,  the  power  of  appointing  four 
out  of  seven  at  the  branches,  and  five  out  of  nine  at 
the  mother  banks. 

And  now  I  ask  if  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  proportion  which  the  State  bears  to  the  Union, 
holds  in  his  hands  a  power  that  so  reaches  down  to  the 
business  transactions  of  the  people,  that  so  touches  the 
vital  interests  of  all  the  people,  as  this  single  power 
at  this  moment  possessed  by  the  Governor  of  this  Com- 
monwealth? I  cannot,  under  these  circumstances,  vote 
for  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Governor  of  this  Common- 
wealth? I  cannot,  under  these  circumstances,  vote  for 
the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  at  the  end  of  his  first 
term.  I  will  not  permit  him  by  my  vote — when  he 
comes  into  the  contest  with  a  large  portion,  perhaps  one- 
half  of  his  own  fellow  citizens  for  his  re-election,  to 
be  able  to  throw  into  the  scale — which  hangs,  per- 
chance, at  the  end  of  the  beam  opposite  the  popular 
scale — this  immense  power  and  patronage  which  will  as 
effectually  turn  it  as  the  sword  of  Brennus,  when  cast 
into  the  scale  at  Rome. 

Some  of  the  illustrations  of  the  gentleman,  upon  this 
subject,  did  not  seem  to  be  of  the  most  felicitous  de- 
scription. The  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  referred  al- 
ready, told  us  yesterday,  that  under  the  old  constitution, 
the  governor  was  permitted  to  be  elected  for  three 
terms,  and  then  be  ineligible  for  life.  Thirteen  out  of 
eighteen,  between  1776  and  1829  were  re-elected  just  as 
long  as  the  constitution  permitted  them  to  be.  Insert 
no  clause  of  ineligibility  in  this  constitution  and  does 
my  friend  from  Marion  wish  the  governor  to  be  able  to 
re-elect  himself  as  long  as  he  lives,  because,  if  the  analo- 
gies hold  which  he  himself  has  cited,  such  will  in  all  prob- 
ability be  the  case.  We  are  told  that  this  re-eligibility 
of  the  governor  secures  the  responsibility  of  the  office. 
I  have  listend  to  that  argument  with  great  attention, 
but  gentlemen  will  pardon  me  for  saying — for  I  certain- 
ly mean  no  disrespect  to  them — that  on  a  subject  upon 
which  Alexander  Hamilton  has  exhausted  his  genius  in 
defence  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  Mt  me  a  skeptic  still,  it  can  hardly  hap- 
pen, that  I  shall  be  converted  by  any  arguments  here, 
respectable  and  strong  as  they  may  be.  I  do  not  know 
that  any  gentleman  who  has  ever  discussed  any  question 
upon  which  Alexander  Hamilton  poured  the  full  tide  of 
his  genius,  has  ever  further  illuminated  it  to  any  very 
great  extent,  nor  do  I  know  that  the  manner,  although 
respectable  and  worthy  of  consideration,  in  which  his 
arguments  upon  that  topic  have  been  pressed  upon  the 
consideration  of  this  Convention,  have  added  any  strength 
or  force  to  them. 

The  gentleman  from  Powhatan  the  other  day,  by  way 
of  illustrating  his  ideas  on  the  subject,  told  us  of  the 
case  of  a  distinguished  statesman  who  departed  this 
life  about  the  period  I  think  of  the  memorable  Buffalo 
convention — I  mean  his  political  life — once  President  of 
the  United  States ;  once  filling  the  highest  and  the 
proudest,  and — if  the  gentleman  from  Cabell  will  par- 
don me — the  most  dignified  office  in  the  world  ;  a  man 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


205 


who  had  attracted  to  his  support  one  of  the  most  pow- 
erful parties  that  the  world  ever  saw.  But  he  fell ;  he 
fell  says  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan,  and  now  there 
is  none — none  here  certainly — so  poor  as  to  do  him 
reverence.  Why  did  he  fall,  if  fall  he  did,  after  leaving 
the  presidential  chair  on  the  fourth  of  March,  1848  ? 
That  is  a  question  which  I  shall  not  go  into  the  discus- 
sion of.  But  according  to  the  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Powhatan,  he  fell  at  this  time,  and  why  ?  Be- 
cause the  door  of  re-eligibility  was  opened  to  him.  That 
is  the  reason  he  fell.  He  had  been  defeated  once,  but 
there  was  no  clause  of  ineligibility  in  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  having  tasted  the  fruits  and 
the  sweets  of  power,  he  wanted  to  take  another  chance, 
and  what  did  he  do  ?  There  was  temptation  in  his  path 
— temptation  of  not  the  same  kind,  but  having  the  same 
effect  precisely  that  power  and  patronage  will  have  in 
the  hands  of  your  governor.  Temptation  fell  in  his 
way.  A  new  party  which,  so  far  as  its  leaders  are  con- 
cerned, is  the  most  corrupt  and  wicked  that  the  sun  of 
heaven  in  his  course  around  the  globe  ever  shone  upon, 
held  up  to  Mr.  Van  Buren  the  glittering  diadem,  and 
told  him  that  he  should  wear  it  again  if  he  would  fall 
down  and  worship  at  their  altar ;  and  he  did  so.  He 
became  their  standard  bearer  and  he  entered  into  a  stip- 
ulation with  them  that  he  would  bear  that  flag,  if  need 
be,  over  the  sacked  cities  and  villages  and  desolated 
fields  of  that  very  South  that  had  stood  by  him  un^ilhis 
own  native  State  had  turne/1  her  back  upon  him  as  un- 
worthy of  her.  I  find  nothing  in  the  precedent  of  the 
gentleman  from  Powhatan  to  reconcile  me  to  the  doc- 
trine of  re-eligibility;  nothing  at  all.  I  am  for  putting 
your  governor,  clothed  as  he  will  be  in  despite  of  you, 
with  immense  power  and  patronage,  so  far  as  competi- 
tion for  public  honor  is  concerned,  on  the  same  platform 
that  is  occupied  by  all  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Is  there 
v  any  democratic  republicanism  in  that  idea  ?  I  am  for 
saying  to  him  if  you  perform  your  duties  faithfully  for 
this  term,  during  which  we  repose  our  confidence  in  you, 
you  shall  not  be  re-eligible  at  the  end  of  it,  because  all 
history  warns  us  that  it  is  proper  for  us  to  impose  this 
disability  upon  you  ;  but  if  you  perform  your  duty  faith- 
fully for  this  term,  at  the  end  of  the  next,  when  you 
have  come  back  among  us  and  become  one  of  us ;  when 
you  shall  have  no  power  and  patronage  which  you  may 
throw  into  the  scale  against  popular  sentiment,  we  will 
give  you  another  chance  and  re-elevate  you  to  the  office 
in  which  you  served  us.  And  what  do  the  people  suffer 
from  the  adoption  of  this  plan.  There  has  not  a  report 
come  from  any  committee,  in  which  you  do  not  impose 
some  restraint,  not  upon  popular  sovereignty — that. is  not 
the  idea — but  upon  the  exercise  of  popular  power,  in 
point  of  time.  And  there  has  not  a  report  come  from 
any  committee,  and  no  report  can  come  from  any  com- 
mittee, that  will  not  and  must  not  of  necessity  impose 
restraints  of  this  kind.  What  will  the  people  do  ?  Why 
they  will  take  a  governor  for  four  years  and  put  him 
into  office,  leaving  out  of  it  ten  thousand  men  just  as 
well  qualified  to  fill  it  as  himself ;  and  when  he  shall 
have  served  out  his  term,  instead  of  having  the  ten 
thousand  and  one  to  choose  from  again,  they  have  but 
ten  thousand,  and  that  is  the  extent  of  the  people's  loss. 
Well  now  I  ask,  is  it  wise,  is  it  proper  in  the  face  of 
all  history  and  of  all  experience,  when  this  is  the  only 
evil  that  can  happen  to  the  people — the  only  evil  that 
can  happen  to  the  people  I  repeat,  although  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac  shakes  his  head.  Will  you  encoun- 
ter the  hazard  of  all  the  evils  which  have  ever  flown 
from  temptation  to  abuse  power  and  patronage,  and 
which  will  be  experienced  as  long  as  it  becomes  neces- 
sary for  the  people  to  delegate  power  to  the  hands  of 
one  man? 

I  have  detained  this  committee  longer  than  I  expect- 
ed. I  meant  to  confine  myself  strictly  and  entirely  to 
the  question  that  is  before  the  committee.  Our  parlia- 
mentary law  is  founded  as  far  as  practicable,  upon  the 
idea  of  absolute  impersonality,  and  in  my  judgment,  he 
best  respects  the  spirit  of  that  rule,  who  in  a  delibera- 


tive assembly  like  this  or  another,  adheres  strictly  and 
pertinaciously  to  it.  I  shall  vote  in  this  committee 
against  the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  at  the  end  of 
his  first  term.  After  that,  I  am  content  that  he  shall 
take  his  chance  for  another  term.  I  believe  that  I  sac- 
rifice no  principle  in  this  matter,  that  I  am  not  curtail- 
ing the  sovereign  power  of  the  people.  I  transport 
myself  in  imagination,  to  the  adjournment  of  this  Con- 
vention, when  I  shall  go  back,  and  be  among,  and  be  one 
of  the  people,  and  I  ask  myself,  will  I  as  one  of  them, 
when  I  come  to  vote  upon  this  constitution,  give  my 
preference  to  it,  with  the  re-eligibility  feature  in  it, 
and  I  have  no  hesitation  now,  at  this  moment,  to  say, 
that  I  shall  prefer  ineligibility  at  the  end  of  the  first 
term. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  plea- 
sure to  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  and 
with  great  attention,  from  the  fact,  that  I  expected  to 
have  been  shaken  somewhat — or  modified — if  not  sha- 
ken, in  the  opinions  which  I  had  previously  expressed. 
Knowing  the  gentleman's  great  power  and  art  of  argu- 
ment, I  thought  and  felt  that  now  the  blow  was  to  be 
struck,  which  if  any  blow  can  strike  will  strike  down 
the  position  which  I  have  taken.  I  owe  it  to  the  gentle- 
man to  say,  that  his  arguments  have  confirmed  me  in  my 
views.  The  gentleman  did  not  seem  to  understand  him- 
self as  well  as  I  understood  him,  after  hearing  almost 
the  first  sentence  that  he  uttered.  The  gentleman  told 
us  and  he  was  emphatic  and  deliberate  and  self-poised 
in  telling  us  too,  that  he  should,  in  the  committee  of 
the  whole,  vote  against  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  and  that  afterwards  in  Convention — as  I 
understood  him — he  did  not  know  how  he  should  vote. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  said  I  felt  myself  bound  in  candor 
to  say  now,  that  I  did  not  at  all  anticipate  that  this  con- 
vention would  so  adjust  this  Executive  department  and 
its  powers  and  patronage  as  to  secure  my  vote  for  re-el- 
gibility  under  any  circumstances. 

Mr.  WISE.  He  did  not  know  exactly  what  would  be 
his  course  ;  but  so  fixed  and  so  strong  were  his  objec- 
tions, that  I  clearly  saw  that  the  cat  would  out  before 
long,  and  that  under  no  circumstances  would  he  vote  for 
re-eligibility.  If  this  question  has  been  discussed  out  of 
place  for  ten  days,  why  has  not  the  experienced  gentle- 
man from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  arisen  before  this  late 
day — on  the  tenth  day  and  at  a  late  hour  of  it — to  warn 
us  that  we  were  thinking  and  speaking  out  of  place? 
The  gentleman's  influence  might  have  placed  us  at  the 
proper  point  in  the  advance.  He  has  permitted  the  de- 
bate to  go  on,  though  he  says  that  the  decision  of  the 
point  under  debate  will  depend  upon  a  previous  decision 
which  must  be  made  as  to  the  powers  with  which  the 
executive  shall  be  invested.  Now,  I  take  issue  with 
the  gentleman  there.  The  executive  is  to  be  invested 
with  power — more  or  less — with  great  power,  or  with 
small  power  ;  is  to  have  a  large  patronage  or  a  small 
patronage.  He  will  abuse  those  powers,  or  he  will  ex- 
ercise them  for  the  public  good.  I  care  not  whether  he 
be  a  mammoth  executive,  or  a  dwarf  executive,  I  shall 
vote  for  the  principle  of  re-eligibility  ;  on  the  most  de- 
liberate reflection  aided  by  the  lights  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  has  set  before  me. 
The  gentleman  has  said  there  were  those  who  argued 
with  the  arguments  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  I  must 
say,  that  if  anything  I  uttered  was  drawn  from  Alexan- 
der Hamilton,  I  did  not  know  it.  He  is  not  a  very  pop- 
ular politician  with  me. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  said  simply,  ihat  it  was  the  doctrine 
of  Alexander  Hamilton,  as  contained  in  one  of  his  num- 
bers of  the  Federalist,  where  he  argued  the  question  at 
large.  I  did  not  mean  to  impute  to  any  gentleman  here 
that  he  had  deliberately  given  to  us  verbatim  et  literatim 
et  punctuatim,  the  doctrines  of  Alexander  Hamilton. 
Far  from  it.  But  I  took  it  for  granted  that  every  gen- 
tleman who  undertook  to  discuss  this  subject  had  read 
that  book. 

Mr.  WISE.  Undoubtedly.  And  the  gentleman  will 
permit  me  to  say  that  could  I  find  an  argument  in  the 
works  of  Alexander  Hamilton  that  could  support  the 


206 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


power  of  the  people,  I  should  state  it  just  as  soon,  and 
just  as  readily,  as  I  would  an  argument  taken  from  the 
works  of  James  Madison,  or  Thomas  Jefferson,  though 
I  must  confess  that  with  me  an  argument  drawn  from 
the  reflections  of  Alexander  Hamilton  might  not  be  so 
popular,  and  prima  facie  it  might  be  an  argument  for  a 
strong,  rather  than  a  weak  executive.  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton's  opinions  may  be  more  a  favorite  with  the  gentle- 
man than  with  me.  What  I  was  about  to  remark,  was, 
that  the  gentleman  had  said  whether  the  argument  be 
Alexander  Hamilton's  or  not,  that  no  man  has  presented 
it  here  with  any  additional  force  as  compared  with  that 
which  the  great,  the  giant  mind  of  Alexander  Hamilton 
brought  to  the  aid  of  the  argument.  The  gentleman 
will,  I  am  sure,  pardon  me  for  saying,  that  although  he 
has — I  will  not  say  that  he  has  arrogated  to  himself  any- 
thing, by  no  means — that  although  he  had,  but  in  the 
most  modest  and  unassuming  style,  undertaken  the  giant 
task  of  answering  the  arguments  of  Hamilton,  that  he 
has  been  as  unsatisfactory  to  me  in  his  reply  to  them  as 
I  am  to  him  in  citing  them. 

Mr.  J  ANNEY.  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  the  gentle- 
man, but  I  call  upon  this  whole  committee  to  bear  me 
witness  that  I  admitted  the  force  and  power  of  the  ar- 
guments of  Alexander  Hamilton,  but  I  went  upon  the 
ground  that  even  allowing  them  their  just  weight,  still 
our  own  experience,  since  his  work  was  written,  should 
induce  us  to  reject  them— that  the  evils  of  re-eligibility 
outweighed  all  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  it. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  do  the  gentleman  again  the  justice 
to  say,  that  his  argument  has  been  put  with  pertinency: 
and  nothing  called  me  to  my  feet  but  that  I  felt  there 
was  a  little  too  much  force  in  what  he  did  say.  I  hope 
the  gentleman  is  content  with  compliments  now.  [Laugh- 
ter.] I  only  wonder,  and  that  is  what  I  rise  to  say,  that 
the  gentleman,  considering  that  some  of  the  doctrines 
which  Hamilton  held  at  that  day  are  hardly  second  to 
the  conservatism  of  my  friend  from  Fauquier — did  not 
yield  con  amore  to  the  doctrines  of  Alexander  Hamilton. 
Did  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun  aright 
when  he  declared  here  that  the  power  of  the  people 
consisted  of  executive,  legislative  and  judicial  powers 
only  ? 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  will  repeat  my  words.  I  am  per- 
fectly ready  and  willing  at  all  times  to  explain  precise- 
ly what  I  did  say.  I  said  that  all  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  State  resides  in  the  people,  and  that  for  ordinary 
governmental  purposes  it  was  divided  into  legislative, 
executive  and  judicial.  And  that  the  people  not  being 
able  to  exercise,  directly,  either  the  one  or  the  other, 
delegated  it  to  their  agents, — that  is  what  I  said,  pre- 
cisely. 

Mr.  "WISE.  And  I  understood  the  gentleman,  pre- 
cisely. The  gentleman  did  say  that  the  sovereign  pow- 
er— the  sovereign  power  of  the  people,  mind  you,  is  di- 
vided into  judicial,  executive  and  legislative.  Sir,  the 
sovereign  power  is  not  so  divided.  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton, himself,  would  correct  the  gentleman  on  that  sub- 
ject. It  is  the  mere  division  of  municipal  government 
and  not  the  division  of  the  sovereign  power.  Sover- 
eign power  has  a  fourth  division,  and  that  the  gen- 
tleman has  entirely  overlooked.  The  power  that  the 
people  choose  simply  to  delegate  for  administrative  pur- 
poses to  the  agents  which  constitute  your  municipal  gov- 
ernment, is  divided  as  the  gentleman  has  divided  itfinto 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial  ;  and  all  the  power 
not  thus  delegated,  resides  in  the  people. 

There  is  the  class  of  reserved  powers,  not  carved  out  of 
the  sovereign  power  of  the  people,  and  that  is  the  er- 
ror which  has  pervaded  the  wh^ole  argument  here.  The 
sovereign  power  has  four  divisions.  It  has  three  grants 
or  delegations  divided  into  executive,  judicial  and  leg- 
islative ;  but  the  reserved  powers,  the  greatest  of  all 
the  powers  remain.  Wow,  what  is  the  issue  upon  this 
question  of  eligibility?  The  gentleman  says,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  that  this  limitation,  this  ineligibility  does 
not  restrict  the  people  in  their  work.  Certainly  he 
must  be  incorrect,  and  would  admit  it.    To  say  that  the 


people  having  ten  thousand  men  to  select  from — should 
select  the  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine, 
but  should  not  select  the  one  is,  no  doubt,  a  matter  of 
fact,  a  restriction,  a  limitation  of  the  people  upon  them- 
selves.   They  may  do  it,  it  is  true.    I  do  not  base  the 
doctrine  of  eligibility  upon  its  force  as  a  principle,  but 
as  a  fact.    It  is  not  because  it  is  a  restriction,  as  I  said 
previously  in  this  debate,  that  I  found  my  opinion  on  it. 
Not  at  all.    My  opinion  is  founded  on  this,  which  the 
gentleman  has  not  touched  at  all,  that  unless  there  be  a 
necessity  for  the  delegation  of  this  power,  or  rather  for 
the  restriction  of  this  power  of  the  people,  it  must  be 
left  with  the  mass  of  the  sovereign  and  reserved  rights 
in  the  people,  and  must  not  be  a  limitation  on  the  ex- 
ecutive.   If  the  gentleman  can  show  me  a  reason  for 
the  restriction  ;  if  he  can  show  me  that  it  is  necessary 
as  the  restrictions  in  reference  to  nonage,  sex,  to  sanity 
and  insanity,  I  would  willingly  go  with  him.    He  has 
attempted  to  show  that  there,  is  a  reason  for  the  restric- 
tion.   He  has  logically  pursued  the  question  I  admit, 
and  what  is  his  argument?    That  all  experience  proves 
that  a  man  elected  for  one  term  will  not  abuse  his  pow- 
er; but  that  a  man  elected  or  re-eligible  for  one  or  more 
terms  will  abuse  his  power.    And  he  has  said  that  this 
is  the  experience  of  all  mankind.    I  deny  the  fact  as  I 
have  asserted  before  in  this  debate  ;  and  I  repeat  it  now 
that  the  re-eligibility  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  has  secured  for  the  first  term  a  purer  adminis- 
tration of  office  than  for  the  second.    The  gentleman 
has  given  us  the  instance  of*  Mr.  Van  Buren.    He  has 
most  aptly  and  most  emphatically  put  the  question,  by 
vhat  law  of  nature  was  it  that  this — not  archangel — fell.  • 
By  the  same  law  he  tells  us  that  angels  did  fall  from 
Heaven.    Does  not  the  gentleman's  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature,  and  his  reflections  upon  the  philosophy  of 
that  fall,  teach  him  the  very  lesson  in  the  reverse  ?  Sup- 
pose that  man  had  been  ineligible.    Disappointed  in  his 
re-election,  he  ended  the  knave.  "Who  can  tell  if  there 
had  been  no  hope  of  re-election  he  would  not  have  begun 
the  knave?    Who  can  tell  what  we  escaped  from  by  the 
influence  of  eligibility  in  that  instance  ?    As  I  told  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond  the  other  day,  this  is  a  ques- 
tion that  pertains  not  to  the  good  man  but  to  the  bad 
man — not  to  the  man  that  is  pure  and  incorruptible,  but 
to  the  man  that  is  of  the  earth,  earthy. 

Who  knows,  tell  me,  if  Aaron  Burr  had  been  elected 
President  of  the  Unfted  States,  whether  he  would  have 
been  most  likely  to  have  been  a  good  or  a  bad  Presi- 
dent in  the  first  term,  had  he  been  eligible  or  re-elibi- 
ble  ?  We  know  that  not  only  one  devil,  but  that  a  le- 
gion of  devils  was  in  that  man.  Having  been  disap- 
pointed in  his  election  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States,  he  armed  himself,  or  attempted  to  arm  himself, 
with  the  money  in  the  banks  of  New  Orleans ;  and  al- 
most committed  overt  acts  of  treason  against  the  Uni- 
ted States  in  order  to  form,  as  he  said  in  his  dying  mo- 
ments, the  most  splendid  example  of  empire  in  Mexi- 
co. Suppose  that  in  the  early  history  of  our  republic 
in  his  day  Aaron  Burr  had  been  elected,  and  how  many 
ballots  was  there  between  him  and  Jefferson?  How 
many  ballots  did  it  tak£  to  decide  the  question  between 
Jefferson  and  Burr  ? 

A  MEMBER.  Thirty-five  or  thirty-six. 
Mr.  WISE.  Thirty-five  or  six,  I  am  told,  it  took  to 
decide  the  question  between  Jefferson  and  Burr.  Sup- 
pose Burr  had  been  elected,  and  you  had  had  this  prin- 
ciple of  ineligibility,,  with  no  hope  of  a  re-election, 
and  an  ambition  that  gnawed  within  like  the  worm 
that  never  dies,  what  security  would  there  have  been 
for  the  liberties  of  this  country  against  that  man,  a 
soldier  of  the  revolution  too,  and  the  country  hardly 
yet  placed  on  the  soild  foundation  laid  by  the  father  of 
his  country?  Would  you  have  preferred  to  trust  that 
bad  man  with  that  power  without  the  hope  of  succession, 
or  would  you  not,  as  I  have  often  said  in  this  debate, 
have  put  him  on  his  good  behavior  by  making  him  re- 
eligible?  Does  not  the  gentleman  see  that  the  phi- 
losophy of  human  nature  in  the  very  instance  he  has 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


207 


put,  turns  against  him  non  constat  what  Mi*.  Van  Buren 
had  done  had  he  been  ineligible  ? 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us  not  only  that  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  people  is  divided  into  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial,  and  that  is  the  4east  like  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton of  many  things  which  the  gentleman  uttered,  but 
he  uttered  an  idea  more  awful  still,  more  erroneous  far 
than  that.  Gravely,  deliberately,  with  a  manner  that 
could  not  fail  to  impress  all  who  heard  him,  pleasing, 
attractive  and  oracular,  the  gentleman  has  told  us 
here  to-day  that  the  power  which  people  grant  to  a  le- 
gislature is  granted  and  gone  from  the  people  for  the 
time  as  if  annihilated ! — that  the  power  granted  to  an 
executive  is  granted  and  gone  from  the  people  for  the 
time  being  as  if  annihilated — and  that  the  power  grant- 
ed to  the  judiciary  for  the  time  being  is  granted  and 
gone  from  the  people  as  if  annihilated  !  Is  that  senti- 
ment really  entertained  ?  Is  that  the  gentleman  from 
Loudoun's  serious  theory  of  our  republican  institutions? 
Is  that  the  true  doctrine,  that  the  delegation  of  a  pow- 
er from  the  people  to  their  mere  trustees  and  agents 
acting  for  them,  to  be  held  and  in  parts  and  parcels 
such  as  they  themselves  define  by  special  limitations  to 
be  exercised  for  them  and  held  responsible  to  them,  is 
granted  and  gone  for  the  time  being  as  if  annihilated  ? 
I  think  I  heard  the  gentleman  aright,  and  that  I  have 
not  misunderstood  his  words. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  wish  the  gentleman  when  he  in- 
tends to  do  me  the  honor  to  reply  to  any  remarks 
of  mine,  would  first  take  notes  of  them,  for  the  human 
memory  is  a  frail  thing.  What  I  said  was  precisely 
this :  That  the  sovereign  ,power  belonged  in  the  peo- 
ple ;  that  they  could  not  exercise  it,  but  had  to  dele- 
gate it,  the  legislative  power  for  example,  to  the 
general  assembly ;  and  that  during  the  time  for  which 
it  was  delegated,  for  all  practical  purposes,  it  was  gone 
from  the  people  as  effectually  as  if  annihilated.  That  is 
what  I  said. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  exactly  understood  the  gentleman,  al- 
though I  have  not  exactly  repeated  his  words.  I  am 
speaking  in  ■  his  presence,  and  my  friend  must  pardon 
me  for  not  taking  notes— notes  bother  me  very  much. 
Mr.  JANNEY.  Very  probably.  [Laughter.] 
Mr.  WISE.  Yes,  and  I  find  these  "  duel's  amang 
us  taking  notes,"  they  are  very  troublesome.  I  have 
sometimes  to  exercise  my  mind,  and  I  find  it  well  ex- 
ercised in  listening  to  the  gentleman.  He  repeats  the 
idea  that  the  delegation  of  this  power  for  the  time 
being  is  equivalent  to  its  annihilation.  I  scout  that 
doctrine  toto  c<xU>!  It  is  not  so.  The  people  when 
they  grant  executive  power  grant  it  to  a  servant  of 
their  own,  an  organized  being  of  the  people,  and 
the  power  is  still  theirs,  theirs  precisely,  theirs 
potentially,  as  much  in  fact  as  in  theory.  ~No  wonder 
that  with  this  doctrine  that  the  delegation  of  power  to 
the  public  agents  is  a  grant  of  power  of  the  people  and 
an  annihilation  of  the  power  of  the  people,  that  the 
gentleman  should  have  uttered  the  startling  fact  here 
that  our  superintendant  of  the  penitentiary,  yclept  a 
Governor,  was  equal  in  power  with  Queen  Victoria 
herself.  That  was  the  first  time  I  ever  knew  of  it.  I 
ask  the  gentleman,  ai  d  in  connection  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,)  who  has  avowed  the 
same  doctrines,  whether  the  Governor  of  Virginia  has 
any  rights  of  prerogative  ?  Let  us  understand  the  ques- 
tion and  the  distinction  between  a  republican  executive 
and  this  principle  of  monarchy  ?  Has  the  .President  of 
the  United  States,  or  the  Executive  of  any  State  in  this 
Union,  any  right  of  monarchy  ?  Why,  you  may  have  a 
king  with  scarcely  any  power  at  all,  and  you  may  have 
him  elective  and  still  be  a  king ;  and  you  may  have  a 
republican  executive  with  a  vast  deal  of  power  entrust- 
ed to  him,  and  yet  be  a  pure  republican  officer.  We 
have  many  kings  of  the  old  world  who  are  elective, 
and  there  are  several  kings  now  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  who  have  very  little  power,  but  yet  they  are 
kings  ;  and  our  President,  with  a  great  deal  of  power, 


is  not  a  king,  and  why  ?  Because  a  king  is  such  in  his 
nature.  What  is  a  king?  His  power  is  not  derived 
from  the  people,  not  held  from  the  people,  and  not  re- 
sponsible to  the  people  ;  and  his  right  to  the  crown,  by 
hereditary  right,  by  the  right  of  prerogative,  and  by 
the  doctrine  of  majesty,  makes  the  king,  and  not  the 
investment  of  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man.  Once 
I  heard  the  idea  of  this  concentration  of  power  in  the 
hands  of  one  man  expressed  in  a  phrase  and  in  a  tone 
which  made  the  blood  course  quickly  through  my  veins, 
by  a  man  of  whom  I  never  wish  to  speak  on  this  earth. 
The  worst  wish  I  have  for  him  on  earth  is,  that  he  was 
only  about  my  age  in  life — that  he  was  a  great  deal 
younger  than  he  is — for  reasons  good  or  bad,  that  is 
nothing  to*  you,  sir.  I  heard  Henry  Clay  of  Kentucky, 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  removal 
of  the  deposites  express  that  idea  once,  and  it  wrs  the 
most  magnificent  sentence  he  ever  did  utter.  And,  by 
the  by,  with  all  his  eloquence,  I  hardly  ever  heard  a 
good  speech  from  him  in  my  life.  I  could  listen  to  it 
while  it  was  being  delivered,  but  could  never  read  it 
after  it  was  printed.  He  said,  on  the  occasion  to 
which  I  have  referred  :  "  Mr.  President,  we  are  in  the 
midst  of  a  revolution;  hitherto  bloodless,  but  rapidly 
tending  to  the  concentration  of  all  power  in  the  hands 
of  one  man."  And  from  that  day  to  this  there  has 
been  an  awful  "raw  head  and  bloody  bones"  horror  in 
this  country  of  the  concentration  of  all  power  in  the 
hands  of  one  man.  He  was  alluding  at  that  time  to 
what  he  considered  to  be  usurpation,  and  the  unlaw- 
ful and  unorganized  exercise  of  power,  unsanctioned 
by  a  constitution  and  unsanctioned  by  the  grant  of  the 
people.  But  do  geutlemen  mean  here  to  say  that  we 
create  kingly  power,  in  its  nature,  by  giving  mere  exec- 
utive functions,  executive  or  not,  in  fact,  t  in  the  sense 
of  Montesquieu,  and  as  defined  by  all  the  writers  ?  Sir, 
it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  in  the  formation  of  our 
federal  government  for  example,  we  have  taken  the 
most  vast  of  the  powers  which  are  executive  in  their 
nature,  from  the  executive  department,  and  transferred 
them  to  the  legislative  department.  I  cannot  for- 
get a  criticism  which  I  heard  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams 
once  make  on  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
when  he  said  that  it  first  declared  "that  the  very  high- 
est attribute  of  executive  power,  as  described  by  the 
writers — the  power  to  declare  war  and  make  peace — • 
should  be  vested  in  the  Congress,  and  then  vested  the 
executive  power  in  a  President.  Though  the  executive 
power  is  vested  in  a  President,  yet  all  powers  which  are 
in  their  nature  executive  even,  are  not  given  to  the  Pres- 
ident, and  no  prerogative  power  whatever  is  given  to  him 
or  to  any  of  our  State  Governors.  You  have  stripped 
the  executive  of  a  great  deal  of  executive  power  in 
this  country,  and  there  is  the  error  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton.)  His  idea  of  monarchy 
is  derived  from  the  confounding  of  royal  executive 
power  with  the  mere  representative  executive  power. 

The  placing  of  the  power  in  the  hand  of  one  man  does 
not  make  it  royal — it  does  not  make  the  power  itself  a 
prerogative  power.  No,  it  is  a  representative  power; 
and  for  the  very  reason  that  the  nature  of*  the  duties 
require  it,  a  unit  representative  is  required  by  the  con- 
stitution, limited  in  his  powers,  responsible  in  his  du- 
ties, holding  nothing,  but  as,  and  of,  and  for  the  peo- 
ple, and  all  by  virtue  of  the  constitutional  grant  of 
the  people — no  not  granted,  and  I  beg  the  reporter  to 
throw  away  that  word  whenever  I  use  it,  but  merely 
delegated.  It  is  then  power  to  them  and  from  them, 
and  is  not  only  exercised  for  them,  but  in  fact  is  exer- 
cised by  them.  The  executive  is  but  the  hand,  the  eye, 
the  arm  of  the  people — their  power,  merely  personified 
— that  is  all.  The  power  is  not  annihilated.  If  you 
make  it  a  prerogative  power,  if  you  carry  out  this  con- 
servative idea  that  there  must  be  an  admixture  of 
monarchy  in  your  executive,  why  then  forsooth  the  gen- 
tleman is  right.  The  very  moment  you  convey  by  the 
constitution  perogative  power  independent  of  the  peo- 


208 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


pie,  then  and  then  only  is  the  power  of  the  people  anni- 
hilated ;  and  some  gentlemen  have  such  strong  notions 
of  government  and  conservatism  that  I  wonder  they  have 
not  carried  out  that  idea.  I  have  been  corrected  about 
that  word  conservativeism — Webster  calls  it  "  conserva- 
tism ;"  that  is  Mr.  Webster's  word,  but  the  party  word  of 
this  country  is  "  conservativeism."  That  is  the  techni- 
cality of  the  day,  and  it  means,  as  has  been  explained, 
a  party  that  holds  that  there  is  a  prerogative  power  or 
royal  attribute  of  the  executive.  I  deny  it  altogether, 
and  when  I  speak  to  gentlemen  about  a  pure  republic 
and  pure  republicanism,  I  mean  the  word  pure  in  its  two 
fold  and  double  sense — an  unmixed  republic  and  an 
undefiled  republic,  an  unmixed  democracy  and  an  unde- 
filed  democracy.  And  you  can  have  in  tiat  sense 
and  in  either  sense  as  pure,  that  is  as  unmixed,  as  pure, 
that  is  as  unadulterated,  a  democracy  in  the  form  of 
this  representative  principle  as  you  can  have  it  en  masse. 
And  I  go  further,  and  say  that  a  democracy  thus  con- 
stituted, representative,  unadulterated,  and  unmixed, 
either  with  aristocracy  or  with  monarchy,  is  the  least 
destructive  principle  upon  the  face  of  God's  earth — 
that  it  builds  up  and  does  not  destroy.  It  is  aristocracy 
and  perogative  and  royal  power  which  destroys  ; 
it  is  that  conservatism  or  conservativeism  which  as- 
sumes to  be  the  God  saving  power  by  the  right  di- 
vine. All  here  proclaim,  and  I  can  say  with  truth 
that  I  little  thought  I  should  ever  be  called  on,  or  that 
there  should  be  any  necessity  that  I  should  proclaim  that 
I  recognise  no  royal  or  sovereign  power  on  this  earth, 
and  that  I  recognise  none  in  the  universe  except  that 
Omnipotent  power  which  created  and  can  destroy. 
No,  the  power  of  the  people  in  the  delegation  of  mere 
municipal  government  to  their  agents  is  not  annihilated  ; 
is  not  even  granted,  it  is  merely  delegated  in  trust,  and 
exists  just  as  potentially — is  just  as  much  from  the  peo- 
ple, of  the  people,  to  the  people  in  every  sense,  going, 
coming,  abiding  or  acting  as  if  all  the  power  was  reserv- 
ed and  undelegated.  No  wonder,  then,  that  with  these 
ideas,  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun  and  myself  do  not  ' 
agree.  No,  we  will  diverge  as  opposite  as  the  poles  ; 
and,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  conceal  it,  it  is  to  pervade 
every  idea  of  government,  and  these  differences  be- 
tween us  are  to  continue  throughout.  I  see  it  and  let 
it  be  met  at  once.  It  is  the  fresh,  pure  and  unadulter- 
ated democratic  principle  at  war  with  a  democracy, 
mixed  with  aristocracy  and  monrchy. 

Now  as  to  the  power  that  you  are  to  give  to  the  execu- 
tive. Will  it  be  much  or  little  ?  If  it  is  but  little  power 
that  he  is  to  have,  then  practically  the  question  is  not 
worth  debating  about,  but  if  it  is  much  power  which  you 
propose  to  give  him  hereafter,  the  more  steadfastly  will 
1  contend  for  the  doctrine  of  eligibility.  In  what — I 
failed  to  see  it  in  anything  that  was  said  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Loudoun — is  the  purity  of  the  exercise  of 
the  executive  power  promoted  by  this  doctrine  of  ineli- 
gibility ?  He  has  detailed  to  us  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
tration, the  additions  that  were  made  to  the  power  of 
the  Governor  in  commissioning  a  number  of  officers  such 
as  inspectors,  by  the  legislature  last  year  at  the  Fau- 
quier Springs,  and  he  tells  us  that  all  these  Bureau 
Arms,  these  tenticles  of  the  executive,  the  inspectors 
and  bank  officers,  &c,  may  be  weilded  for  and  in  aid  of 
his  own  re-election.  I  thought  I  had  argued  that  on 
yesterday  with  my  frienG  from  the  south  side.  Will 
the.  gentleman  please  to  tell  me,  for  I  cannot  see,  how 
ineligibility  in  office  would  purify  or  restrain  the  exercise 
of  undue  power.  Suppose  the  democratic  party  gets  a 
Governor  in  office,  does  his  re-eligibility  or  ineligibility 
touch  the  question  of  the  purity  of  his  office  at  all  ? 
Not  at  all.  The  democratic  party  elect  a  Governor,  he 
has  all  this  power  and  patronage  under  his  control,  and 
may  he  not,  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun,  wield 
it  just  as  potentially  and  corruptly  to  select  a  successor 
of  his  own  party  as  to  re-elect  himself?  Why  un- 
doubtedly. And  he  is  more  liable  to  do  so,  for  as 
I  have  before  contended,  a  man  will  do  an  improper 


thing  for  his  party  which  he  will  not  do  for  himself.  A 
strong  party  in  the  legislature  demands  of  the  Gov- 
ernor that  he  shall  wield  his  patronage,  not  only  for  his 
own  re-election,  but  for  the  re-election  of  all  his  parti- 
sans— not  for  himself  but  for  his  party — and  what  do 
you  gain  in  the  purity  of  the  office  ?  Nothing,  but  you 
do  lose  everything  in  the  responsibility.  The  man  may 
be  called  upon  to  do  an  act  which  he  would  not  dare  do 
if  he  had  to  go  back  to  the  people  to  canvass  for  his  re- 
election, but  knowing  that  he  is  ineligible,  he  will  obey 
the  behests  of  his  party  not  only  without  a  blush  but 
with  impunity.  So  far  then  as  the  question  of  the 
amount  of  power  is  concerned,  it  matters  not  touching 
the  purity  of  the  office,  and  so  far  as  whether  the  power 
will  be  abused  or  not,  it  matters  not,  and  nothing  that 
the  gentleman  from  Loudoun  has  said  tends  to  show 
that  that  ineligility  will  secure  purity  in  the  office. 
On  the  contrary,  1  reply  again,  the  capacity  to  be  re- 
elected, tends  if  anything,  to  put  him  on  his  good  beha- 
vior, and  will  cause  him  to  do  that  for  which  he  de- 
serves to  be  rewarded  in  his  own  person.  And  what  is 
the  result  of  that  argument  in  the  converse — where  a 
governor  is  not  popular  with  the  legislature,  where 
the  just  and  the  good  man  will  be  maligned  in  office, 
where  for  doing  his  duty  and  refusing  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  his  office,  in  aid  of  the  prostitution  and  cor- 
ruption of  party,  he  may  be  arraigned  by  partizans  ? 
You  leave  him  no  opportunity  to  appeal  from  a  corrupt 
legislature  to  a  pure  constituency. 

The  gentleman  from  Loudoun  has  said  that  he  has  heard 
a  great  deal  of  talk  about  the  infallibility  of  the  people. 
Now,  I  feel  that  I  should  daily,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
and  I  have  not  a  constituent,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  ought 
not  to  put  up  the  prayer  without  ceasing,  "  God  be  mer- 
ciful to  me  a  sinner."  We  are  hardly  capable  of  doing 
the  first  worthy  act,  hardly  worthy  of  salvation  itself, 
and  can  be  made  worthy  of  it  only  by  the  blood  of  the 
atonement.  And  it  is  the  fallibility  of  your  public  agents 
that  I  wish  to  guard  against,  and  that  lam  bound  to 
guard  against,  more  than  ,  against  the  fallibility  of  the 
people.  We  are  told  that  the  people  may  err,  and  re- 
elect a  man  whom  they  ought  not  to  re-elect.  And  have 
they  not  a  right  to  do  it  ?  What  would  I  say  of  the 
constitution  of  the  State,  if  I  should  be  told  that  I  did 
not  cultivate  my  plantation  properly,  that  I  knew  noth- 
ing of  agricultural  chemistry,  or  of  the  science  of  hus- 
bandry ;  that  \  might  err  in  making  a  corn  crop,  and 
that  the  constitution  undertook  to  regulate  it  for  me  ?  I 
would  ask  the  constitution  and  the  constitution  makers, 
very  sedately,  what  right  have  you  to  interpose  between 
me  and  my  private  rights  ?  Is  it  necessary  for  the  gov- 
ernmental purposes  of  mere  municipal  administration 
that  you  should  take  into  your  hands  my  power  to  make 
my  corn  crop  ?  No,  it  is  not  necessary.  Well,  then,  is 
it  necessary  that  you  should  take  into  your  hands  and 
limit  the  power  of  the  people  to  select  their  own  officers 
and  to  say  what  man  they  shall  and  shall  not  re-elect  ? 
If  it  is  necessary,  if  you  can  show  me  that  it  promotes 
purity  in  office,  or  secures  purity  in  office,  then  I  shall 
not  object.  But  if  it  is  a  vain  and  unnecessary  restric- 
tion, one  that  leaves  the  officer  more  temptation  of  falli- 
bility, one  that  does  not  improve  the  condition  of  the 
country  and  the  people,  one  that  does  not  come  within 
either  contingency  so  clearly  laid  down  by  the  gentleman 
who  sets  before  me,  (Mr.  Neeson,)  to  whom  personally 
I  return  most  cordially  my  thanks  for  the  very  able  and. 
clear  views  which  he  presented  to  us — I  say  this  power 
of  the  people  should  be  reserved  to  the  sovereigns  them- 
selves, and  that  there  is  no  necessity  to  delegate  it  to 
these  mere  municipal  agents.  What  is  the  doctrine 
laid  down  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  ?  The  posi- 
tion has  not  been  met,  unless  those  who  advocate  the 
restriction  can  show  the  necessity  for  it,  the  argument 
fails. 

But  gentlemen  take  up  the  other  ground  that  this  ex- 
isting constitution  is  something  that  is  not  to  be  invaded  ! 
The  question  here  is  about  the  change  of  the  present  con- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


209 


stitution,  and  they  would  have  us  governed  by  the  rule, 
stare  decisis.  I  was  seat  here  expressly  to  break  down 
that  rule.  I  came  here,  and  I  tell  gentlemen  most  em- 
phatically that  it  is  a  vain  argument,  when  they  urge  it 
on  me^-it  is  the  precise  question  which  we  have  here 
for  discussion — what  change  shall  we  make  in  this  con- 
stitution ?  I  do  not  know  that  miserable  wreck  of  ideas 
and  curse  of  Virginia,  the  present  constitution  of  the 
State  !  I  do  not  come  here  to  amend  it  at  all  ;  it  is  not 
worth  amending,  not  worth  the  work  of  a  cobble.  I  came 
here  to  start  the  constitution  anew — to  lay  anew  the  ship 
of  State  from  kelson  to  truck.  I  will  begin  now,  and  I 
will  start  with  the  power  of  the  people.  Ah,  gentlemen, 
if  you  have  heard  of  the  power  of  the  people  to  your 
annoyance  thus  far,  you  shall  hear  it  and  re-hear  it,  as 
long  as  I  have  voice  and  lungs,  until  your  ears  will  tingle 
in  your  sleep  with  theory  of  the  people,  the  people,  the 
people  !  No,  all  the  gravity  in  the  world,  all  the  impos- 
ing and  impressive  airs  that  can  be  conjured  up,  can  never 
drive  me  from  the  sentiment  that  I  feel  out  and  out  to 
be  true,  and  in  me  to  be  irreversible — to  have  old  things 
torn  away,  and  all  made  new,  the  aristocracy  of  the  State 
to  be  destroyed,  and  the  power  delegated  by  Heaven  to 
the  people  and  not  to  us,  restored  to  them.  The  thun- 
der and  lightning  of  reform  must  strike  through  the 
waters  of  this  commonwealth  to  purify  them  and  relieve 
them  from  their  stagnant  green  scum.  1  would  draw 
from  the  fountains  of  life  to  purify  the  waters  in  her 
streams  and  fountains.  Let  the  stagnant  tadpole  pools 
of  lo    land  Virginia  receive  the  rills  of  the  mountain. 

"  The  voice  of  freedom  is  not  a  still  small  voice ; 
'Tis  in  the  fire,  the  thunder  and  the  storm, 
The  Goddess  of  .Liberty  delights  to  dwell. 
If  rightly  1  foresee  (Virginia's  fate,) 
The  hour  of  peril  is  the  halcyon  hour  ; 
The  shock  ol  parties  brings  her  best  repose, 
Like  her  wild  waves,  when  working  in  a  stoim, 
That  foam  and  roar,  and  mingle  earth  and  heaven, 
Yet  guard  the  shore  which  they  seem  to  shake." 
And  that  my  friend  from  Loudoun  will  find  to  be  the 
real,  the  holy,  the  purifying  conservatism  by  which  every 
man  in  this  republic  ought  to  be  guided — action !  action  ! 
and  action,  if  you  please — brought  on  by  the  winds  and 
storms  of  agitation  itself.    It  is  required,  it  is  necessary 
to  regenerate  this  old  commonwealth  of  ours  and  we 
must  have  it.    Great  God,  I  cannot  repress  a  thousand 
thoughts  that  crowd  around  me  ?    You  have  done  long 
and  long  ago  with  the  school  of  Oxford  ;  you  must  take 
up  the  school  of  Cambridge.    It  is  the  hour  of  physics, 
not  of  metaphysics.    I  shall  adhere  to  one  old  thing 
in  this  commonwealth,  by  adhering  to  the  re-eligibility, 
that  has  always  delighted  me  when  Hook  at  the  relation 
between  the  people  of  Virginia  and  their  public  servants, 
and  that  is  the  faithfulness,  the  constancy  with  which 
the  people  of  Virginia,  when  they  have  once  tried  and 
trusted  their  public  servants,  adhere  to  them.    It  gives 
their  public  servants  a  moral  power,  it  gives  them  a 
strength,  and  actually  purifies  them  for  public  life.  How 
many  years  did  that  most  excellent  man,  Burwell  Bas- 
set, represent  the  Williamsburg  district  in  Congress? 
Nearly  thirty.    How  long  did  Thomas  Newton  repre- 
sent the  borough  of  Norfolk  ?    Thirty-one  years,  I  am 
told.    Has  Missouri  lost  any  thing  by  even  returning 
Tom  Benton  to  the  Senate  ?    [Laughter.]  I  am  obliged 
to  say  it — no.    Bad  as  is  even  Tom  Benton,  I  will  take 
the  worst  example  that  could  be  adduced  against  me  on 
the  face  of  God's  earth — I'll  take  big  Bully  Bottom 
himself — did  Missouri  ever  lose  any  thing  by  her  con- 
stancy, even  though  it  were  to  Tom  Benton?    No,  she 
has  wielded  a  power  in  this  country,  that  she  would  not 
otherwise  have  wielded,  and  the  moment  that  he  got  to 
be  past  endurance,  and  a  crying  shame  to  her,  she  sent 
him  home  at  last — if  he  has  a  home — though  I  do  not 
believe  he  has  a  home  on  this  earth. 

I  have  got  another  idea  which  is  just  as  common  as  the 
grass  of  the  field,  and  which,  like  that  grass,  I  tried  upon 
the  idea,  that  because  public  men  are  public  men,  they 
necessarily  are  corrupt.  I  deny  it.  It  is  due  to  the 
public  men  of  this  country,  to  ourselves,  to  myself  to 


say,  and  I  appeal  to  every  man  who  has  ever  been  in 
public  life  to  say,  whether  the  public  life  and  service  of 
the  people  in  this  country  tends  to  corrupt  a  man  or  not. 
It  does  not.  I  deny  it,  and  on  the  contrary,  I  assert 
that  the  very  reverse  is  the  fact;  and  that  as  you  elevate 
the  man  to  the  discharge  of  higher  duties  in  life,  you 
elevate  his  morals.  And  I  can  say  it  with  pride  and 
pleasure,  that  I  have  seen  as  a  lawyer  at  the  bar,  and  I 
will  appeal  to  the  profession  whether  I  am  right  or 
wrong,  more  lower  vice  in  private  life  than  I  have  ever 
seen  in  public  life.  If  it  be  true  that  public  life  is  cor- 
rupting, then  our  liberties  cannot  last.  What  are  you, 
gentlemen,  but  public  men?  Are  we  corrupted  by  our 
places  here,  or  would  we  be  in  any  office  in  the  executive, 
judiciary,  or  legislative  department?  Not  at  all.  No, 
the  bad  man,  the  corrupt  man  is  the  bad  man,  the  cor- 
rupt man,  whether  you  place  him  in  public  or  private 
life.  The  dishonest  politician  is  a  scoundrel,  place  him 
where  you  will.  It  is  not  public  life  that  corrupts  the 
public  man— not  at  all.  And  I  say  that  public  service, 
the  honor,  the  pride,  the  dignity  of  serving  the  people, 
elevates  the  man  in  the  moral  scale,  binds  him  to  the 
duty  of  self-examination,  and  makes  him  feel  that  if  he 
does  not  possess  real  virtue,  he  must  at  all  events  imi- 
tate it,  in  order  to  be  worthy  of  his  station.  Whence 
comes  this  outcry  which  we  often  hear  against  politi- 
cians and  public  men  ?  My  friend,  I  am  sure,  will  never 
interpret  the  remark  I  am  about  to  make  as  applicable 
to  him,  for  he  is  worthy  of  all  his  influence  both  in  pub- 
lic and  private  life.  Whence  comes  this  outcry  which 
we  often  hear  against  the  politicians  and  the  public 
men  of  the  country  for  their  corruption  and  their  abuses. 
There  are  ten  to  one  the  number  of  the  public  men  in 
this  country  of  those  who  desire  the  places  of  the  pub- 
lic men,  and  nine  times  out  of  ten  when  you  hear  some 
trusty  politician,  some  pure  patriot  denouncing  public 
men  in  their  place,  two  to  one  if  it  is  not  some  knave 
that  has  been  disappointed  in  getting  that  very  public 
place. 

Let  us  set  ourselves  right  all  around.  The  people  are 
not  to  be  trusted,  because  they  are  fallible  !  Who  is  to 
be  their  guardian,  will  gentlemen  tell  me?  Who  is  to 
set  up  to  be  the  God  Almighty  of  the  earth  to  correct 
their  errors?  Leave  that  to  Heaven.  Leave  it  to  the 
pulpit.  Leave  it  to  the  schools.  Educate  your  people 
and  you  will  find  them  infinitely  more  fit  and  worthy 
than  any  other  tribunal  or  body  that  could  be  created, 
not  only  to  elect  but  to  select  their  public  agents.  The 
gentleman  from  Halifax,  (Mr.  Edmunds,)  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Tredway,)  I  must  do 
them  the  justice  to  say,  did  this  subject  justice.  They 
argued  the  question  fairly  upon  the  ground  of  expedien- 
cy, and  not  upon  principle,  and  attempted  to  show  the 
fact  that  this  restriction  was  necessary.  But  when  lam 
told  that  the  restriction  is  made  merely  because  the 
people  may  err  and  not  select  a  good  man,  I  ask  gentle- 
men who  urge  that  argument,  what  business  have  you, 
a  worm  of  the  earth  also,  to  undertake  to  set  your  falli- 
bility above  the  fallibility  of  the  people,  and  correct 
their  errors?  Aye,  but  they  tell  us  it  is  all  necessary 
and  essential  to  protect  the  minority.  What  has  a  mi- 
nority or  majority  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  princi- 
ple of  ineligibility  or  eligibility  ?  Nothing.  If  you  make 
the  officer  eligible,  it  is  true  the  majority  will  always 
re-elect  him,  if  they  choose,  over  the  minority.  And  if 
you  make  him  ineligible,  the  majority  still  will  elect  his 
successor  at  their  will  over  the  minority.  How,  then, 
does  the  principle  of  eligibility  or  ineligibility  affect 
the  rights  of  the  minority  or  majority?  I  will  tell  you 
one  way  in  which  it  affects  it.    In  JEsop's  Fables — 

A  MEMBER,  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for  a 
motion  that  the  committee  rise  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  No,  no.  I  rose  merely  to  reply  to  the 
gentleman  from  Loudoun,  and  had  no  intention  of  occu- 
pying the  time  of  the  committee,  as  long  as  I  have.  I 
blame  him  for  all  this.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I'll  take  the  responsibility.  [Renewed 
laughter.] 

Mr.  WISE.    I  was  about  to  close  by  saying  that  I 


210 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


read  once,  of  a  people  who  happened  to  he  a  people  in 
a  pond.  I  read  once  of  a  people  called  frogs,  who  had 
a  King  Log,  whom  they  treated  with  the  greatest  in- 
dignity, whom  they  hopped  on,  for  he  had  no  power  of 
action  whatever.  This  people  at  last,  dissatisfied  with 
their  king,  called  on  Jupiter  to  give  them  another — that 
is  what  you  ask  who  favor  ineligibility — and  he  threw 
them  another,  the  stork,  a  king  who  devoured  them. 
How,  I  ask  the  minority,  will  you  better  your  condition, 
and  in  what  particular  will  your  rights  be  protected  by 
the  principle  of  ineligibility  more  than  by  the  principle 
of  eligibility.  If  the  majority  give  you  a  man  to-day 
whom  you  do  not  like,  if  you  force  him  to  go  out  of  of- 
fice, they  may  give  you  King  Stork  for  King  Log.  The 
majority  first  and  last  will  rule  you. 

My  friend  from  Fauquier,  I  am  afraid,  will  come  back 
upon  me,  and  give  me  another  rebuke.  I  beg  of  him  not 
to  quote  upon  me  Jack  Falstaff  again.  [Laughter.]  I 
know  he  won't  promise,  for  I  see  a  laughing  devil  in  his 
eye.  I  tell  him,  and  I  mean  it  for  no  idle  threat,  be- 
ware, beware.  [Laughter.] 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  CHILTON,  the  commit- 
tee rose. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morn- 
ing, at  11  o'clock. 

WEDNESDAY,  February,  12,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.   Dr.  Jones,  of  the  Episcopal 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

JOURNAL  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 

Mr.  HOPKINS  intimated  a  desire  to  present  a  reso- 
lution requiring  the  Secretary  to  keep  a  journal  of  the 
proceedings  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  giving  as  a 
reason,  therefore,  the  fact  that  it  was  impossible — the 
yeas  and  nays  not  being  taken  in  committee — to  ascer- 
tain with  sufficient  accuracy  the  decision  of  questions. 
He  referred  to  instances  in  former  Conventions  in  re- 
gard to  which,  from  the  absense  of  a  rule  requiring  such 
ajournal  to  be  kept,  there  was  great  doubt  as  to  the 
actual  votes.  He  would  not  offer  it  unless  it  would 
meet  the  general  wish  of  the  Convention. 

There  being  considerable  opposition  manifested,  Mr. 
Hopkins  did  not  submit  the  resolution. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE   RIGHT  OF  SUFFRAGE. 

Mr.  JOHNSON".  Some  time  since  a  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Right  of  Suffrage  and  the  qualifica- 
tions of  members  elected  to  the  general  assembly,  was 
laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  I  now 
move  that  the  report  be  taken  up  and  considered  with 
a  view  to  its  reference  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  report  was  ac- 
cordingly taken  up  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of 
Whole. 

REPORT  FROM  THE    COMMITTEE    ON   THE   LEGISLATIVE  DE- 
PARTMENT. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department  have,  according  to  order,  had  under  con- 
sideration a  resolution  on  the  subject  to  which  the  re- 
port relates,  and  have  instructed  me  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing report : 

The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  of  the 
Government  having,  according  to  order,  had  under  con- 
sideration a  resolution  to  them  referred,  instructing 
them  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  inserting  into 
the  Constitution  a  clause  providing,  "  That  no  law  shall 
be  passed  abolishing  or  impairing  the  rights  of  individu- 
als in  their  property  without  the  consent  of  the  owners 
thereof,' '  and  have  resolved  to  recommend  the  adoption 
of  the  following  clause,  to  wit : 

"  The  legislature  shall  not  by  any  act  call  in  question 
the  right  of  property  or  slaves,  nor  abolish  slavery  with- 
in the  limits  of  this  Commonwealth." 

\ 


The  report  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment have  also  had  under  consideration  a  resolution 
of  Mr.  McCamant,  in  relation  to  the  publication  and 
distribution  of  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
direct  me  to  report  that  it  is  inexpedient  that  such  a 
clause  should  be  incorporated  in  the  Constitution.  I 
ask  that  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table.  I  shall  not 
ask  for  its  printing. 

Mr.  WISE  moved  that  the  report  be  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment have  under  consideration  certain  resolutions 
offered  by  Mr.  Wise,  in  relation  to  the  restrictions  on 
legislative  power,  in  relation  to  the  veto  power,  and 
also  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  levying  a  tax  in  the 
nature  of  a  premium  on  insurance,  and  ask  to  be  dis- 
charged from  the  further  consideration  of  the  same. 

The  report,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Wise,  was  laid  on  the 
table  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

restriction  of  debate.  i 

Mr.  STRAUGHAN.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  resolu- 
tion which  I  wish  to  offer.  It  is  known  that  this  is 
the  12th  day  that  the  amendment  now  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  has  been  under  discussion, 
and  my  resolution  is — 

Resolved,  That  the  debate  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  pending  amendments  be  concluded  to-day 
at  half-past  2  o'clock. 

My  object  in  offering  the  resolution  is  not  to  pre- 
vent any  gentleman  from  speaking  who  wishes  to  ad- 
dress the  committee ;  bnt  it  appears  that  the  twelve 
days  is  sufficiently  long  enough  to  discuss  one  single 
amendment. 

Yesterday  we  had  notice  given  by  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  that  he  would  move  to  take 
up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  Question, 
and  I  hope,  therefore,  the  debate  will  be  terminated  to- 
day, because,  if  this  question  is  postponed  until  after 
the  report  of  the  Basis  Committee  is  disposed  of,  when 
it  again  comes  before  the  committee,  this  whole  discus- 
sion will  have  to  be  gone  over  again,  and  equally  as 
much  time  be  again  consumed  by  it.  My  object  is  not 
to  prevent  any  gentleman  from  speaking  who  wishes 
to  address  the  committee,  and  I  really  think  that  I 
can  offer  this  resolution  with  a  good  grace,  from  the 
fact  that  I  have  not  spoken  and  do  not  intend  to  speak 
on  this  question. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  hope  the  resolution  will  not  be  adopted. 
I  move  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  CN  THE  JUDICIARY. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  MONCURE,  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  the  judiciary  was  taken  up  from  the  table 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention,  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  HALL,  re- 
sumed the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
(Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk  in  the  chair,)  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 

RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  report,  and  the  amend- 
ments pending  thereto. 

Mr,  CHILTON.  I  feel  very  sensibly  the  embarrass- 
ment of  my  position.  I  feel  that,  in  part,  probably 
owing  to  myself,  the  discussion  of  the  question  which 
has  engaged  the'  consideration  of  this  committee  for 
some  days  past,  has  taken  a  range,  a  latitude,  and 
embraced  such  a  variety  of  subjects  as  to  have  di- 
verted, to  a  considerable  extent,  our  minds  from  the 
true  question. 


VIR&INIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


211 


The  rebuke  administered  on  yesterday  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Ja^xet)  was  deserved,  and 
I  take  my  full  share  of  it,  and  should  apologize  to  this 
committee  for  again  trespassing  upon  their  attention, 
if  it  were  not  for  what  has  occurred  in  relation  to  my- 
self, and  the  position  that  I  have  taken.  I  charge  no 
gentleman  with  intentional  misrepresentation.  It  is 
misconception,  no  doubt;  but  whatever  it  be,  it 
puts  me,  in  the  opinion  of  many  of  my  friends,  in  a 
false  position.  I  said  when  I  addressed  the  committee 
some  days  since,  that  I  was  indifferent,  when  this 
proposition  was  first  moved  by  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  as  to  its  fate  ;  that  such  was  my 
first  impression,  and  that  I  was  induced  to  change  this 
impression  by  the  propositions  announced  by  the  gen- 
tleman who  moved  this  amendment,  and  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  who  came  directly  to 
his  aid,  propositions  which  I  had  come  here  pledged  to 
meet  and  resist  to  the  utmost  of  the  feeble  ability 
that  I  might  possess. 

In  the  canvass  which  resulted  in  my  election  as  a 
member  of  this  body,  I  took  the  positions  I  have  taken, 
or  such  as  I  intended  to  take,  here.  I  know  they  were 
fully  understood  by  the  people  who  sent  me  here,  and 
having  avowed  and  discussed  them  fully  before  them,  I 
came  here  pledged  to  carry  them  out.  A  remark  I  made  in 
the  progress  of  my  former  speech,  to  the  effect  that  I  would 
not  consult  my  constituents  respecting  my  action,  has 
been  referred  to  in  debate,  and  misunderstood.  I  have 
been  misrepresented  in  regard  to  it,  not  intentionally, 
as  I  have  already  said.  I  shall  take  occasion,  in  the 
progress  of  the  remarks  I  make  at  this  time,  to  set  my- 
self right  in  this  matter.  I  may  be  permitted  to  say 
here  that  I  have  never  been  a  politician.  It  is  true  that 
the  people  I  now  represent,  in  conjunction  with  others, 
honored  me  with  a  position  in  politics  of  some  distinc- 
tion—a seat  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  I 
held  it  for  one  term.  I  found  that  I  was  not  suited  to 
politics,  or  that  politics  did  not  suit  me,  and  I  retired 
voluntarily  from  it,  when,  I  hope  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say  here,  without  boasting,  I  might  have  been  re- 
elected without  opposition.  I  therefore  meet  the  two 
distinguished  gentlemen  to  whom  I  have  alluded  in  dis- 
cussion, upon  the  subject  of  politics,  on  terms  of  great 
inequality.  I  had,  it  is  true,  in  preparation  for  the  pro- 
fession which  has  engaged  my  pursuit  for  the  last  twen- 
ty-one or  twenty-two  years,  studied  the  science  of  gov- 
ernment, the  principles  of  government  being  intimately 
connected  with,  and  necessary  to,  the  proper  understand- 
ing and  prosecution  of  the  duties  of  that  profession.  I 
have,  in  connection  with  my  professional  pursuits,  given 
attention  to  the  politics  of  the  day,  and  to  what  I  have 
said  to  be  the  science  of  government.  I  came  here 
thinking  there  was  a  science  of  government ;  not,  I 
agree,  one  of  the  certain  sciences,  not  mathematical 
science — not  mechanical  science — not  a  science  by  which 
the  governmental  machine  could  be  adjusted  to  certain 
action  ;  but  I  came  here  believing,  because  I  have  been 
so  taught,  that  there  was  a  science  of  government — that 
there  were  books  that  taught  that  science — that  there 
were  elemental  principles  of  government,  and  that 
they  were  undisputed — universally  received.  I  thought 
that  Vattel,  and  Montesquieu,  and  a  whole  host  of  others, 
as  I  had  been  ta  ught  to  regard  them,  were  authorities 
upon  this  subject.  I  thought  that  the  sages  of  the  revo- 
lution, their  opinions,  their  teachings,  were  authority 
upon  this  subject.  I  thought  that  Marshall,  Kent,  and 
Story,  and  all  the  eminent  men  of  our  own  country, 
who  have  written  on  the  elementary  principles  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  instruction  of  those  who  Were  to  have 
a  hand  in  its  administration,  understood  something  of 
the  subject  upon  which  they  wrote  ;  that  they  were  au- 
thority to  be  relied  upon  ;  that  their  teachings  were  to 
be  guides  for  our  instruction.  Bnt  I  am  mistaken,  if 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  be  correct.  If  I  under- 
stand the  positions  taken  upon  the  other  side,  what  all 
these  men  have  taught,  however  it  may  have  been  au- 


thority for  past  time,  is  no  authority  for  the  present — 
that  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  here — that  it  is  something 
past  and — to  be  now  resorted  to,  rather  to  gratify 
curiosity,  than  for  instruction,  I  had  learned,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  I  had  learned  anything  of  the  principles  of  gov- 
ernment, that  ours  was  a  mixed  government.  I  had 
learned  that  there  were  three  great  elements  of  gov- 
ernment— monarchy,  aristocracy,  and  democracy,  and 
that  the  history  of  the  world  showed  that  these  three 
forms  of  government  had,  at  various  times  and  in  sun- 
dry places,  existed  in  their  purity ;  that  there  had 
been  pure  democracy,  pure  aristocracy,  and  pure  mon- 
archy, which  I  understand  to  be  absolute  despotism.  I 
did  understand  that  a  new  form  of  government,  un- 
known to  the  ancient  world,  had  in  later  times  arisen, 
which  was  called  a  republican  government — a  mixed 
government.  The  British  government  is  a  mixed  gov- 
ernment, but  it  is  called  a  monarchy,  and  why  ?  Be- 
cause the  monarchical  element  predominates  in  it.  Ours 
is  called  a  republican  government — why  ?  Because  the 
republican  or  popular  principle  predominates  aad  has 
control  in  it. 

There  is  no  writer  that  I  have  cited  who  has  not 
called  it  a  mixed  government — a  compound  government — 
a  government  in  which  the  elements  of  monarchy,  aris- 
tocracy, and  democracy  are  mixed  up — the  infusion  of 
the  monarchical  and  aristocratic  elements  being  as  slight 
as  the  nature  of  efficient  government  would  admit  of. 
When  gentlemen  in  a  contest  of  this  sort  meet  positions 
such  as  those  I  take,  with  a  denial  that  there  is  any 
foundation  for  such  positions,  there  is  an  end  of  argu- 
ment, x^o  argument  of  any  proposition  in  the  legiti- 
mate sense  of  argument  can  take  place  between  gen- 
tlemen unless  they  can  start  from  some  conceded  point. 
Where  the  premises  on  both  sides,  the  very  starting 
point,  is  a  matter  of  controversy,  and  is  denied  upon 
the  one  side  or  the  other,  there  can  be  no  argument. 
Because,  if  I  understand  argument  by  induction,  the 
only  just  mode  of  argument,  there  must  be  a  starting 
point,  or  it  cannot  exist. 

Now,  sir,  I  am  not  a  monarchist,  not  at  all.  I  am  no 
aristocrat.  I  am  one  neither  in  fortune,  in  taste,  nor  in 
habits. 

Mr.  WISE.  It  requires  pride  also. 
Mr.  CHILTON.  The  gentleman  says  it  takes  pride 
to  make  an  aristocrat.  There  are  many  kinds  of  pride  ; 
just  pride  I  hope  every  gentleman  in  this  assembly  pos- 
sesses, pride  of  independence,  pride  of  truth,  pride  of 
justice,  that  sort  of  pride  which  every  man  who  has  any 
self-respect  must  possess.  There  is  another  sort  of 
pride  founded  upon  contempt  for  our  fellow  men,  found- 
ed in  a  spirit  which  I  will  not  stop  to  define  and  char- 
acterize, a  pride  which  leads  man  rather  to  despise  and 
injure  than  to  esteem  and  assist  his  fellow  man.  That 
sort  of  pride  I  trust  I  do  not  possess,  and  if  it  be  neces- 
sary to  make  an  aristocrat,  I  have  not  a  single  particle 
of  the  ingredient  in  me — not  in  my  nature  certainly, 
and  I  think  not  in  my  opinions. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  take  it  for  granted,  whatever 
gentlemen  say  on  the  other  side,  however  they  may 
deny  it,  I  must  rest  before  this  Convention  and  before 
those  who  sent  me  here,  as  believing  to  be  true  and 
sound,  the  positions  that  I  take,  that  in  every  republican 
government,  the  three  ingredients  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred are  found  in  existence — the  features  of  a  mon- 
archical, an  aristocratical,  and  a  democratical  govern- 
ment. 

Now,  I  do  not  mean  to  contend  that  the  executive 
office  has  all  the  monarchical  features,  or  that  every 
feature  attached  to  it  is  monarchical.  I  do  not  intend 
to  maintain  before  this  Convention  that  the  aristocrati- 
cal  feature  is  a  pure  aristocracy;  nor  do  I  mean  to  con- 
tend, nor  will  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  contend, 
that  the  government  we  propose  to  establish  is  a  pure 
democracy.  It  cannot  be  so  contended.  It  is  im- 
possible in  view  of  the  very  work  in  which  we  are 
engaged,  of  the  very  manner  in  which  we  are  to  per- 
form it,  and  the  results  which  are  to  flow  from  it : 


212 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


it  is  utterly  impossible,  I  say,  for  any  gentleman  to  main- 
tain that  the  government  which  we  are  about  to  estab- 
lish will  be  a  pure  democracy.  And  why,  let  me  ask, 
should  not  these  elements  be  mixed  up  together?  We 
may  draw  lessons  sometimes  from  nature.  "We  some- 
times see  the  mingling  of  good  and  evil  essentially  ne- 
cessarv  to  the  production  of  what  is  useful  and  good.  In 
the  medical  world  we  see  poisons  the  most  deleterious 
when  taken  alone,  when  infused  and  mixed  with  other 
ingredients,  become  the  most  sanitary  medicines.  I 
myself  have  often  taken  arsenic  in  no  inconsiderable 
quantities,  but  it  was  in  solution  mixed  with  other  in- 
gredients. It  was  taken  for  disease  and  resulted  in 
cure.  Yes,  I  wish  to  give  a  government  to  you  mixed 
ip  as  you  have  always  had  it.  I  wish  to  keep  you  to  a 
governmental  medicine,  a  political  food  upon  which  you 
have  fed  and  grown  from  almost  helpless  infancy  to  ma- 
ture and  vigorous  manhood. 

It  is  a  very  small  matter  to  me  what  you  call  me — 
you  may  call  me  monarchist,  aristocrat,  democratic  re- 
publican, or  what  you  please,  so  long  as  you  make  these 
names  merely,  the  foundation  of  your  attacks  upon  me, 
I  shall  not  complain  or  care  to  argue  with  you.  I  meet 
your  attacks  now  because  they  are  calculated  to  put  me 
in  a  false  position,  and  make  me  misunderstood.  Call 
my  principles  by  what  name  you  please,  yet  meet  the 
substance  of  my  propositions,  meet  them  face  to  face, 
bold,  upright  and  vanquish  me  in  the  argument,  and  I 
will  be  the  last  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  to  complain. 
I  will  go  further,  and  say  that  I  can  be  convinced  if  I 
am  wrong,  and  if  convinced  I  will  acknowledge  it,  and 
reform  my  opinions  accordingly. 

While  upon  this  branch  of  my  remarks,  I  will  pro- 
ceed to  say  all  that  1  have  to  say  upon  these  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  government.  I  will  pass  from  this 
question  on  the  elements  of  government,  and  endeavor 
to  get  at  something  more  practical.  I  understand  the 
position  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  to  be  this:  and 
in  which  I  perfectly  concur  with  him  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent— that  all  lawful  governmental  power  resides  in  the 
people,  belongs  to  the  people,  emanates  from  them,  and 
is  to  be  exercised  in  that  manner  and  to  the  extent  they 
declare  it  shall  be  exercised,  and  none  other;  and  that 
any  power  that  is  exercised  outside  of  this  rule  and  this 
definition,  is  usurped  and  unlawful  power.  I  agree  to 
this  proposition  entirely ;  but  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac goes  a  step  further.  It  is  to  my  mind  the  great 
fallacy  of  the  positions  of  gentlemen  who  have  argued 
this  question.  They  perpetually  resolve  themselves  in- 
to a  state  ©f  nature,  a  state  that  I  do  not  believe  ever 
did  exist — I  mean  politically — I  do  not  believe  that  from 
the  time  of  the  expulsion  from  Eden  down  to  this  day, 
there  has  ever  been  found  a  people  who  did  not  recog- 
nize some  law,  however  absurd,  however  unwise,  how- 
ever oppressive  it  might  be  ;  I  say  I  do  not  believe  that 
a  people  ever  did  exist,  who  did  not  recognize  some  es- 
tablished form  of  government.  There  have  been  bad 
governments  enough  certainly,  there  have  been  usurped 
governments,  there  have  been  despotisms,  there  have 
been  governments  of  every  description ;  but  for  the 
time  being  they  were  the  government,  and  those  over 
whom  their  jurisdiction  extended,  were  subject  to  them. 
We  are  certainly  not  in  a  state  of  nature  in  this  com- 
monwealth. We  have  an  established  government.  We 
have  an  established  system  of  laws.  We  have  institu- 
tions, we  have  rights,  and  we  hold  them  all  under  the 
authority  and  in  virtue  of  the  existing  government,  every 
one  of  them;  and  I  stand  here  to  deny  that  the  people 
of  this  State — and  when  we  speak  of  the  people  in  a 
political  sense  I  take  it  for  granted  that  we  speak  of 
that  portion  who  wield  the  political  power — can  law- 
fully and  rightfully  change  the  existing  government 
without  the  assent  of  that  government. 

Mr.  WISE.    Worse  and  worse! 

Mr.  CHILTON.  It  may  be  worse  and  worse,  but  if 
the  gentleman  will  have  a  little  patience,  I  think  I  will 
show  him  that  it  is  true.  The  gentleman  on  yesterday 
objected  to  a  definition  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Loudoun,  (Mr.  Janney,)  that  the  sovereign,  political  I 


 ^ — .  

power  of  the  State  was  divided  into  three  depart- 
ments—executive, legislative  and  judicial— and  he  scout- 
ed the  idea  that  that  was  any  division  of  sovereignty  at 
all,  but  said  that  it  was  a  mere  municipal  division.  He 
said  subsequently,  it  was  true,  that  there  were  three  de- 
partments or  divisions  of  sovereign  power,  but  that 
there  was  another  division,  and  that  was  the  reserved 
power.  I  so  understood  the  gentleman.  Now  I  confess 
that  I  do  not  understand  the  gentleman's  proposition.  I 
do  not  understand  what  he  meant  by  reserved  power.  I 
did  suppose  that  when  the  government  of  this  State  or 
any  other  sovereign  State  was  formed, the  fundamental 
law  embodied  the  whole  sovereign  power  that  then  ex- 
isted. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  does  not  understand  me, 
I  think  when  he  does  get  to  understand  me,  that  he  will 
find  himself,  I  hope,  convinced  of  his  error.  That  gov- 
ernment which  is  divided  into  the  three  departments,  le- 
gislative, executive  and  judical,  is  a  mere  creature  of  the 
sovereign  power.  It  is  created  by  the  conventional 
power.  The  gentleman  understands  that.  There  is  a 
vast,  an  infinite  difference  between  the  power  of  the 
mere  creature,  and  the  power  of  the  creator,  just  the 
difference  of  infinity  itself.  Well,  the  people  having  the 
power  of  the  creator,  the  conventional  power  of  the  sov- 
ereign, do  not  to  the  creature,  do  not  to  the  mere  muni- 
cipal government,  nor  can  they  ever  possibly,  delegate 
the  whole  of  their  sovereign  creative  power.  All  then 
that  they  do  not  delegate  to  the  creature,  remains  and 
abides  with  themselves.  The  bare  statement  of  this 
great  truth,  which  the  gentleman  will  find,  not  in  the 
writers  of  the  old  world,  but  in  every  American  writer, 
attacks  at  once  the  monstrous  heresy  which  he  has  su- 
peradded to  the  others  which  he  has  uttered,  that  the 
sovereign,  the  creative  power,  the  conventional  power 
of  the  State,  cannot  alter  and  change  the  creature,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  creature.  He  might  as  well  tell 
me  that  the  God  of  our  being,  the  God  of  the  universe, 
could  not  change  the  atoms  of  animate  or  inanimate  na- 
ture without  its  consent.  I  hold  that  the  constitutional 
power  of  this  people  who  created,  can  at  will  destroy, 
and  without  its  consent.  It  is  laid  down  in  our  declara- 
tion of  independence,  in  our  bill  of  rights,  and  in  every 
creed  of  republican  or  democratic  faith,  that  any  gen- 
tleman can  cite  in  the  whole  annals  of  our  entire  histo- 
ry. I  never  contended  that  such  a  thing  as  pure  democ- 
racy, in  the  sense  in  which  he  understands  it,  ever  ex- 
isted. Talk  about  the  democracy  of  Rome  and  of 
Athens.    They  deserve  not  the  name  of  democracy. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  did  not  misunderstand  the  gentle- 
man. I  think  I  can  make  it  manifest  that  he  is  uttering 
the  heresy,  and  not  I.  I  agree  that  his  position  is  the 
legitimate  fruit  of  his  principles,  as  I  understand  him.  I 
purpose  to  show,  and  I  think  I  can  show,  that  his  prin- 
ciples are  disorganizing  and  destructive  of  all  regular 
established  government.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  con- 
ventional power.  Well,  it  is  a  very  good  name,  because 
we  are  sitting  here  under  the  name  of  a  Convention 
now;  but  the  gentleman  did  not  define  the  modus  oper- 
andi of  this  conventional  power.  He  says  that  the  gov- 
ernment which  now  exists  is  the  creature  of  the  sov- 
ereign power,  but  it  does  not  embody  all  the  power  of 
the  sovereign.  I  undertake  to  show  that  that  creature 
holds  in  its  hand  control  over  the  sovereign  from  which 
it  emanated.  I  do  not  mean  to  rest  upon  mere  declara- 
tions, I  will  rest  upon  legislative  provisions  of  our  own 
State.  The  gentleman  talks  about  conventional  power. 
If  there  be  a  conventional  power,  where  does  it  reside? 
Does  he  hold  upon  the  Dorrite  principle,  that  the  people 
of  this  State,  without  any  action  upon  the  part  of  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  existing  government,  and  it 
may  be  against  its  consent,  can  lawfully  assemble  in 
convention  and  set  up  a  government  in  place  of  the  ex- 
isting government ?  That  is  what  I  understand  to  be 
his  position.  He  says  the  creature,  the  existing  govern- 
ment, has  no  control;  that  there  is  a  great  conventional 
power  superior  to  the  creature.  Now,  I  wish  to  know 
where  such  a  power  is  found.  Permit  me  to  read  to  the 
gentleman  a  statute  of  Virginia,  which  has  existed  and 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


213 


been  in  force  from  the  year  1789  I  think,  and  was  re- 
enacted  in  the  new  code,  and  by  a  democratic  legisla- 
ture too.  Does  the  gentleman  know  the  statute  to  which 
I  refer.    It  is  this: 

"  Treason  shall  consist  only  in  levying  war  against 
the  State,  or  adhering  to  its  enemies,  giving  them  aid 
and  comfort,  or  establishing  without  the  authority  of  the 
Legislature,  any  government  within  its  limits,  separate 
from  the  existing  government,  or  holding  or  executing 
in  such  usurped  governments  any  office,  or  professing 
any  allegiance  or  fidelity  to  it,  or  resisting  the  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  under  color  of  its  authority;  and  such 
treason,  if  proved  by  the  testimony  ef  two  witnesses 
to  the  same  overt  act,  or  by  confession  in  court,  shall 
be  punished  with  death." 

The  gentleman  may  smile  at  it,  but  in  my  apprehen- 
sion, if  the  legislature  had  power  to  pass  that  law,  if 
it  is  not  a  nullity  upon  your  statute  book,  then  it  upsets 
the  whole  position  which  he  assumes.  Suppose  we 
were  here  sitting  in  Convention  without  the  authority 
of  a  legislative  provision  of  the  existing  government. 
Suppose  we  came  here  sent  by  the  people,  and  that  we 
framed  a  constitution,  and  declared  that  it  shall  be  the 
constitution  of  the  State,  and  that  the  existing  consti- 
tution be  overthrown.  If  this  act  of  the  assembly,  as 
I  stated  before,  be  not  a  dead  letter  upon  your  statute 
book,  we  who  were  engaged  in  such  a  work,  would  be 
guilty  of  treason.  Well,  the  gentleman  may  smile. 
This  is,  however,  my  construction,  if  I  am  wrong,  I 
would  be  pleased  to  have  it  shown  to  me.  But,  Mr. 
Chairman,  if  there  be  any  principle  which  I  have  un- 
derstood to  appertain  in  an  especial  manner  to  republi- 
can government,  as  it  exists  in  these  United  States,  it 
is  this,  viz:  that  it  is  not  within  the  rightful  power  of 
any  majority  to  amend,  change  or  overturn  an  existing 
government,  without  the  assent  of  such  government. 
Suppose  it  were  otherwise.  Suppose,  as  the  gentleman 
imagines,  or  contends  here,  this  sovereign  of  whom  he 
speaks,  this  sovereign  who  cannot  be  controlled  by  its 
creature,  the  existing  government,  a  sovereign  which, 
in  my  view  of  the  matter,  resides  with  and  is  represent- 
ed visibly  by  that  portion  of  the  people  who  wield  the 
political  power  of  the  State,  in  the  gentleman's  view  of 
it,  as  I  understand  him,  residing  with  and  represented 
by  the  whole  people,  has  the  right,  in  the  way  that  may 
be  most  acceptable  to  it,  to  abolish  the  existing  govern- 
ment, and  with  it  to  abolish  every  right  and  interest 
which  depends  upon  it,  a  right  that  results  necessarily 
from  the  right  to  abolish  the  government  itself.  Why, 
in  such  a  state  of  things  what  safety  is  there  for  person- 
al rights  ?  what  security  is  there  for  rights  of  proper- 
ty ?  what  stability  is  there  in  the  foundation  upon  which 
rests  the  whole  social  fabric  ?  Mr.  Chairman,  I  repeat, 
that  under  the  statute  law  of  this  State,  as  it  has  exist- 
ed almost  from  the  very  foundation  of  our  government, 
any  set  of  men — I  care  not  who,  nor  how  many  they 
be — who,  without  the  sanction  and  authority  of  the  ex- 
isting government,  assembling  themselves  together  to 
change  or  alter  that  government,  or  to  set  up  a  new 
government  in  place  of  it,  and  carry  such  purpose  into 
execution,  are  guilty  of  the  overt  act  of  treason  against 
the  commonwealth.  I  do  not  deny  the  right,  or  rather 
the  power  of  revolution,  but  I  suppose  there  is  no  gen- 
tleman upon  this  floor  who  will  maintain  that  if  our 
forefathers  had  been  unsuccessful  in  the  war  of  inde- 
pendence, that  they  would  not  have  been  responsible  as 
traitors,  legally  and  politically,  to  the  government 
whose  jurisdiction  and  authority  they  had  as  subjects 
resisted  ?  I  suppose  there  is  nothing  more  familiar  than 
that  successful  revolution  establishes  independence  of 
the  power  resisted,  while  unsuccessful  revolution  ends 
in  treason  and  subjects  the  revolutionist  to  liability  to 
the  pains  and  penalties  of  that  offence.  It  may  be  said 
that  I  am  considering  this  question  as  a  lawyer.  It  is 
the  only  way  in  which  I  have  been  accustomed  to  con- 
sider it.  I  am  not  attending  so  much  to  the  phraseolo- 
gy as  to  the  substance  of  things,  and  it  became  my  du- 
ty, in  the  short  space  of  my  political  career,  to  investi- 
gate and  consider  this  very  principle  which  is  now  an- 


nounced and  sustained  by  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  ; 
the  very  principle  contended  for  by  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  was  sought  to  be  put  in  operation  in  the  State 
of  Rhode  Island,  by  the  movement  made  there  a  few 
years  since,  and  known  as  the  Dorr  insurrection. 

Mr.  WISE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  say, 
most  emphatically,  there  is  no  principle  which  I  have 
avowed  in  this  discussion,  that  will  give  countenance 
to  the  idea  of  Dorrism,  and  I  am  prepared  at  any  time 
to  show,  that  their  complexion  is  very  distinct  from 
those  entertained  by  Dorr.  Cannot  the  gentleman  see 
the  plain  distinction  between  the  natural  people  defined 
by  the  natural  law,  and  the  conventional  people,  defined 
by  the  conventional  law?  It  is  a  distinction  as  plain  as 
the  sunbeam,  I  think.  I  take  the  occasion  to  thank  the 
gentleman  for  allowing  me  the  opportunity  to  disclaim 
ail  Dorrism. 

M.r.  CHILTON.  Will  the  gentleman  refer  me^  to 
some  book  that  contains  that  conventional  law  of  which 
he  speaks  ?  I  wish  to  know  where  it  is  found.  The 
book  of  nature,  did  some  one  say? 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  wishes  to  know  what 
book  I  refer  to,  when  I  speak  of  the  conventional  law. 
Why,  I  refer  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
I  refer  to  the  constitutions  of  the  different  States.  1  re- 
fer to  what  is  called  the  constitutions  of  the  British 
government.  The  law  of  nature  is  divided  into  two 
chapters — the  law  of  force  and  the  law  of  moral  right, 
and  the  conventional  law,  which  is  as  much  a  law  of 
nature  as  any  other  thing  or  being  that  exists,  in  that 
short  chapter  which  interposes  to  defend  the  moral 
right  from  an  invasion  by  the  physical  force,  and  that 
when  organized  by  the  consent  of  mankind  in  any  form 
whatever,  becomes  the  conventional  law. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  It  is  my  misfortune,  no  doubt,  but 
I  do  not  understand  the  gentleman.  No  doubt,  the 
fault  is  with  me,  but  I  will  ask  leave  to  make  a  remark 
here — which  probably  will  save  the  gentleman  the  ne- 
cessity of  any  disclaimer  in  regard  to  any  principle  I 
may  impute  to  him  as  the  consequence  of  his  opinion — 
that  in  this  discussion  I  have  been  dealt  with,  or  rather 
my  position  has  been,  with  gloves  off.  I  have  not  taken 
it  as  personal  or  objectionable.  We  need  here  free  and 
full  discussion.  My  positions  have  been  characterized 
as  monarchical,  aristocratical,  monstrous,  abhorrent, 
damnable,  as  positions  which  the  English  language  did 
not  furnish  epithets  strong  enough  to  characterize. 
Now,  having  stood  all  this,  I  intend  to  be  free  with  the 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side,  and  whatever  result  I 
may  think  their  positions  lead  to,  I  intend  to  speak 
freely  of  it,  and  to  call  it  by  such  epithets  as  I  think  it 
deserves,  and  if  I  should  speak  of  demagogueism,  or 
any  other  ism,  in  this  debate,  gentlemen  must  not  take 
it  as  personal  to  themselves.  [Laughter.]  I  design  to 
speak  freely  and  unreservedly  of  the  legitimate  re- 
sult of  their  positions.  To  return  from  this  digres- 
sion. I  said  I  did  not  understand  the  gentleman's  po- 
sition about  this  conventional  law,  nor  his  great  di- 
vision of  the  natural  law.  I  will  say  further  that  I  do 
not  understand  that  right  of  force.  Did  I  understand 
him  to  say — 

Mr.  WISE.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  permit  me  to 
say  that  if  he  interrogates  me  and  expects  me  to  an- 
swer, that  I  really  cannot  conduct  a  lecture  in  this  way; 
that  I  could  not  teach  him  exactly  my  understanding. 
The  gentleman  and  I  have  been  taught  in  entirely  dif- 
ferent schools,  and  I  perceive  that  he  does  not  under- 
stand me.    I  do  understand  him. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  The  gentleman  spoke  of  this  great 
moral  right  of  the  people  to  establish  a  government, 
being  found  in  the  book  of  nature.  I  have  said  too  of- 
ten that  in  this  debate  there  has  been  too  great  loose- 
ness of  terms,  and  that  when  gentlemen  talk  of  the  peo- 
ple here  in  the  sense  that  they  are  entitled  to  be  heard 
in  this  assembly  and  to  be  regarded  in  the  progress  of 
what  we  are  doing  here,  I  want  to  know  what  they 
mean  by  the  term  ?  Do  they  mean  the  whole  people 
without  distinction  of  age,  or  sex*  or  condition  ;  or  do 
they  mean  that  portion  of  the  people  in  whom,  in  every 


214 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


free  government  that  has  been  established  upon  this 
continent,  at  least  in  the  United  States,  the  political 
power  resides,  the  political  power  that  operates  in  the 
administration  of  the  government,  and  in  effecting  those 
changes,  modifications,  alterations  and  reforms  that  are 
made  in  the  fundamental  law  ? 

But  I  will  not  ask  the  gentleman  further  questions. 
I  understand  his  position  to  be  this,  at  least  I  shall  treat 
it  as  such,  for  I  cannot,  from  what  he  has  said,  under- 
stand it  in  any  other  way,  viz:  that  there  does  reside  in 
the  people  a  conventional  power,  defined,  he  says,  in  all 
the  constitutions  that  have  been  framed  in  the  Umted 
States,  where  he  says  I  may  read  it — a  conventional 
right  in  the  people  to  change  the  existing  government, 
when,  and  in  what  form  they  please.  Is  that  his  po- 
sition? 

Mr.  WISE.-  No  sir,  no — the  gentleman  has  mistaken 
it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  so  understood  it.  My  position  is, 
that  in  this  government,  and  in  every  government  in 
these  United  States,  the  power,  the  right,  thelegal  au- 
thority to  change  the  government  is  found  in  the  people 
it  is  true,  but  subject  to  the  control  of  this  creature  that 
the  gentleman  has  spoken  of — a  form  of  government 
that  they  (the  people)  have  established,  and  which  they 
have  endowed  with  the  exercise  of  the  powers  and  in- 
vested with  the  principles  of  sovereignty  ;  and  I  say 
that  although  the  gentleman  may  not  think  so,  although 
I*  am  sure  he  does  not  intend  it,  yet  his  principles  lead 
him  as  inevitably  to  Dorrism  as  cause  in  any  instance 
ever  led  to  effect.  Tor  what  is  Dorrism  ?  A  claim  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  without  the  assent  of  the  exist- 
ing government,  to  eleGt  delegates  to  assemble  in  Con- 
vention to  frame  a  government  to  supersede  the  exist- 
ing form  of  government.  The  question  of  the  legitima- 
cy of  such  a  government  has,  I  think,  been  tested  by  the 
highest  judicial  tribunal  in  the  United  States.  I  do  not 
recollect  the  precise  form  in  which  it  came  up,  but  it 
did  come  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  there  was  solemnly  adjudicated  by  that  high 
tribunal.  I  may  be  met  by  the  objection  that  that  is  a 
federal  tribunal — an  objection  I  do  not  deem  it  necessa- 
ry now  to  meet  or  answer  ;  these  learned  judges  of  law 
and  government,  in  view  of  the  principles  of  republican 
government  as  established  in  this  country,  and  of  the 
rights  of  the  people  under  such  governments  upon  their 
oaths,  have  declared  Dorrism  to  be  disorganizing 
and  revolutionary— and  without  any  just  authority. 
The  gentleman  from  Accomac  yesterday  attacked  the 
position  that  I  assumed  when  last  before  the  Conven- 
tion, that  we  had  come  here  to  amend  the  existing  con- 
stitution, to  take  it  as  it  now  stands,  and  to  devise  and 
counsel  amendments  to  it,  and  that  that  constitution, 
notwithstanding  the  result  of  our  labors  here,  will  stand 
unimpaired,  except  in  the  particulars  in  which  we 
change  it,  and  will  preserve  unimpaired,  the  whole 
frame  work  of  the  social  and  municipal  fabric  that  rests 
upon  and  is  now  upheld  by  it.  I  understand  that  to  be 
our  object  here.  The  gentleman  said  he  knew  nothing 
about  that  constitution,  and  if  he  did,  he  would  not 
touch  it.  It  had  been  tried,  condemned  and  rejected. 
I  looked,  Mi-.  Chairman,  to  the  very  authority  under 
which  the  gentleman  sits  in  this  house — and  what  is  it  ? 
In  looking  at  the  act  under  which  we  are  convened  and 
by  authority  of  which  alone  we  have  a  right  to  convene 
here  as  a  Convention,  and  effect  anything  at  all,  I  find 
that  it  begins  in  these  words,  "  Whereas,  it  is  represent- 
ed to  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  good  people  of  this  commonwealth  are  de- 
sirous of  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  &c." 
Now,  if  amendment  means  destruction,  then  the  gentle- 
man is  correct.  But  I  will  not  stop  to  argue  before 
this  enlightened  assembly,  that  amendment  does  not 
mean  destruction.  It  may  mean  change  ;  but  to  destroy 
is  one  thing  and  to  amend  or  change  is  another  thing. 
The  thing  amended  does  not  cease  to  exist.  And  would 
we  not  be  in  a  state  that  no  gentleman  here  could  con- 
template without  apprehension,  if  the  gentleman's  posi- 
tion were  carried  out? 


If  I  understand  anything  about  government,  unless 
there  be  a  fundamental  law  of  some  sort,  unless  there 
be  a  form  and  structure  of  government,  with  power  to 
administer  and  render  it  efficacious,  deposited  some- 
where to  be  exercised,  there  is  no  right  of  any  sort,  no 
right  of  property,  no  right  of  life,  liberty  or  anything 
else,  the  strong  man  prevails,  and  unlicensed  will  and 
power  are  the  only  rule.  Sir,  if  it  were  in  the  power 
of  any  set  of  men  to  strike  down  the  existing  constitu- 
tion to-morrow,  with  it  would  go  the  whole  fabric  of  our 
institutions  and  laws — with  it,  would  go  every  right 
that  we  hold — with  it,  would  go  some  institutions  about 
which  we  feel  peculiarly  sensitive  in  some  portions  of 
the  State.  In  my  apprehension,  sir,  the  gentleman's 
position,  if  true,  admits  a  power  to  do  this,  to  strike 
down  any  rights  that  we  enjoy  under  the  laws  of  the 
municipal  government ;  because  they  are  but  the  super- 
structure upon  this  foundation  of  the  constitution — they 
exist  with  it,  they  are  erected  upon  it  and  cannot  exist 
without  it.  It  is  this  that  I  call  radicalism,  the  infinite 
radicalism  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac.  I  have 
always  rejoiced  to  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  live 
under  the  protection  of  a  form  of  government,  and  of 
institutions  that  were  not  under  the  control  of  any  ma- 
jority ;  I  intend  to  be  understood,  sir,  that  I  did  not  act 
under  and  by  authority  of  the  existing  form  of  govern- 
ment ;  and  that  whenever  the  question  of  a  change  in 
the  fundamental  law  comes  to  be  agitated,  that  no  set 
of  men,  actuated  either  by  sectional  or  other  motives, 
although  they  might  constitute  a  majority,  could  assem- 
ble themselves  together,  and  effect  a  change,  either  in 
the  government,  or  my  rights  and  security,  under  it, 
without  my  voice  in  the  proposed  change  through  my 
right  secured  to  me  by  the  authority  of  the  existing 
law,  be  heard  by  representation  in  the  body  by  which 
such  change  is  devised  and  recommended.  These  are 
my  opinions.  They  may  be  very  erroneous,  but  such 
a?  they  are,  they  are  honestly  entertained.  The  oppo- 
site of  these  1  understand  to  be  the  result  of  the  gen- 
tleman's position,  whether  he  designs  that  result  or 
not.  And  permit  me  to  say,  I  have  just  as  much  con- 
fidence in  that  gentleman's  purity  of  purpose,  as  I  have 
in  my  own  or  any  other  man's;  but  if  the  dearest 
friend  I  have  on  earth,  promulgated  principles  that  in 
mv  judgment  led  to  mischiefs,  mischiefs  not  only  to 
myself,  but  to  those  in  whom  I  feel  an  especial  interest, 
as  well  as  to  the  whole  people  of  the  commonwealth, 
I  must  denounce  them,  I  must  point  out  their  conse- 
quences, I  must  point  to  their  mischiefs,  and  warn, 
to  the  best  of  my  ability,  those  who  have  the  deepest 
interest  in  the  subject  of  the  tendency  of  those  princi- 
ples, and  the  results  to  which,  in  my  opinion,  they  inevi- 
tably lead. 

So  many  positions  have  been  taken  in  the  discussion 
of  this  question,  that  if  I  examine  them  all,  or  even 
those  that  appear  to  me  to  be  most  important,  I  shall 
weary  the  attention  of  those  who  are  treating  me  with 
so  much  indulgence.  I  did  intend  to  speak  more  at 
large  upon  this  doctrine  of  reserved  power.  I  very 
well  understand  the  doctrine  of  reserved  power  in 
the  people,  under  such  a  government  as  the  federal 
government,  but  I  do  not  understand,  I  confess,  the 
existence  of  such  a  power,  when  the  people  of  a  sov- 
ereign State,  such  as  Virginia,  have  put  in  the  form 
of  a  written  constitution,  their  sovereign  will  in  re- 
gard to  the  forms  and  powers  of  government,  nor  how 
it  is,  that  they  are  not  bound  by  such  a  government 
at  all. 

These  are  my  positions.  I  think  them  the  proper,  the 
only  safe,  the  only  secure  positions.  I  think  they  are 
the  only  positions  that  accomplish  the  great  end  of  gov- 
ernment— the  protection  of  life,  liberty  and  property — 
the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number.  I  repeat  they 
may  be  entirely  erroneous,  they  may  be  heretical,  I  am 
sure  they  are  anti-democratic  in  the  sense  in  which  de- 
mocracy has  been  urged  upon  this  floor — the  opposite 
of  the  principles  avowed  upon  the  other  side,  which  lead 
in  my  judgment  inevitably  to  anarchy,  disorder,  and  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


215 


one-man  power,  or  monarchy.  The  people  of  the  State, 
or  the  political  power  of  the  State,  when  they  estab- 
lish a  government  wisely,  I  think,  lay  these  limitations 
upon  themselves. 

I  cannot,  Mr.  Chairman,  compete  with  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac  in  the  interest  he  imparts  to  his  discus- 
sions upon  this  floor.  There  is  a  power  of  language, 
which,  when  uttered  by  a  gentleman  gifted  as  is  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac,  both  in  manner  and  voice,  arrests 
and  leads  captive  the  judgment  of  the  audience,  when 
upon  principles  of  sound  philosophy  and  political  truth 
there  is  really  nothing  of  substance  in  the  language  it- 
self. This  power  of  the  gentleman  I  have  felt  the  full 
force  of  in  this  discussion. 

I  have  not  risen  here  to  make  a  display.  I  have  ris- 
en solely  for  the  purpose  of  putting  before  this  as- 
sembly my  views  upon  those  important  questions  of 
government — those  principles  of  government  which  lie 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  work  in  which  we  are  en- 
gaged. 

The  gentleman  said  he  would  have  no  monarchical 
feature  in  this  government  at  all.  He  scouts  the  "  divine 
right  of  kings."  In  this  sentiment  no  man  concurs  with 
him  more  heartily  than  I  do,  and  I  think  upon  the  prin- 
ciples I  have  already  stated.  He  said  he  would  have  no 
prerogative  power  in  this  constitution.  When  we  use 
terms  in  a  discussion  of  this  sort  it  is  well  to  understand 
their  precise  import.  I  would  like  to  know  if  there  is 
to  be  n@  prerogative  power  in  this  government  that  we 
establish.  "What  is  prerogative  power  ?  What  is  its  de- 
finition ?  Whether  it  has  been  distorted  from  its  legiti- 
,  mate  purposes  or  not,  I  shall  not  stop  here  to  argue.  I 
admit  that  under  the  name  of  prerogative  there  have 
been  abuses  in  the  British  government,  but  I  am  accus- 
tomed to  look  in  matters  of  this  kind  rather  to  substance 
than  to  names.  I  brought  into  the  Convention  a  legal 
work  of  great  authority — Bacon's  Abridgment — in  which 
is  found  a  definition  of  prerogative,  and  some  idea  giv- 
en of  the  object  and  uses  of  the  power  of  prerogative. 
It  is  as  follows : 

"  Prerogative  is  a  word  of  large  extent,  including  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  which  follow  the  king  as  head 
and  chief  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  as  entrusted  with 
the -execution  of  the  law." 

It  is  defined  further  by  the  same  author  to  be  the 
special  pre-eminence  which  the  king  hath  over  and  above 
all  other  persons,  and  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  the 
common  law,  in  right  of  his  royal  dignity :  that  it  sig- 
nifies, in  its  etymology,  from  prce  and  rogo,  something 
that  is  required  or  demanded  before  or  in  preference  to 
all  others,  and  hence  that  it  can  only  be  applied  to 
those  rights  and  capacities  which  the  king  enjoys  alone, 
and  in  contradistinction  to  others,  and  not  to  those 
which  he  enjoys  in  common  with  any  of  his  subjects. 
It  is  also  said  in  this  connection  "that  the  nature  of  the 
British  constitution  is  that  of  a  limited  monarchy,  in 
which  the  legislative  power  is  lodged  in  the  king,  lords 
and  commons,  but  the  king  is  entrusted  with  the  execu- 
tive part,  and  from  him  all  justice  is  said  to  flow:  hence 
he  is  styled  the  head  of  the  Commonwealth,  supreme 
governor,  parens  patrice,  &c;  but  still  he  is  to  make  the 
law  of  the  land  the  rule  of  his  government,  that  being 
the  measure  as  well  of  his  power  as  of  the  subject's 
obedience,"  <fec. 

Soms  of  the  objects  of  the  prerogative  power  are  de- 
fined to  be  escheats,  derelict  lands,  wrecks,  coins,  fines 
and  forfeitures,  allegiance  oaths,  writ  de  ne  exeat  regno, 
exemption  from  the  operation  of  the  statutes  of  limita- 
tion upon  the  principle  of  nullum  tempus  occurrit  regi, 
the  power  of  pardon  and  many  others.  All  these  are 
subjects  of  prerogative  power,  which  power  is  supposed 
to  be  exercised  by  the  king  as  the  sovereign  for  the 
good  of  the  nation,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  No  doubt 
the  power  has  been  abused  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  its 
name,  by  reason  of  the  corruption  of  that  government, 
powers  have  been  assumed  and  exercised  to  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  subject,  in  violation  of  the  end,  nature,  and 


purport  of  prerogative  power.  But  I  am  not  now  speak- 
ing of  the  abuse  of  power,  but  of  its  nature.  In  Great 
Britain  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  king ;  in  Virginia 
the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  State,  the  State  being  the 
existing  government,  subject  to  such  changes  as  the  peo- 
ple may  choose,  from  time  to  time,  to  make  in  it,  ac- 
cording to  law.  To  this  sovereignty  has  been  transfer- 
red many,  very  many,  of  the  powers  which  belong  to 
the  sovereign  of  Great  Britain — I  mean  powers  the 
same  in  kind  and  nature,  but  different  in  extent  and  de- 
gree. The  gentleman  says  he  will  have  no  prerogative 
powers  in  the  government  we  are  about  to  form.  I  think 
he  is  mistaken.  He  will  give  the  government  power 
over  all  the  subjects  I  have  enumerated,  and  many  oth- 
ers, in  their  nature  the  subject  of  prerogative— a  pow- 
er which  it  has  always  held  and  exercised — a  power 
which  the  State  necessarily  holds  exclusively  of  the 
citizen,  and  which  the  citizen  cannot  be  permitted  to 
hold  and  enjoy. 

The  gentleman  says  he  will  have  no  majesty  in  this 
government.  Now,  sir,  I  do  not  understand  the  term 
majesty  to  imply  any  power  at  all.  It  is  a  term  ex- 
pressive of  dignity,  nothing  more,  signifying  about  as 
much  as  the  term  honorable,  applied  to  a  member  of 
Congress,  which  sometimes  signifies  very  little,  unless 
it  hj^interpreted  upon  the  principle  of  lucus  a  non  lu- 
eenao.  We  frequently  speak  of  the  majesty  of  the 
people,  a  majesty  to  which  there  is  not  imfrequently 
offered  an  abundance  of  sycophancy,  and  servile  adula- 
tion. 

There  are  many  other  matters  that  I  must  of  necessi- 
ty pass  over,  but  there  was  one  remark  of  the  gentleman 
that  struck  me  with  peculiar  force.  In  the  midst  of  a 
most  impassioned  strain,  when  he  seemed  almost  trans- 
ported in  his  own  feelings  beyond  the  bounds  of  earth — 
when  he  spoke  of  two  worlds,  and  of  man's  residence  in 
each — when  he  spoke  of  men  as  sinners — none  good,  no, 
not  one,  he  told  us — I  do  not  remember  precisely  in 
what  connection,  but  somewhere  about  that  point  in 
his  speech — he  told  us  that  democracy  was  an  active, 
warring  principle. 

Mr.  WISE.    The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  Yes,  sir.  Warlike  was  the  word. 
He  used  the  word  warring  or  warlike  in  connection  with 
democracy.  I  understood  him  that  democracy  was  a 
fighting  principle.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WISE.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  gentleman  will 
allow  me  to  explain,  I  think  it  is  the  dove  of  peace — 
not  the  fighting  principle.  But  I  said  that  out  of  revo- 
lution liberty  came — that  even  we  had  to  fight  for  lib- 
erty to  obtain  and  secure  our  democratic  rights ;  but  if 
it  is  pure  and  undefiled,  it  was  above  all  others  a  truly 
conservative  principle. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  It  is  only  warlike  when  raised. 
[Laughter.]  I  certainly  understood  the  gentleman  to 
say  that  it  was  warlike,  and  I  was  going  on  to  say  that  I 
perfectly  agreed  with  him  thac  it  was  a  warring  princi- 
ple. [Laughter.]  I  was  going  to  treat  it  as  such  a  prin- 
ciple, from  the  character  I  have  understood  the  gentle- 
man to  give  it  upon  this  floor — a  disorganizing  principle 
— a  radical  principle.  I  really  did,  Mr.  Chairman,  un- 
derstand the  gentleman,  that  it  was  dangerous  to  med- 
dle with  it  ;  [laughter,]  that  it  was  a  fighting  principle. 
He  was  so  impassioned  that  it  was  very  difficult,  indeed,, 
to  catch  the  precise  language  that  he  used.  Republi- 
canism, I  agree,  is  the  dove  of  peace,  but  democracy  is 
not — I  mean  pure  democracy — radicalism.  The  triumphs 
of  peace,  we  are  told,  are  greater  than  those  of  war — - 
that  monarchy  is  the  warring  spirit — that  it  embodies 
those  qualities  that  make  it  a  warring  spirit.  That  it  is 
chivalrous,  active,  guided  by  one  will,  and  capable  of 
wielding  power  more  readily  and  effectively.  On  the 
other  hand,  democracy,  in  its  purity,  is  vindictive,  ma- 
lignant, disorganizing,  violent.  And  when  I  speak  of 
democracy,  I  hope  no  gentleman  under  the  sound  of  my 
voice  will  suppose  that  I  am  attributing  to  him  as  a  de- 
liberate opinion,  that  pure  democracy  should  be  estal> 


216 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


lished  here.  I  am  only  maintaining  thai  the  positions 
which  the  gentleman  took,  lead  necessarily,  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  it.  I  know  you  do  not  mean  to  establish  a 
democracy  in  this  constitution.  I  deem  better  of  you. 
Bat  the  great  effect  of  the  establishment  of  a  republi- 
can government,  as  I  have  heretofore  endeavored  to 
treat  it,  as  one  of  checks  and  balances  that  restrain 
all  properly,  who  make  up  the  sum  of  community — the 
effect,  I  say,  of  this  republican  government  has  been  to 
elevate  man — to  enlarge  the  sphere  of  his  hopes  and 
aspirations — to  put  down  strife  and  war.  Its  triumphs 
are  commerce,  literature,  agriculture,  and  general  morali- 
ty ;  at  least,  if  the  true  spirit  of  it  be  carried  out,  such 
will  be  its  results.  I  wish  to  see  it  established  over  this 
Commonwealth  in  all  its  purity — a  republican  govern- 
ment, checked  and  balanced,  and  restrained  so  that  no 
one  portion  of  this  State  can  war  in  any  form  upon  an- 
other. I  desire  to  see  it  spread  its  benign  influences 
throughout  the  west  as  well  as  the  east — in  the  east  as 
well  as  the  west.  For  there  is  no  man  on  this  floor  who 
would  rejoice  more  in  the  prosperity  and  development 
of  the  great  resources  of  the  west  than  myself.  I  wish 
to  establish  a  government  upon  such  principles  that  it 
will  commend  itself  to  every  portion  of  the  State.  And 
the  worst  result,  in  my  judgment,  that  could  befall  this 
old  State,  would  be  a  result  of  our  labors  here,  whi^a, 
when  presented  to  the  people  of  the  State,  whether  rati- 
fied or  rejected  by  a  majority,  should  be  accepted  or  re- 
jected by  a  sectional  vote.  And  if  there  is  any  one  feel- 
ing that  has  influenced  me  more  than  another,  anything 
to  which  I  have  looked  as  more  desirable  than  another, 
it  is  the  hope  that  we  can  compromise  and  harmonize 
all  portions  of  this  machinery  of  government,  and  settle 
all  difficulties  in  such  a  form  that  when  the  result  of 
our  labors  goes  back  to  those  who  sent  us  here,  it  shall 
be  received  by  the  whole  State — and  if  received  by  the 
unanimous  voice  of  the  State,  so  much  the  better — so 
much  the  better.  Let  gentlemen  say  what  they  please 
about  it ;  a  form  of  government  which  commends  itself 
to  the  affections  and  confidence  of  the  whole  people  may 
be  theoretically  wrong,  and  yet,  for  all  practical  purpo- 
ses, a  better  one  than  another  that  is  theoretically  right, 
but  doe3  not  commend  itself  to  the  whole  people,  but 
secures  the  hostility  and  disaffection  of  a  considerable 
portion.  These  are  the  triumphs  to  which  I  look  in  the 
establishment  of  a  republican  government — the  triumphs 
that  I  think  can  be  pointed  to  as  the  legitimate  result 
of  such  a  government.  On  the  other  hand,  the  triumphs 
of  a  government  organized  upon  the  gentleman's  prin- 
ciple are,  in  my  humble  apprehension,  triumphs  of  vio- 
lence, disorder,  passion,  and  of  blood.  In  modern  times, 
it  seems  to  me  these  principles  have  been  carried  out 
to  their  full  extent  only  in  France.  I  will  not  detain 
the  Convention  with  any  detailed  description  of  what 
occurred  there.  It  was  all  done  in  the  name  of  democ- 
racy, of  liberty.  We  may  be  told  that  we  have  not  the 
same  sort  of  people  here.  I  trust  we  have  not ;  but  we 
know  that  these  very  doctrines  of  radicalism — uproot- 
ing, overturning — there  the  predominant  principles  of 
government,  in  their  results,  make  a  dark  picture  upon 
the  page  of  history. 

It  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  that  there 
was  no  such  word  as  conservatism,  that  conservatism 
was  not  the  right  word. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  said  Mr.  Webster  had  a  word  called 
conservatism,  but  that  was  not  the  word  applicable  to 
the  party  technicalities  of  the  day — the  political  tech- 
nicality of  this  part  of  the  State — that  there  was  an- 
other word  that  had  a  different  sense,  a  sense,  in  my 
opinion,  not  to  conserve,  but  to  destroy,  and  that  word 
was  conservativeism. 

Mr.  CHILTON".  Did  the  gentleman  find  the  word 
conservativeism  in  Webster? 

Mr.  WISE.  No,  not  in  Webster,  but  in  the  political 
vocabulary  of  this  day  in  Virginia ;  a  word  invented  for 
the  day,  that  has  a  peculiar  meaning  of  its  own,  that 
must  not  be  confounded  with  Webster's  word.  That  is 
a  very  good  word. 


Mr.  CHILTON.  If  the  gentleman  will  refer  to  the 
remarks  I  made  the  other  day,  he  will  find  I  used  con- 
servatism, not  conservativeism.  1  never  used  conserva- 
tiveism. I  consulted  Webster  to  see  the  definition  he 
gives  of  my  word  conservatism,  and  he  said  it  means 
opposition  to  radical  change,  the  very  word  I  wanted  to 
express  the  position  I  took.  [Laughter.]  That  is  one 
of  the  definitions — those  who  wish  to  preserve  against 
injury  and  violence,  and  who  go  against  radical  changes. 
There  were  some  other  definitions,  but  I  took  this  par- 
ticular one,  because  it  seemed  to  suit  me  rather  better 
than  any  other. 

Mr.  WISE.  Do  I  understand  that  Webster  .has 
been  guilty  of  such  an  unphilological  definition  as  to  say 
that  conservatism  means  one  who  is  opposed  to  radical 
chauges  ? 

Mr.  CITILTON.  The  gentleman  is  at  his  old  game,  a 
play  upon  words.  [Laughter.]  I  do  not  remember  the 
precise  form  in  which  I  expressed  it.  Certainly,  my 
meaning  was  that  conservatism  was  what  those  pro- 
fess, who  go  against  the  gentleman's  position  of  radical 
change. 

Mr.  WISE.    Does  Mr.  Webster  speak  of  me  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.  Not  by  name,  but  very  distinctly  by 
general  description.  I  mean  so  far  as  it  regards  the 
gentleman'  position  here. 

I  must  now  part  company  with  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  so  far  as  the  remaining  part  of  my  remarks 
will  be  concerned,  and  will  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  I 
must  say  a  word  or  two  to  the  gentleman  who  addressed 
us  a  day  or  two  since,  the  gentleman  from  Marion, 
(Mr.  Neeson.)  It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  concur  in 
those  very  high  encomiums  that  have  been  passed  upon 
him.  I  understand  he  is  a  very  young  man,  one  who 
comes  up  from  amongst  the  people,  having  depended 
mainly  upon  himself  for  his  position.  It  always  gives 
me  pleasure  to  recognise  in  such  persons  the  indications 
given  by  him.  His  argument  was  a  very  imposing  one. 
The  only  objection  I  had  to  it  was,  that  I  thought  it  was 
an  argument  which  might  come  under  the  description 
of  an  argument  upon  extremes,  a  kind  of  argument  that 
has  been  very  much  indulged  in,  I  think,  by  all  the 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side — an  argument  rather  for 
victory  than  to  elicit  truth.  When  he  came  up  to  the 
question  I  thought  he  shyed  it.  He  is  ingenious,  and 
stated  his  propositions  clearly,  and  I  thought  that  when 
he  did  shy  the  question  he  made  it  manifest  that  he 
intended  so  to  do.  I  have  no  complaint  to  make  of  him, 
but  I  thought  on  one  or  two  occasions  he  treated  the 
remarks  that  I  had  made  in  no  unkind  spirit  certainly, 
but  rather  in  a  spirit  of  ridicule.  For  instance,  he  said 
that  I  had  represented  myself  here  as  a  wise  man,  wiser 
than  all  my  constituents.  Well,  that  was  a  form  of  ex- 
pression that  carried  with  it  a  little  irony.  If  I  gave 
utterance  to  such  a  sentiment,  I  am  sure  that  I  did  not 
understand  myself,  for  I  think  I  am  regarded — indeed  I 
so  regard  myself — as  a  modest  man.  [Laughter.]  I 
could  not  have  made  such  a  boast.  What  I  did  say 
was  this,  (or  I  intended  to  say  it  at  least,)  that  in  regard 
to  the  machinery  of  this  government  we  are  engaged  in 
framing,  in  regard  to  the  application  of  principles,  I 
should  not  stop  to  inquire,  that  it  was  not  expected  of 
me  to  inquire  of  those  who  sent  me  here,  what  I  should 
do  in  the  frame-work  of  the  great  principles  of  republi- 
canism and  civil  liberty.  I  believe  the  people  that  I 
represent  know  that  whilst  there  are  some  of  them  who 
would  have  been  more  competent  to  do  this  particular 
service  to  which  I  have  alluded  than  myself,  yet  that  I 
was  better  competent  to  decide  upon  these  things  than 
a  great  majority  of  them,  not  from  any  great  mental 
superiority  of  mine,  but  simply  from  my  experience  in 
regard  to  matters  of  this  kind;  that  my  studies  and  my 
pursuits  had  led  me  to  learn  something  of  the  form  of 
government  and  of  the  meaning  of  terms — for  in  every 
form  of  government  that  has  ever  been  established,  we 
have  to  resort  to  legal  terms — that  I  understood  those 
terms  better  than  they  did,  and  that  they  trusted  me 
entirely  in  regard  to  those  matters.   But  if  there  was 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


217 


one  principle  that  I  believe  they  abhorred  and  repelled 
more  than  any  other,  it  is  the  very  principle  that  I  am 
resisting;  and  if  there  is  a  principle  that  they  approve 
more  than  any  other,  it  is  this  hated  conservative  prin- 
ciple upon  whieh  I  stand  before  this  Convention.  I  trust 
I  have  put  myself  right  in  regard  to  this  matter.  The 
gentleman  said  that  in  defining  my  position  in  regard  to 
those  elements  of  monarchy,  aristocracy  and  democracy, 
found,  as  I  contend,  in  allrepublican  governments,  that 
I  said  that  I  believed  a  strong  infusion  of  aristocracy  and 
of  monarchy  is  necessary  to  be  put  into  this  constitution. 
That  was  the  mode  of  stating  my  position,  which  gave 
the  gentleman  very  firm  ground  to  stand  upon  in  his 
answer  ;  but,  if  I  did  so  express  myself,  and  was  so  un- 
dent ood,  I  was  very  unfortunate  in  giving  utterance  to 
my  own  opinions  and  sentiments. 

The  gentleman  went  into  a  very  lengthy  examination 
of  the  constitutions  of  the  different  States  to  deduce 
from  the  example  and  practice  of  other  States,  in  regard 
to  this  matter,  support  for  the  positions  that  he  main- 
tained. Well,  I  think  the  information  was  that  nine 
States  had  based  their  constitutions  upon  the  principle 
that  has  been  moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
(Mr.  Botts,)  and  sustained  by  the  gentleman  to  whom  I 
reply.  I  have  not  made  a  very  critical  examination  of 
those  details,  but  those  nine  States  were  northern  States, 
and  in  them  the  majority  principle  prevails,  because  in 
every  one  of  them,  I  believe,  the  governor  when  elected 
by  the  people  must  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  whole 
people,  and  there  is  rarely  an  instance  of  an  election  of 
Governor  by  the  people  by  reason  of  the  impossibility  of 
obtaining  a  majority,  and  hence  elections  in  those  States, 
though  intended  to  be  by  the  people,  are  rarely  ever  so 
made,  but  have  to  go  to  the  legislature  to  be  completed 
by  that  agency.  We  are  about  to  put  a  different  princi- 
ple into  our  constitution,  and  I  adverted  to  it  the  other 
day.  We  are  about  to  put  into  it  the  right  and  power 
of  the  minority  to  elect,  because  a  plurality  and  not  a 
majority  of  the  whole  voters  of  the  State  are  required 
to  elect  a  Governor  by  the  plan  of  the  executive  reported 
by  the  committee,  and  now  under  consideration.  What 
may  be,  or  probably  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Why, 
that  on  scarcely  any  occasion,  unless  it  be  upon  some 
great  sectional  question,  some  question  that  every  man 
in  the  State  would  be  pained  to  see  exert  its  influence 
upon  an  election,  the  great  probability  is,  that  unless 
caucus  machinery  be  effective,  the  Governors  for  all 
time,  under  this  new  constitution,  if  it  be  adopted,  will 
be  elected  by  the  minority.  If  that  be  the  case,  what 
goes  with  this  great  majority  principle?  But  the  gen- 
tleman told  us  that  no  southern  State  had  adopted  this 
principle  but  Georgia.  I  was  curious  enough  to  look 
into  the  constitution  of  Georgia,  md  I  may  misinterpret 
it,  but  if  susceptible  of  the  interpretation  that  has  been 
put  upon  it,  I  confess  that  I  very  much  misunderstand 
it.  We  were  told  that  the  executive  there  was  re- 
eligible  indefinitely.  The  language  *of  the  constitution 
is  this : 

"  The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  Governor, 
who  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of  two  years, 
and  until  such  time  as  his  successor  shall  be  chosen  and 
qualified." 

Mr.  WISE.    (In  his  seat.)    Is  that  all  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.    No,  sir. 

"  He  shall  have  a  competent  salary,  established  by 
law,  which  shall  not  be  increased  or  diminished  during 
the  period  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  neither 
shall  he  receive  whhin  that  period,  any  other  emolu- 
ment from  the  United  States,  or  either  of  them,  or  from 
any  foreign  power." 

Now,  it  may  be  rather  hypercritical,  but  I  cannot  think 
it  was  intended  by  that  constitution  that  a  man  should 
be  his  own  successor.  There  is  no  such  language  used 
in  our  constitution.  This  is  my  interpretation.  It  may 
be  wrong,  but  I  go  further  with  the  Georgia  constitution. 
Do  gentlemen  invoke  the  constitution  of  Georgia  as  the 
one  proper  to  be  followed,  because  I  find  in  that  consti- 
tution, that — 
16 


"  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Governor 
who  shall  not  have  been  a  oitizen  of  the  United  States 
twelve  years,  and  an  inhabitant  of  this  State  six  years, 
and  who  hath  not  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years,  and 
who  does  not  possess  five  hundred  acres  of  land  in  bis 
own  right,  within  this  State,  and  other  property  to 
the  amount  of  four  hundred  dollars,  and  whose  estate 
shall  not,  on  a  reasonable  estimation,  be  competent 
to  the  discharge  of  his  debts,  over  and  above  that  sum." 

That  constitution  was  adopted  in  the  year  1839,  and 
the  Governor  is  invested  with  a  veto  power  as  fully  as 
the  President  of  the  United  States.  This  veto  can  only 
be  reversed  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds.  I  suppose  that 
the  gentleman  did  not  intend  to  commend  this  example 
of  Georgia  in  regard  to  the  office  of  Governor  ?  But 
hastening  on,  I  come  to  the  main  point  of  the  gentle- 
man's argument.  His  main  argument  was  this  :  that 
permanency  was  desirable  in  the  executive,  to  secure 
wisdom  and  experience,  and  as  he  expressed  it,  that  he 
(the  Governor,)  might  have  time  to  mature  and  carry 
into  effect  his  system  of  measures  ;  that  he  might  begin 
a  system,  and  his  successor  not  carry  it  out.  Does  the 
gentleman  intend  hereafter  to  seek  to  give  power  to  the 
Governor  to  devise  and  carry  out  a  system  of  measures  ? 
His  reasons,  if  worth  any  thing,  must  apply  to  the  sys- 
tem upon  which  he  founds  hu  theory,  and  I  do  hold, 
that  if  I  understand  any  thing,  or  have  ever  conceived 
that  I  understood  any  thing  about  the  doctrine  of  the 
executive  power,  the  one  man  power,  the  government 
of  the  people  (in  the  phrase  of  Louis  Napoleon,)  by  one 
man  upon  which  the  democrats  of  the  days  of  Jefferson 
and  Madison — republicans  as  they  were  then  called — 
made  bitter,  earnest,  and  unappeasable  war,  it  was  such 
executive  power  as  the  gentleman  from  Marion  desires 
to  see  established ;  a  power  in  the  executive  to  devise  a 
system  of  measures,  and  having  powers  adequate  to 
carry  them  out,  with  which  I  take  it  for  granted  the 
gentleman  intends  he  shall  be  invested,  and  by  bringing 
a  party  to  his  aid,  by  the  exercise  of  the  powers  so  con- 
ferred upon  him,  to  divert  the  course  of  the  legislation 
of  the  country  from  its  legitimate  ends.  In  my  appre- 
hension such  a  position  as  this  is  the  rankest  federalism 
let  gentlemen  call  it  by  what  name  they  may.  That  is> 
what  has  been  charged  upon  the  federal  executive  of  the 
United  States — that  is  the  very  thing — endeavoring  to 
influence  the  Legislature  of  the  country,  shaping  and 
controlling  its  policy  ;  and,  as  I  understand  the  reason- 
ing held  by  gentlemen,  he  ought  to  be  continued  in 
power,  that  he  may  have  the  opportunity  to  do  this 
very  thing.  Or,  if  it  be  not  that— if  he  is  to  be  confined 
to  simple  and  powerless  executive  duties,  then  there  is 
no  necessity  for  continuing  him  in  office,  to  give  him 
time  to  mature  and  carry  into  effect  his  system  of  meas- 
ures. The  gentleman,  no  doubt,  believes  that  he  is  car- 
rying out  democratic  principles,  true  republican  princi- 
ples— democratic  republican  principles,  if  he  chooses  to 
have  it  so.  He  may  be  right,  but  it  is  contrary  to  the 
teachings  I  have  received,  and  contrary  to  all  the  doc- 
trines of  that  party  to  which  he  belongs.  It  is  what 
we  of  the  whig  party  have  charged  upon  the  opposite 
party  —the  democratic  party.  We  have  charged  them 
with  departing  from  their  faith.  And  I  hope  I  may  be 
excused  for  introducing  any  reference  to  these  two  par- 
ties into  this  body,  because  reference  has  been  made  by 
others,  and  distinctions  between  the  two  parties  have 
been  urged  here  as  grounds  of  objections  to  measures 
proposed.  We  have  heard  western  democrats  arraign- 
ing eastern  democrats  and  vice  versa  for  a  departure  from 
democratic  principles. 

Mr.  NEESON.  Did  I  allude  to  them  ? 
Mr.  CHILTON.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  remember  that  you 
alluded  to  them  at  all.  The  gentleman  must  excuse  me 
if  I  take  his  position  in  connection  with  those  who  are 
co-operating  with  him.  If  he  is  found  in  bad  company 
he  must  take  the  consequences.  I  say  that  in  my  judg- 
ment the  principles  avowed  by,  and  the  ground  upon 
which  that  gentleman  placed  himself,  would  lead  to 
the  establishment  of  this  executive  power  in  a  form  the 


218 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


most  objectionable  in  which  it  could  be  mouided,  so  far 
as  old  democratic  principles,  the  democratic  principles  of 
Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  the  fathers  of  the  church, 
■went ;  but  probably  carrying  into  full  effect  the  princi- 
ples of  the  democratic  party  of  a  later  time,  upon  which 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac — I  am  compelled  to  refer 
to  him  briefly  again — once  waged  a  war  that  first  intro- 
duced me  to  him,  when,  standing  side  by  side  with  me 
in  the  same  party,  he  made,  in  conjunction  with  another 
gentleman,  the  most  gallant  and  effective  onslaught  up- 
on this  overshadowing  executive  power,  that  ever  com- 
mended itself  to  my  regard;  a  war,  in  the  progress  of 
which — probably  from  reading  the  impassioned  argu- 
ments of  the  gentleman — I  became  acquainted  with  the 
dangerous  tendencies  and  results  of  this  strong  executive 
power  ;  a  war  that  in  its  results  fastened  upon  me  a  con- 
viction which  cannot  be  shaken,  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  this  executive  power  and  the  necessity  of  restricting  it. 

I  have  but  a  remark  or  two  to  make  when  I  shall  con- 
clude this  desultory  and  unconnected  address.  I  have  a 
word  or  two  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery, 
(Mr.  Hoge.)  I  mean  no  disrespect  to  that  gentleman, 
but  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  saying  to  him  that  his 
positions  were  beyond  my  reach,  and  that  I  cannot  reply 
to  them,  because  most  of  them  I  do  not  understand.  It  is 
my  fault  no  doubt,  and  not  his.  1  say  it  in  no  spirit  of 
irony  or  ridicule.  I  must  therefore  pass  by  what  he 
said.  I  have  a  word  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Ca- 
bell, (Mr.  McComas.)  I  must  be  permitted  to  say  that 
that  gentleman's  speech  was  an  extraordinary  one.  I 
had  intended  to  take  up  some  of  his  positions.  Some  of 
them,  I  confess,  were  like  those  of  the  gentleman  from 
Montgomery — too  refined  and  sublimated  for  the  grasp 
of  my  feeble  intellect.  But  I  could  not  but  be  struck 
with  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  gentleman's  speech, 
and  especially  with  his  most  extraordinary  phraseology. 
It  wa9  new  to  me.  One  remark  of  his  attracted  my  at- 
tention particularly — that  he  would  go  even  to  Timbuc- 
too  for  a  principle  of  Government. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.    For  a  good  principle. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  understand  that— (it  was  all  pro- 
per)— that  he  would  go  to  Timbuctoo.  They  had  gov- 
ernment there ;  I  think  Mungo  Park  tells  us  they  had 
government  there,  when  he  visited  that  enlightened 
kingdom.  And  then  the  genth  man  gave  us  a  very  in- 
teresting disquisition  upon  dignity  of  office — the  sort  of 
dignity  of  office  he  desired  to  see  in  this  old  commonwealth 
I  shall  not  dispute  with  any  gentleman  about  dignity ; 
probably  I  am  not  very  well  acquainted  with  it  myself. 
But  I  do  like  to  see  dignity- — true  dignity.  He  spoke 
of  wanting  to  see  the  governor,  under  certain  contingen- 
cies, brought  down  to  a  salary  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  a  year.  That  gentleman's  ideas  comport  some- 
what with  the  opinions  of  an  old  gentleman  in  my  dis- 
trict, who  heard  another  gentleman  discoursing  very  ex- 
travagantly upon  the  splendor  of  the  Roman  govern- 
ment, particularly  upon  the  costume  of  the  Romans, 
the  tunic  and  the  toga,  when  he  remarked  with  a  good 
deal  of  simplicity  that  he  had  always  been  under  the 
impression  that  Julius  Csesar  dressed  in  Virginia  cloth  ; 
[laughter,]  or  at  least  if  he  did  not,  he  ought  to  have  so 
dressed.  I  will  not  dispute  about  this  thing,  but  as  the 
gentleman  went  to  Africa,  or  said  he  would  go  there, 
for  lessons  of  government,  he  may  go  there  possibly  for 
dignity.  [Laughter.]  I  think  it  is  Bruce,  a  celebrated 
traveler,  that  tells  us  that  in  his  travels  in  Abysinia,  or 
somewhere  there,  on  one  occasion  he  was  ushered  into 
the  presence  of  a  soveregn  prince  sitting  under  a  tree 
on  a  sort  of  throne,  with  tw©  wives  with  sharp  sticks 
feeding  him  with  raw  beef,  the  blood  streaming  from 
the  corners  of  his  mouth ;  and  that  as  soon  as  he  could 
find  utterance,  he  asked  Bruce  what  was  thought  and 
said  of  him  and  his  government  in  London. 

I  ought  to  apologize  to  this  Convention  for  detaining 
them  with  these  matters,  and  I  hope  they  will  be  re- 
garded as  mere  pleasantries,  and  nothing  worse.    I  shall 


not  detain  them  further,  and  1  return  my -sincere  thanks 
for  their  kind  indulgence. 

Mr.BOTTS.  The  debate  has  taken  a  most  extraor- 
dinary latitude.  .We  have  had  discussions  upon  almost 
every  question  connected  with  governments  and  consti- 
'utions,  but  the  direct  and  immediate  question  before 
the  Convention  I  shall  not  follow  the  example  of  gen- 
tlemen who  have  preceded  me,  but  shall  endeavor  upon 
this  occasion,  as  upon  all  others  on  which  I  shall  pro- 
pose to  occupy  any  of  the  time  of  this  Convention,  to 
confine  myself  strictly  to  the  question  under  considera- 
tion. "  Sufficient  for  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof."  Each 
question  that  may  lie  presented  to  this  body  for  its  con- 
sideration and  its  action,  I  take  it  for  granted,  will  come 
up  seriatim  for  the  decision  of  the  body,  and  as  they 
come  up  1  shall,  wherever  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty,  and 
on  no  other  occasion,  endeavor  to  express  my  views 
upon  that  particular  questien.  It  is,  I  beg  leave  to  as- 
sure this  body,  with  the  most  unaffected  reluctance,  that 
I  again  propose  to  occupy  any  portion  of  their  time.  I 
feel  that  I  have  already  occupied  as  much,  if  not  more, 
of  the  time  of  this  Convention  upon  this  question 
than  I  was  entitled  to  occupy,  nor  should  I  do  so  now 
but  for  the  observations  that  were  made  on  yesterday 
by  my  friend  from  the  county  of  Loudoun,  (Mi*.  Jan- 
ney.)  There  was,  as  there  always  is,  in  regard  to  what- 
ever may  fall  from  the  lips  of  that  distinguished  gen- 
tleman— for  whom,  as  he  knows,  I  entertain  not  only 
the  profoundest  respect,  but  the  warmest  personal  re- 
gard— a  degree  of  gravity  and  solemnity  that  imparts 
to  what  he  may  utter  a  weight  of  importance  that  does 
not  attach  to  every  member  of  this  body.  There  is  more 
than  that — there  is  a  weight  of  character  that  attaches 
to  the  gentleman  that  gives  importance  to  his  opinions. 
With  these  remarks  1  feel  assured  the  gentleman  will 
not  take  it  unkindly  if  I  say  it  was  that  gravity  and 
that  solemnity  of  manner,  and  that  weight  of  character 
to  which  I  attached  importance,  and  not  to  the  argu- 
ment itself,  whi  h  I  hold  to  be,  and  will  undertake  to 
show,  was  altogether  unworthy  of  the  high  intellect  of 
the  gentleman.  I  feel  that  this  duty  especially  devolves 
on  me,  as  the  mover  of  this  proposition,  because  of  the 
attitude  in  which  it  has  been  placed  by  the  remarks  of 
that  gentleman. 

I  take  occasion  here  to  say,  that  I  have  never,  from 
the  first  moment,  attached  any  practical  importance  to 
the  decision  of  this  question,  so  far  as  it  applied  to  the 
election  of  a  governor  of  Virginia.  It  was  with  refer- 
ence to  other^questions,  and  with  reference  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  principle  at  the  first  step  in  the  forma- 
tion of  ihe  constitution,  that  was  to  pervade  the  whole 
body  of  that  constitution,  and  more  especially  in  refer- 
ence to  the  judiciary,  that  I  did  attach  importance  to 
the  decision  of  this  question,  and  the  rule  to  be  adopt- 
ed in  regard  to  the -power  of  the  people  over  their  rep- 
resentatives. I  apprehend  that  my  friend  has  taken 
precisely  the  same  view  of  this  question,  and  that  he 
himself  attaches  more  importance  to  its  decision  in  re- 
ference to  other  officers  whose  terms  of  office  are  to  be 
designated  by  this  constitution,  than  in  its  reference  to 
the  governor  of  the  State.  I  very  much  fear  that  my 
friend  has  the  judiciary  in  his  view,  and  that  he  will  be 
found  among  those  co-operating  with  the  committee  on 
the  judiciary  department  of  the  government,  who  have 
reported  agains-t  the  re-eligibility  of  the  judges. 

He  set  out  with  the  declaration  that  in  his  opinion 
this,  the  first  question  that  was  presented  to  the  con- 
sideration of  this  body,  was  the  last  that  ought  to  have 
been  presented,  because  we  did  not  know  what  extraor- 
dinary power  might  yet  be  conferred  by  this  Conven- 
tion upon  the  governor  of  the  State.  He  had  made  up 
his  mind  to  vote  against  the  proposition  of  re-eligifili- 
ty  in  the  committee,  reserving  to  himself  the  right  to 
change  that  vote,  if  occasion  should  make  it  necessary, 
when  it  came  before  the  Convention.  Now  I  take  an 
entirely  different  view  of  the  question.  I  think  this  is 
the  first  question  that  ought  to  have  been  presented, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


219 


ani  that  we  ought  first  to  establish  the  fact  in  regard 
to  the  re-eligibiiity  of  the  officer,  before  we  decide  upon 
the  power  that  he  shall  exercise.  And  as  I  am  one  of 
those  who  hope  to  curtail  the  powers  of  the  executive, 
who  propose  to  strip  himof  all  patronage,  aal  ail  pow- 
er not  necessarily  and  indispensably  connected  with 
the  office,  and  as  I  go  for  short  terms  and  frequent 
elections  I  entertaiu  the  nope  that  if  we  can  establish  this 
first  principle  of  re-eligibility,  it  would-be  the  means  of 
bringing  a  number  of  other  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion into  co-operation  with  those  who  entertain  this 
opinion  in  com  uon  with  myself,  in  regard  to  curtailing 
the  powers  of  the  executive. 

My  friend  expressed  a  desire  on  yesterday  that  the 
gentleman  from  Accoiriae,  ani  all  others  who  proposed 
to  answer  his  remarks,  would  take  notes  of  what  he 
said.  Well,  I  am  very  happy  to  comply  with  the  wish 
thus  expressed,  and  I  have  complied  with  it.  It  is  my 
habit,  universally,  when  I  undertake  to  answer  the  re- 
marks of  others,  to  note  down  at  the  time  the  precise 
language  they  employ,  that  I  may  neither  misrepresent 
them  myself,  nor  misrepresent  them  before  the  public. 
I  beg  leave  now  to  refer  to  the  remark  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Loudoun,  in  regard  to  the  disability  which 
he  proposes,  as  he  says,  to  impose,  not  upon  the  people, 
not  up  >n  the  rights  of  the  people,  bit  upon  the  individ- 
ual odi-er  himself — the  disability  of  ineligibility — be- 
cause of  the  corruption  and  abuse  to  wh  ch  the  officer 
will  be  exposed.  What  does  that  imply,  I  beg  to  in- 
quire ?  Why*  it  necessarily  implies  either  corruption 
on  the  part  of  the  people,  who  are  to  be  corrupted  by  a 
corrupt  officer,  or  an  absence  of  such  a  degree  of  intel- 
ligence as  will  enable  them  to  detect  it.  Do  you  im- 
agine that  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  to  remain  in  office 
for  either  two  or  four  years,  can  practice  the  abuses 
mentioned,  the  corruption  which  the  gentleman  has  re- 
ferred to,  and  that  he  could  be  re-elected  by  the  same 
people  who  first  put  him  there,  unles->  they  theu?selves 
had  become  corrupted  by  him,  or  were  so  stupid  and 
unintelligent  that  they  could  not  be  made  to  realize  that 
corruption  and  that  abuse  ?  I  have  on  many  occasions 
found  fault  with  and  complained  of  the  action  of  the 
people.  I  have  believed,  and  still  believe,  that  they 
often  committed  errors,  gross  errrors,  and  palpable  er- 
rors. But  they  are  errors  of  the  head,  and  not  of  the 
heart.  I  believe  that  the  people  are  liable  to  be  mis- 
led, that  they  have  been  misled,  and  that  they  wrill  be 
misled  again;  but  I  have  never  seen  the  first  momeut 
that  I  had  not  confidence  enough  in  their  integ- 
rity as  well  as  their  intelligence  to  believe  that  when- 
ever that  error  was  detected,  they  would  be  most  prompt 
to  correct  it ;  and  if  a  wrong  is  to  be  done  either  by  the 
people  or  by  their  agents,  I  for  one  prefer  that  It  be 
done  by  the  people  themselves.  They  are  the  most  apt 
to  detect  it,  and  the  most  certain  to  correct  it. 

Gentlemen  have  argued  that  this  was  a  mere  ques- 
'  tion  of  expediency,  aud  that  there  was  no  principle  in- 
volved. I  grant  that,  to  a  certain  extent,  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  expediency,  but  it  is  no  less  a  question  of  prin- 
ciple. Has  any  gentleman  here  undertaken  to  deny — 
I  will  not  say  to  refute — the  proposition  on  which  I  set 
out  in  my  former  remarks  on  this  question,  the  platform 
on  which  I  placed  myself  then  and  now,  that  this  was  a 
popular  government,  and  that  being  a  popular  govern- 
ment, all  power  was  derived  from  the  people,  and  that 
unless  public  necessity  or  public  convenience  required 
it,  the  power  should  remain  undelegated  in  the  hands 
of  the  people  rather  than  in  the  hands  of  their  agents. 
This  is  a  question  of  principle  ;  it  is  not  a  question  of 
expediency  merely.  But  if  you  can  show  that  neces- 
sity, if  you  can  show  that  public  convenience  will'"  be 
promoted  by  it,  without  impairing  the  rights  of  the 
people,  then  I  grant  you  you  may  regard  it  as  a  question  of 
expediency,  and  divest  them  of  the  power.  Now  has 
any  gentleman  undertaken  to  show  that  public  necessi- 
ty, public  convenience,  or  expediency,  requires  that  this 
power  should  be  taken  from  the  people?     I  certain- 


ly have  not,  anj  until  they  do  show  it,  as  I  main- 
tained before,  it  does  not  devolve  upon  the  friends 
of  this  proposition  to  show  the  absence  of  that  ne- 
cessity. It  devolves  upon  those  who  deny  the  right 
of  the  people,  to  show  the  necessity  for  taking  it  from 
them. 

The  gentleman  deprecates  the  proposition,  as  tending 
to  an  accumulation  of  executive  power  in  the  hands  of 
one  man.  Why,  I  may  have  mistaken  the  effect  of  the 
proposition  Ihave  male,  bat  ever  since  I  first  entered  into 
political  life,  aud  before  I  had  any  participation  in  pub 
lie  life,  from  the  first  moment  that  I  took  an  active  in- 
terest in  politics,  I  hive  been  waning  against  the  one 
man  executive /power.  It  has  been  the  power  of  the 
people,  as  expressed  through  their  representatives,  that 
I  have  struggled  for,  and  fought  for,  for  more  than 
twenty  years,  and  that  is  the  struggle  that  I  am  still 
maintaining. 

Why,  what  is  the  magnificent  power  of  the  Govern- 
or of  Virginia  ?  What  enormous  power  has  he  yet  ex- 
ercised ?  What  wonderful  power  have  you  ever  con- 
ferred upon  him  ?  And  then,  the  next  question  is,  what 
is  it  your  propose  to  do  by  this  new  constitution  ?  Is  it 
your  purpose  to  enlarge  his  powers,  or  to  diminish 
them?  It  is  my  purpose,  certainly,  to  diminish  and 
not  to  enlarge  them,  and  yet  I  maintiin  that  there  has 
been  no  dangerous  power  ever  yet  conferred  on  the 
Governor  of  Virginia.  No,  not  one  half  the  power  that 
is  conferred  upon  a  member  of  Congress,  who  is  re-eli- 
gible for  life  at  stated  periods,  if  ic  shall  please  the 
good  people  of  his  district  to  re-elect  him;  because,  by 
his  single  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives — or, 
if  he  be  a  senator,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States — 
he  may  control  the  whole  foreign"  and  domestic  policy 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States ;  and  such  a 
thing  has  resulted  in  the  history  of  our  government  more 
than  once.  What  are  the  powers  of  the  governor  that 
are  so  dangerous  to  be  exercised,  and  what  is  it  that  has 
alarmed  my  friend  from  Loudoun,  and  has  enabled  him, 
with  a  facility  of  which  I  had  no  previous  conception , 
to  magnify  mole- hills  into  mountains  ?  Why,  first  of 
all  the  gentleman  has  been  examining  the  new  code  of 
Virginia,  and  has  discovered  in  it  a  new  law  passed  at  the 
Fauquier  Springs  during  the  last  summer  a  year  ago,  of 
which  I  was  entirely  ignorant,  but  by  which  he  has  as- 
certained that  the  powers  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
are  infinitely  greater  than  the  powers  of  Millard  Fill# 
more,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  of  Victoria 
the  First,  Queen  of  Great  Britain. 

Well,  then,  I  think  before  I  get  through,  I  shall  show 
that  Millard  Fillmore  and  Queen  Victoria  (so  far  as  the 
power  of  each  is  concerned)  are  extremely  insignificant 
persons.  The  gentleman  has  discovered  that  by  this 
law  to  which  he  has  referred,  the  governor  of  Virginia 
has  the  power  of  appointing  not  less  than  180  of  his 
agents  in  this  one  county  of  Henrico,  in  which  I  reside, 
and  which  will  furnish  him  with  a  degree  of  patronage 
that  cannot-be  resisted.  I  said  I  had  not  seen  that  law, 
nor  heard  of  its  passage,  and  I  will  take  the  county 
which  the  gentleman  himself  has  selected  out  of  the 
130  odd  in  the  State — my  own  county,  of  which  I  hap- 
pen to  know  more  than  any  other — and  so  little  occa- 
sion has  there  been  for  the  exercise  of  this  power,  so 
little  practical  operation  has  it  had,  that  I  was  igno- 
rant that  such  a  law  was  in  existence.  And  I  will  put 
the  practical  operation  of  any  law  against  the  theory 
that  may  be  contended  for  by  any  lawyer  in  this  Con- 
vention. The  law  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
these  inspectors  read  as  follows : 

"  Inspectors  may  be  appointed  of  any  of  the  follow- 
ing commodities,  to  wit :  flour,  corn-meal,  bread,  salt, 
fish,  pork,  beef,  tar,  pitch,  turpentine,  lumber,  lime, 
hemp,  butter,  or  lard.  Such  an  appointment  shall  be 
made  annually  in  September  or  October,  by  the  govern- 
or, for  the  several  counties  and  towns  in  whiefcit  may 
be  necessary  to  appoint  such  inspectors.  Tue  same 
person  may  be  appointed  inspector  of  two  or  more  of 


220 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


said  commodities.  But  there  shall  not  be  in  the  same 
town  more  than  one,  nor  in  the  same  county  more  than 
six,  inspectors  of  the  same  commodity." 

Well,  now,  let  us  look  at  the  practical  operation  of 
this  tremendous  power,  that  exceeds  even  the  power  of 
the  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  or  the  President  of  the 
United  States.    The  law  goes  on  to  provide  for  the 
manner  in  which  these  various  articles  to  be  inspected 
shall  be  put  up,  showing  that  it  was  intended  to  refer 
to  articles  of  export,  or  intended  for  foreign  trade.  For 
instance,  it  declares  that  each  barrel  of  flour  or  corn 
meal  shall  contain  196  pounds.    Now,  it  happens  in  re- 
gard to  the  first  article,  of  flour,  that  not  a  barrel 
of  it  is  manufactured  in  the  county,  and,  therefore,  we 
have  no  occasion  for  the  services  of  an  inspector  of 
flour.    There  goes  then  12  out  of  the  180  officers.  Of 
corn  meal  I  do  not  know,  but  I  believe  there  is  not  a 
barrel  of  it  now  manufactured  in  the  county  for  export, 
or  brought  here  in  barrels  to  be  exported.    Nor  does 
the  law  require  the  inspection  to  be  made,  but  declares 
if  it  shall  be,  it  shall  be  under  the  provisions  therein 
contained.    There  goes  another  12  of  the  180  officers, 
making  24.    Inspectors  of  bread.    Now,  I  have  never 
heard  of  a  loaf  of  bread  being  baked  in  the  county  of 
Henrico  for  export,  or  for  market  of  any  sort,  and  there 
is  no  occasion  for  an  inspector  in  that  particular.  There 
goes  12  more  of  the  180  officers,  making  36.    We  do 
not  make  salt  in  Henrico,  and  there  is  no  salt  brought 
here  to  market  to  be  inspected,  and,  therefore,  there  is 
no  occasion  for  an  inspector  of  salt.    That  disposes  of 
12  more  of  the  180  officers,  making  48.  Fish  are  brought 
here  in  pretty  considerable  quantities  for  the  domestic 
market,  but  not  from  the  county  of  Henrico  in  barrels. 
There  may  be  some  few  herrings  put  up  in  barrels  on 
the  James  river,  but  not  many.    There  goes  12  more  of- 
ficers of  the  180,  making  60.    There  may  be  some  pork 
killers  beyond  the  limits  of  Richmond,  who  put  up  pork, 
and  it  may  be  necessary,  in  some  rare  instances — though 
I  am  not  aware  of  it — to  have  an  inspection  of  a  few 
barrels  of  pork.    I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  pork 
put  up  in  the  county  of  Henrico  for  export,  for  I  have 
never  heard  of  it.    There  goes  12  more  of  the  180  offi- 
cers, making  72.    We  make  no  tar,  no  pitch,  no  lumber, 
none  that  I  know  of,  for  market.    We  do  not  make 
hemp,  nor  lard,  nor  butter,  not  more,  certainly,  than  is 
sufficient  to  supply  the  Richmond  market.    Then  of  the 
^80  officers  which  the  gentleman  says  are  to  be  appoint- 
ed by  the  governor,  when  you  come  to  the  practical  ope- 
ration of  the  thing,  there  is  not  one  I  know  of,  or  whom 
I  believe  necessary  to  be  appointed.    Thus  vanishes 
into  thin  air  the  apprehensions  of  my  friend  from  Lou- 
doun in  regard  to  this  particular  county  of  Henrico.  I 
do  not  think  the  people  of  Henrico  are  much  alarmed, 
or  entertain  very  serious  apprehensions  of  the  over- 
whelming power  of  the  governor  in  regard  to  their  do- 
mestic concerns.    There  are  some  counties,  perhaps, 
and  no  doubt  there  are — as,  for  example,  in  Kanawha, 
where  salt  is  manufactured — where  it  is  necessary  to 
have  one  inspector,  or  six  for  aught  I  know — it  depends 
entirely  upon  the  amount  of  business  and  the  compe- 
tency of  his  agent  or  agents.    But  it  will  be  remem- 
bered that  by  the  law  itself  the  governor  has  no  power 
of  appointment  over  those  agents,  and  that  the  appoint- 
ment is  to  be  made  by  the  inspector,  with  the  approba- 
tion and  consent  of  the  governor,  and  there  is  not  in  the 
limits  of  the  whole  State,  perhaps  a  single  county  that 
will  require  a  half  dozen  officers  to  be  appointed.  Well, 
I  think  the  Convention  must  concur  with  me  that  no 
very  serious  apprehension  is  to  be  entertained  on  the 
subject,  and  if  there  is,  let  the  efforts  of  gentlemen  be 
applied  to  the  repeal  of  the  law,  rather  than  to  restrict 
the  eligibility  of  the  officer.    That  argument,  I  main- 
tain, is  only  applicable  to  the  repeal  of  that  law,  and 
has  no  necessary  connection  or  affinity  with  the  re-eligi- 
bility of  the  officer ;  but  if  it  has,  let  my  friend  go  with 
me  in  curtailing  that  power,  by  reducing  the  term  of 
service  to  two  instead  of  four  years.    Why,  if  I  could 
be  impressed  with  the  views  of  my  friend  from  Loudoun 
;,,  m-rard  to  this  power  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  I 


would  have  no  governor  at  all.  If  it  be  true,  as  he  as- 
serts, that  you  must  necessarily  confer  on  this  executive 
greater  power  than  he  now  exercises,  which  power  is 
greater  now  than  that  of  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain, 
or  of  the  chief  executive  magistrate  of  this  nation,  then 
I  say  it  strikes  at  the  root  and  foundation  of  this  gov- 
ernment, and  I  should  substitute  some  other  department 
of  government  for  the  governor  of  the  State  ?  Is  it  ne- 
cessary that  this  power  should  be  conferred  upon  him  ? 
Well,  so  long  as  we  have  been  a  State,  it  has  never  been 
thought  necessary  until  the  last  eighteen  months,  and 
that  necessity  has  not  shown  itself  from  the  practical 
operation  of  the  law.  But  if  it  is  necessary  in  the  es- 
timation of  my  friend,  I  shall  indulge  the  most  earnest 
hopes  that  he  will  not  refuse  to  reduce  the  term  from 
four  to  two  years. 

There  was  another  very  alarming  power  to  which  my 
friend  referred  as  being  already  conferred  on  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia,  in  the  appointment  of  the  bank  di- 
rectors. He  had  the  control,  I  understood  him  to  say, 
of  God  knows  how  many  millions  of  dollars. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  1  said  that  the  loans  and  discounts 
of  the  banks  for  the  years  1849  and  1850  amounted  to 
$18,000,000  or  $20,000,000. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  The  loans  and  discounts  of  the  banks 
for  1849  and  1850  amounted  to  from  $18,000,000  to  $20,- 
000,000.  Well,  now,  permit  us  to  examine  somewhat 
into  the  practical  operation  tof  that  power.  It  is  fact, 
and  not  theory,  that  we  are  searching  for.  According 
to  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  himself,  this  extra- 
ordinary power,  this  great  monied  influence  which  he  ap- 
prehends may  at  some  future  day  be  used  for  political 
purposes,  and  made  to  accomplish  great  political  and 
party  objects,  consists  in  the  power  of  the  governor  to 
appoint  three  out  of  the  seven  directors  of  the  branch 
banks,  and  four  out  of  nine  of  the  directors  in  the  mother 
banks.  They  are  in  a  minority  in  each  instance.  If 
the  po*ver  of  the  minority  of  the  directors  appointed  by 
the  governor  is  so  much  to  be  dreaded,  pray  what  has 
my  friend  to  say  of  the  power  of  the  stockholders,  who 
appoint  the  majority  of  the  board  of  directors  ?  It  is 
an  argument,  as  I  said  in  the  other  case,  which  ought 
to  be  addressed  to  the  banking  system  of  this  State.  If 
the  power  is  thus  dangerous,  bring  forward  a  constitu- 
tional provision  depriving  the  governor  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  those,  whose  duty  it  is  to  see  that  the  interests 
of  the  State  are  looked  to  in  these  banking  institutions. 
But  to  come  down  more  immediately  to  the  practical 
operation  of  the  question.  What  is  it?  I  am  not,  and 
never  have  been,  and  never  desire  to  be,  a  director  of  a 
banking  institution.  It  has  been  a  good  while  since  I 
have  had  any  connexion  with  any  banking  institution  of 
this  State,  either  as  depositor  or  borrower.  There  are 
directors,  I  have  no  doubt,  of  these  institutions  in  this 
body,  who  can  give  me  some  information  upon  the  sub- 
ject. I  desire  to  know  how  many  negative  votes  it  re- 
quires to  reject  a  piece  of  paper  offered  for  discount? 
A  MEMBER.  Two. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Two.  Does  my  friend  from  Loudoun 
entertain  seriously  the  apprehension — or  was  the  argu- 
ment addressed  here  for  effect  on  another  question — that 
any  man  selected  by  the  people  of  Virginia  to  preside 
over  its  destinies,  in  order  to  see  its  laws  faithfully  exe- 
cuted, is  to  exercise  such  an  influence,  not  only  over 
the  directors  of  his  own  appointment,  but,  also,  over 
the  directors  appointed  by  the  stockholders  of  these  in- 
stitutions, as  to  secure  loans,  or  discounts  of  paper,  to 
be  used  for  political  or  party  purposes  ?  Does  he  enter- 
tain any  such  apprehension  as  that ;  or,  in  other  words, 
has  he  so  little  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  the  in- 
telligence of  the  people  of  this  commonwealth  as  to 
suppose  that  a  governor  will  be  successful  in  the  resort 
to  such  means  for  securing  his  election  ?  Is  there  a  gen- 
tleman on  this  floor  who  does  not  believe  in  his  heart 
that  it  would  be  the  most  certain  means  of  the  candi- 
date's defeat?  I  cannot  believe  it  possible  that  a  man 
can  be  instigated  to  abuse  the  place  and  station  of  gov- 
ernor in  this  way  ;  nor  can  it  be  argued  from  practices 
that  have  been  supposed  to  prevail  to  some  extent  ia 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


221 


Washington,  that  the  same  abuses  would  be  practised 
here,  simply  because,  as  you  diminish  the  area  within 
which  the  corruption  is  to  operate,  to  the  same  extent 
do  you  increase  the  probabilities  of  detection  and  ex- 
posure ;  as  the  people  of  a  county  or  district  would  be 
more  familiar  with  the  conduct  of  their  immediate  rep- 
resentatives, so  would  the  people  of  a  State  be  more  fa- 
miliar with'  the  conduct  of  their  governor,  than  would 
be  the  people  of  the  United  States  with  the  conduct  of 
their  President.  I  believe  this  power  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  directors  by  the  governor  has  been  exercised 
since  the  first  establishment  of  the  banking  institutions 
of  this  State.  Has  any  member  ever  heard  of  an  abuse 
of  power  on  the  part  of  the  directors  ?  Has  any  gen- 
tleman ever  heard  an  instance  in  which  the  power  was 
abused  by  a  director  at  the  instigation  of  the  governor  ? 
Or  has  he  ever  heard  any  objection  to  the  governor  pos- 
sessing that  power  of  appointment  on  account  of  improper 
appropriation  of  money,  to  be  applied  either  to  his  per- 
sonal or  political  uses?  The  case  has  never,  and  is  not 
likely  to  happen.  If  it  ever  should,  he  stands  a  doomed 
man,  not  only  for  re-election  at  the  time,  but  for  all  time 
to  come.  I  want  no  surer  means  of  disfranchising  him, 
entirely,  in  that  Commonwealth  in  which  he  should 
dare  to  prostitute  the  powers  of  his  office  to  so  base  a 
purpose. 

Gentlemen  talk  about  the  infallibility  of  the  people. 
My  worthy  friend  from  Loudoun  thinks  it  would  be  a 
very  extraordinary  spectacle  to  see  a  body  of  men,  (135), 
themselves  all  fallible  and  imperfect,  representing  a 
constituency  who  are  infallible  and  perfect.  It  would, 
indeed,  be  a  most  extraordinary  spectacle,  and  no  gen- 
tleman has  occupied  that  ground  that  I  am  aware. 

The  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  took  occa- 
sion to  speak  of  the  difference  between  men  in  public 
and  private  life,  and  awarded  to  the  man  in  public  life 
a  higher  degree  of  virtue  than  to  those  in  private  life, 
and  that  he  had  witnessed  more  scenes  of  depravity  in 
private  life  than  he  had  in  public  life.  "Well,  it  would 
be  equally  as  extraordinary  a  spectacle  if  he  had  not 
seen  greater  and  more  flagrant  instances  of  vice  in  pri- 
vate than  in  public  life,  when  you  look  at  the  propor- 
tion of  men  in  public  life,  as  compared  with  those  in 
private  life.  There  are  few  instances,  I  presume,  amongst 
the  public  men  of  the  day,  who  have  been  selected  for 
their  virtue  and  intelligence,  against  whom  charges 
have  been  proved,  and  verdicts  rendered,  for  the  com- 
mission of  theft,  murder  and  arson.  That  is  not  the 
species  of  corruption  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
but  there  is  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  of  personal  am- 
bition— the  desire  for  advancement — in  every  man  who 
enters  into  public  life,  that  has  a  natural  tendency  to 
corruption.  What  I  mean  by  corruption,  is  a  sacrifice 
of  the  public  interests  to  advance  his  own  individual 
prosperity  ;  that  is  the  kind  of  corruption  of  which  I 
speak.  A  sacrifice  of  the  public  interest;  a  sacrifice  of 
the  interests  of  those  for  whom  he  acts,  whether  in  the 
gubernatorial  or  the  legislative  capacity.  That  is  the 
kind  of  corruption  to  which,  I  presume,  reference  has 
.been  made,  and  the  only  kind. 

The  gentleman  made  reference,  also,  to  the  powers  of 
the  governor  in  regard  to  the  board  of  public  works.  I 
am  rather  inclined  to  think  that  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee proposes  to  strip  him  of  all  power  in  the  board 
of  public  works.  There  is,  then,  no  very  dangerous 
power,  to  be  exercised  by  the  governor  in  that  respect. 
If  we  are  to  carry  out  the  provision  of  that  report,  as 
presented  in  this  body — and  with  a  modification  of  that 
report,  he  may  be  stripped  of  all  dangerous  power- 
even  if  he  has  a  participation  in  the  board  itself.  My 
friend  from  Loudoun  desired  to  know  what  great  injury 
would  result  to  the  people ;  and  by  what  process  they 
could  be  made  to  suffer  from  the  want  of  power  to  re- 
elect this  public  officer.  Will  my  friend  allow  me  to 
tell  him  of  a  case  in  which  they  would  suffer. 

Now,  let  us  take  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  as  a 
correct  one,  and  the  position  that  he  has  fully  maintain- 
ed, that  the  governor  of  Virginia  will  abuse  the  powers 


of  his  office,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  restrict  his  eligi- 
bility in  order  to  secure  another  in  his  place,  and  com- 
pel him  to  return  among  the  people,  which  I  maintain' 
he  does,  whenever  he  comes  before  them  for  re-election, 
just  as  effectively  as  if  he  were  disconnected  from  the 
public  service.  Suppose  it  be  true,  that  in  a  majority 
of  instances  your  governor  will  be  corrupt,  and  that  he 
will  abuse  the  powers  of  his  office.  And  suppose  that 
after  you  have  suffered  from  several  such  public  offi- 
cers— after  you  have  endured  this  heavy  calamity  some 
twenty  odd  years,  or  even  half  of  that  time — it  was  at 
length  the  good  fortune  of  the  people  to  select  out  of 
their  whole  number  one  honest  man,  who  would  not 
abuse  this  power.  Will  no  injury  arise  to  the  people  of 
this  Commonwealth  by  this  restriction  which  you  pro- 
pose to  impose,  and  by  declaring  in  advance  that  when 
they  do  find  such  a  man  in  office  they  shall  not  be  per- 
mitted to  retain,  but  shall  discard  him  from  service,  and 
return  him  to  the  great  body  of  the  people ;  to  take 
some  other  man,  who,  perhaps,  will  abuse  his  power,  as 
have  those  who  last  preceded  him.  There  is  one  case 
where  the  people  will  sustain  injury,  and  I  think  my 
friend  would  acknowledge  that  very  serious  injury 
would  be  sustained  by  them.  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
other  argument,  or  of  any  other  position  assumed  by 
my  friend  from  Loudoun,  whether  enforced  or  not ;  and 
I  flatter  myself  that  there  is  no  real  or  substantial  ob- 
jection growing  out  of  those  positions  that  he  did  as- 
sume. I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  answered  his  ob- 
jections, by  reducing  his  theories  to  practical  operation, 
and  that  I  have  shown  what  I  set  out  -to  show,  that 
with  the  powers  proposed  to  be  given  to  the  governor, 
or  with  the  powers  that  he  now  exercises,  and  which 
are  proposed  to  be  diminished,  or  with  the  powers  pro- 
posed to  be  conferred  on  him  by  the  report  of  the 
committee,  that  Queen  Victoria  and  Millard  Fillmore 
are  very  insignificant  persons,  if  they  can  exercise 
no  more  dangerous  powers  than  the  governor  of  Vir- 
ginia. 

We  have  heard  mnch  to-day,  and  on  other  occasions, 
about  the  science  of  government  ;  we  have  heard  of 
what  John  Locke  had  written  on  government ;  and 
what  Vattel  and  Montesquieu  had  written  on  the  sub- 
ject of  government.  I  did  not  come  here  to  study  the 
science  of  government.  The  science  of  government — I 
mean  a  popular  one — is  just  now  beginning  to  develop 
itself.  John  Locke,  I  maintain,  knew  nothing  of  the 
science  as  adapted  to  popular  representative  govern- 
ment ;  and  especially,  he  knew  nothing  of  the  propriety 
of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Governor  of  Virginia. 
[Laughter.]  He  never  heard  of  a  governor  in  all  his 
life  in  the  sense  in  which  we  employ  that  term.  If  I 
were  a  representative  in  the  chamber  of  deputies  of 
France — if  I  were  in  a  French  Convention,  about  to 
adopt  a  constitution  for  the  people  of  Franc  — I  migh  t 
go  back  to  Montesquieu  and  Locke  to  inquire  into  the 
principles  of  the  science  of  government ;  but  I  believe 
we  are  a  different  people  from  any  other  that  ever  did 
live,  or  ever  will  live  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  I  be- 
lieve that  this  Anglo  Saxon  race  of  people  in  the 
United  States  of  America  are  the  only  people  ever 
formed  by  the  hand  of  God,  that  are  capable  of  self- 
government.  And  believing  this,  I  shall  endeavor  to 
make  a  constitution  for  the  people  of  the  present  day, 
and  not  for  the  people  of  the  days  of  John  Locke. 

I  should  like  to  know  what  sort  of  a  figure  my 
friend  from  Fauquier  would  cut  when  he  goes  home  to 
his  constituents,  and  they  should  happen  to  object  to 
his  course  in  regard  to  this,  or  any  other  feature  of  the 
constitution  which  he  was  sent  here  to  make  for  them, 
and  they  should  inquire  of  him  why  he  voted  against 
the  re-eligibility  of  the  governor,  and  he  should  reply, 
I  voted  against  it,  because,  on  reading  an  essay  that 
was  written  by  John  Locke,  I  could  not  find  that  there 
was  any  authority,  or  that,  according  to  the  principles 
and  science  of  government — as  he  understood  them — 
there  was  any  propriety  in  giving  this  great  power  of 
selecting  their  own  officers  to  the  people  ;  nor  was  I 


222 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


satisfied  with  reference  to  John  Locke,  but  I  consulted 
Montesquieu,  and  he  rather  reprobated  the  idea  of 
giving  this  power  to  the  people,  and  so  did  Vattel. 
The  question  would  be  put  to  him,  who  is  this  man 
John  Locke  ?  Was  he  a  member  of  this  Convention  ? 
|  Laughter.]  Who  is  Montesquieu,  and  who  is  Vattel  ? 
I  mean  no  disrespect  to  the  constituency  of  the  gentle- 
man. This  question  would,  in  all  probability,  be  put  to 
me  when  I  should  go  on  the  stump  aud  account  for  my 
stewardship.  [Laughter.]  They  would  Avant  to  know 
who  was  John  Locke.  Now,  t  have  not  read  John 
Locke  for  more  than  twenty- five  years,  and  I  think  it 
will  be  at  least  twenty -five^  years  more  before  I  read 
him  again.  But  if  I  recollect  right,  I  think  he  wrote 
about  the  time  of  <  marles  the  1st  or  2d,  and  to  sustain  the 
nobility  of  England  by  infusing  a  certain  degree  of 
aristocracy  into  the  monarchy. 

Several  MEMBERS.    Oh,  no  !  oh,  no  ! 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Yes  he  did.  if  I  am  not  mistaken.  Well, 
what  do  I  care  for  the  principles  of  John  Locke,  Mon- 
tesquieu or  Vattel.  While  on  this  point,  1  am  reminded 
of  an  anecdote  I  have  heard  related — and  very  often,  so 
often  that  I  believe  it  to  be  true — strictly  true;  for  I 
have  never  heard  it  contradicted.  [Laughter.]  I  have 
heard  it  told  where  it  would  be  contradicted  if  it  were 
not  true.  It  was  related  of  John  Quincy  Adams  and 
General  Jackson  When  General  Jackson  was  arraigned 
before  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  consequence  of 
misconduct  in  the  Seminole  war,  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams, 
who  was  one  of  his  warmest  advocates,  was  in  private 
conversation  with  him  on  one  occasion,  when  General 
Jackson  inquired  of  him,  "Mr.  Adams,  what  will  be  the 
result  of  this?"  "Well,"  said  Mr.  Adams,  "I  don't 
know  what  will  be  the  result,  but  certainly  authorities 
are  very  strong  against  you.  I  will  endeavor  to  make 
the  most  of  it."  "Authorities!  What  authorities?" 
said  Jackson.  "  Well,  Puffendorf,  and  Grotius,  and 
Vattel  say  so,  and  they  are  very  strong  against  you." 
"By  the  eternal !"  replied  General  Jackson,  "I.  wish 
you  to  let  Mr.  Puffendorf,  Mr.  Grotius  and  Mr.  Vattel 
know,  if  they  take  any  such  position  as  that  in  regard 
to  my  conduct  in  the  Seminole  war,  I'll  cut  their  ears 
off  close  to  their  heads.  I'll  let  them  know  that  this  is 
a  question  between  Jim  Monroe  and  i."  [Laughter.] 

I  imagine  that  when  my  f.  iend  from  Fauquier  goes 
back  and  tells  the  people  the  reason  that  he  did  not 
vote  for  reforms  and  improvements,  was,  because  Locke 
and  Montesquieu  said  they  were  impracticable,  his  con- 
stituents would  be  very  apt  to  tell  him  that  if  they  can- 
not get  hold  of  Montesquieu  and  Locke,  they  will  cut 
his  ears  off. 

I  will  not  dispute  with  the  gentleman  on  the  science 
of  government  as  laid  down  by  these  ancient  writers.  I 
have  not  yet  gone  into  a  discussion  of  them,  nor  will  1. 
Neither  will  I  imitate  the  personality  that  has  been,re- 
sorted  to  here,  let  me  say,  in  regard  to  the  course  of 
public  men.  I  will  not  follow  the  example  that  has 
been  set  me,  of  dragging  down  and  denouncing  high  and 
distinguished  public  men  in  this  country,  who  are  not 
here  to  answer  for  themselves,  whether  it  be  Mr.  Clay, 
or  Mr.  Van  Buren,  or  Mr.  Benton.  They  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question  of  the  re-eligibility  of  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia.  I  think  it  a  practice  more  honored 
in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance. 

And  now  let  me  say  to  gentlemen,  that  when  they 
hear  me  speaking  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and  of  de- 
mocracy, it  is  not  in  a  spirit  of  partizansnip  to  which 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  has  this  morning  referred. 
I  do  not  mean  to  have  any  reference,  and  still  less  had 
I  reference  a  few  days  since  when  I  said  that  there  was 
more  of  the  spirit  of  true  democracy  in  me,  than  in 
ninety  nine  hundredths  of  the  democracy  of  the  present 
day,  to  the  modern  democracy.  I  mean  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  democracy,  and  not  the  spurious.  I  am  no 
demagogue.  No  man  ever  charged  me  with  that,  nor 
do  I  suppose  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  to  lay  that  charge  at  my  door.    The  fault 


found  with  me  is,  that  I  do  not  court  the  popular  favor 
enough  I  am  no  demagogue.  1  am  a  friend  to  the 
people,  and  the  rights  of  the  people.  I  have  been  sent 
here  to  defend  and  main  ain  them,  and  I  will — so  help 
me  God — do  so  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  But  the  last, 
the  very  last  thing  that  I  expect,  or  will  be  drawn  into, 
is  to  occupy  any  position  here  by  which  I  am  to  secure 
a  neighborhood,  a  county  or  district  popularity.  I  came 
here  with  a  design,  which  I  will  carry  out  to  the  best  of 
my  ability,  to  make,  not  for  John  Locke,  or  for  the  peo- 
ple for  whom  John  Locke  wrote,  but  f  r  the  people,  the 
whole  entire  people  of  Virginia,  a  constitution  the  best 
calculated,  in  my  judgment,  to  protect  and  to  preserve 
their  rights  of  life,  liberty  aud  property,  irrespective  of 
the  influence  it  may  have  upon  my  personal  popularity. 
On  all  the  great  questions  that  have  been  presented  to 
us,  when  the  proper  time  arrives,  I  will,  as  I  said  in  the 
first  of  my  remarks,  endeavor  to  explain  my  views  of 
each  as  they  come  up. 

In  regard  to  the  selection  of  Governor  of  Virginia,  I 
I  have  heard  it  out  of  doors,  that  if  this  power  of  re-eli- 
gibility was  given,  the  east  would  never  have  a  gover- 
nor of  this  commonwealth.  Well,  I  do  not  care  wheth- 
er the  east  ever  have  a  governor  of  the  commonwealth 
or  not,  if  the  principle  be  sound  and  correct,  that  the 
people  have  a  right  to  elect  their  own  governor.  I  do 
not  care  whether  he  comes  from  the  east  or  the  west, 
any  more  than  I  care  whether  a  President  comes  from 
the  north  or  the  south.  I  go  for  the  best  man,  the  man 
that  is  best  calculated  to  serve  the  public  interest,  and 
the  man  who  will  take  the  most  enlarged,  liberal,  and 
statesmanlike  views,  such  as,  I  mean,  with  the  capacity 
that  God  has  given  me,  and  the  reflections  that  I  can  be- 
stow on  these  different  subjects,  to  pursue  here.  And 
verjf  probable  the  east  will  never  have  a  governor,  for  I 
believe  the  voting  power  of  the  State  is  against  us.  But 
the  only  way  to  secure  the  disfranchisement  of  the  east 
in  regard  to  this  or  any  other  officer,  is  to"  perpetuate 
this  sectional  difference  between  the  two.  And  why  has 
an  effort  been  made  to  give  a  sectional  aspect  to  this 
question  ?  What  has  it  to  do  with  the  eligibility  of  the 
office?  If  the  west  have  the  power  of  re-electing  one 
man  to  office,  have  they  not  the  same  power  to  elect  a 
new  one  in  his  stead?  If  they  have  so  little  of  the  spirit 
of  liberality  and  kindness  as  to  exclude  us  from  all 
office  in  the  commonwealth  subject  to  their  control — if 
they  mean  to  exercise  this  power  tyrannically  and  op- 
pressively upon  the  east,  I  see  no  means  by  which  we 
can  consistently  restrain  them,  after  we  have  extended 
the  right  of  suffrage  to  every  free  white  male  citizen 
over  the  age  of  twenty-one.  I  have  confidence  enough 
in  the  western  people  to  believe,  that  if  at  any  time  the 
east  can  present  a  true  man  for  this  or  any  other  office, 
they  have  just  as  much  patriotism,  just  as  much  integri- 
ty, and  just  a3  much  desire  to  do  justice  to  the  east,  as 
the  east  have  to  do  justice  to  the  west ;  and  if  they  can- 
not present  a  better  man,  why  let  the  west  take  the 
whole.  That  is  my  view.  I  will  not  impose  an  improp- 
er restriction  upon  any  portion  of  the  people,  to  serve 
the  purposes  of  any  other  portion.  But  do  not  let  gen- 
tlemen infer  from  this,  as  they  inferred  before,  that  I 
am  a  friend  to  the  white  basis.  "Lay  not  that  flatter- 
ing unction  to  your  souls  "  Do  not  count  me  among  you. 
The  reasons  why,  I'll  tell  you  by  and  by,  if  I  may  imi- 
tate my  colleague  from  Richmond  in  perpetrating  a  lit- 
tle poetry.  [Laughter.]  I  will  tell  you  when  the 
time  comes,  but  I  will  not  impose  any  improper  restric- 
tion to  serve  any  improper  purpose.  I  come  here,  as  I 
said,  to  the  best  of  my  ability  to  make  a  good  constitu- 
tion for  the  whole  State,  and  one  that  will  be  suited  to 
every  part  of  the  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  desire  to  make  a  very  few  remarks 
to  the  committee,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  they  de- 
sire to  hear  me  or  not.  Unless  I  see  some  disposition 
to  the  contrary,  I  shall  move  that  the  committee  now 
rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  commitiee  accord- 
ingly rose. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


223 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  COUNTY  COURTS,  &C. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond,  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  County  Courts,  &c,  was  taken  up 
from  the  table,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

And  then,  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  11  o'clock. 

THURSDAY,  February  13th,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. , 

REPORT  FROM  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  GOODE.  The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment have  had  under  consideration  various  resolu- 
tions to  them  referred,  from  the  further  consideration 
of  which  they  beg  leave  to  be  discharged. 

A  resolution  adopted  on  motion  of  Mr.  McCamant,  re- 
lating "to  the  sequestration  of  all  the  qualified  voters  of 
the  commonwealth;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Botts,  adopted 
on  the  28th  of  October,  in  relation  to  "a  uniform  system 
of  taxation  upon  the  ad  valorem  principle  ;"  a  resolution 
adopted  on  motion  of  Mr.  Carlile,  m  the  28th  of  Octo- 
ber, in  relation  to  "restrictions  upon  the  legislature  in 
the  appropriating  of  the  public  money  and  the  pledging 
the  faith  of  the  State;  and  providing  that  bills  might 
be  originated  in  either  house  of  the  General  Assembly  ;" 
a  resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  Brown,  and  adopted  on 
the  28th  of  October,  in  relation  to  "the  rights  of  indi- 
viduals in  their  property,  a  uniform  system  of  taxation, 
to  restricting  the  legislature  in  appropriating  and  bor- 
rowing money,  and  pledging  the  faith  of  the  State,  and 
in  relation  to  a  uniform  system  of  banking  laws  ;"  a  re- 
solution adopted  on  the  29th  of  October,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Martin,  of  Marshall,  in  relation  to  "the  most  equita- 
ble principle  of  taxation  and  restricting  the  legislature 
in  their  appropriating  power  ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Fultz 
adopted  on  the  4th  of  November,  in  relation  to  "provi 
ding  that  a  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  be  necessary  to  pass  a  bill  into  a  law  ;  and 
that  the  faith  of  the  State  shall  not  be  given;"  a  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  Ridley,  aud  adopted  on  the  9th  of  January, 
in  relation  "to  providing  that  every  law  shall  embrace 
only  one  subject,  and  that  no  law  shall  be  amen  led  by 
reference  to  its  title ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Randolph 
adopted  on  the  14th  of  Jauuary,  and  relating  to  "the 
public  debt  and  a  sinking  fund;  and  of  appropriating  of 
the  public  money,  and  pledging  the  faith  of  the  State  ;" 
a  resolution  adopted  on  motion  of  Mr.  Goodeoii  the  15th 
of  January,  providing  for  "a  division  of  the  two  houses  of 
the  legislature  into    chambers,   and    the  manner  in 
which  the  vote  is  to  be  taken  in  certain  cases;"  a  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  McComas,  adopted  on  the  17th  day  of  Janua- 
ry, restraining  the  legislature  from  passing  any  law  im- 
pairing the  remedies  for  enforcing  contracts  or  collecting 
debts;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Letcher,  in  relation  "to  a 
commissioner  for  the  settlement  of  private  claims  ;  re- 
stricting the  legislature  in  granting  divorces,  and  in  ma- 
king allowances  to  the  owners  of  convict  slaves;"  are- 
solution  of  Mr.  Wise,  adopted  on  the  17th  of  January, 
in  relation  to  '"State  bonds,  appropriations  of  money  for 
works  of  int  ernal  improvement,  and  to  a  tax  in  the  nature 
of  a  premium  of  mutual  assurance  ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr. 
M.  Garnett,  adopted  on  the  18th  of  January,  in  relation 
to  "the  abolition  of  imprisonment  for  debt ;"  a  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  Trigg  adopted  on  the  20th  of  January,  in  re- 
lation to  an  annual  appropriation  for  tl  e  payment  of  the 
State  debt  ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Dale  Carter,  adopted 
on  the  20th  of  January,  giving  power  to  the  legislature  to 
provide  for  a  compensation  of  officers,  &c,  not  provided 
for  by  the  constitution,  and  prohibiting  the  legislature 
from  granting  extra  compensation  in  certain  cases,  and 
also  for  increasing   or  diminishing  the  salaries  of  offi- 
cers, during  their  term  of  office ;"  a  resolution  of  Mr. 
Fulkerson,  adopted  on  the  25th  of  January  "in  relation 
to  commonwealth's  attorneys  in  the  county  court  serving 


in  the  legislature;"  a  resolution  of  Mr.  Neeson  adopt- 
ed on  the  25th  of  January,  in  relation  to  capitation  tax- 
es, and  taxes  upon  property  ;  and  resolutions  of  Mr. 
Botts  in  relation  to  ad  valorem  taxation,  and  the  appro- 
priation of  money  and  the  creation  of  debt  by  the  legis- 
lature." 

The  motion  to  discharge  the  committee  from  the  fur- 
ther consideration  of  the  resolutions,  was  agreed  to,  and 
the  report  laid  on  the  table. 

report  of  the  basis  committee. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  gave  notice  on  Tuesday  last,  that 
on  this  day  I  should  move  that  the  Convention  resolve 
itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  up  and  considering  the  report  on  the  Basis  and 
Apportionment  of  Representation.  When  I  gave  that  no- 
tice, I  supposed  that  the  debate  on  the  pending  proposi- 
tion, or  amendment,  to  the  executive  report,  would  have 
terminated  by  this  time.  That  debate,  however,  is  still 
in  progress,  and  I  certainly  have  no  desire  to  deprive 
any  gentleman  of  the  privilege  of  addressing  the  Con- 
vention who  desires  to  do  so,  on  the  questions  growing 
out  of  the  propositions  which  have  been  submitted.  It 
is  perhaps  best  that  the  vote  should  be  taken  on  the 
pending  amendment  to  the  report  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee, before  the  House  shall  pass  to  the  consideration 
of  other  subjects.  It  seems  to  be  the  general  desire,  so 
far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain  the  wishes  of  mem- 
bers, that  a  vote  should  be  taken  on  this  amendment  be- 
fore this  subject  is  left.  I  have  therefore  determined 
not  to  ask  the  House  to  resolve  itself  into  committee  to 
take  up  the  basis  report  to-day,  as  it  seems  to  be  desired 
by  many  members  of  the  body,  that  the  residue  of  this 
week  should  be  given  to  the  consideration  of  the  report 
of  the  executive  department  ofthe  government.  I  have 
no  particular  wish  on  this  subject.  1  only  desire  that 
an  early  day  should  be  fixed  for  the  taking  up  of  the  re- 
port on  the  basis  of  representation,  regarding  that  as  the 
question  of  the  greatest  importance.  In  lieu  of  the  pro- 
position of  which  I  gave  notice  the  other  day,  I  would 
submit  for  consideration,  a  resolution  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand.  I  deem  it  desirable  that  the  Convention 
should  express  its  opinion  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  as 
to  the  day  when  it  will  go  into  the  consideration  of  the 
basis  report. 

Resolved,  That  the  Convention  will  on  Monday  next 
the  17th  iust.  and  daily  thereafter,  until  it  be  otherwise 
ordered,  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  report  on  the 
Basis  and  apportionment  of  Representation,  and  such 
amendments  as  may  be  offered  thereto. 

I  have  named  Monday,  but  I  am  willing  to  say  to- 
morrow or  Saturday.  I  have  inserted  Monday  because 
it  seems  to  meet  with  more  general  approbation  than 
either  of  the  other  days  to  which  I  referred.  There 
seems  to  be  a  general  acquiescence  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
better  to  give  up  the  lesidue  of  this  week  to  the  report 
of  the  executive  department,  ami  make  as  much  pro- 
gress in  that  report  as  we  are  able  to  do  during  the 
week.  Therefore  i  have  inserted  Monday  as  the  day  to 
take  up  the  report.  I  amwilling,  however,  to  acquiesce  in 
any  suggestion  which  may  be  made  as  to  to-morrow  or 
next  day,  but  I  am  not  willing  to  insert  a  later  day  than 
Monday. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  should  regret  very  much  if  the  po- 
sition which  I  occupy  in  reference  to  the  debate  on  the 
subject  pending  before  the  committee,  has  any  agency 
in  influencing  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Sum- 
mers) m  postponing  his  purpose  of  moving  to  take  up 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  basis  to-day.  When 
I  sought  the  floor  yesterday  in  committee.  I  was  not 
aware  that  to-day  was  set  apart  for  considering  this  re- 
port on  the  basis,  that  is,  that  the  gentleman  had  given 
notice  to  take  it  up.  I  do  not  desire  for  my  part,  to 
prolong  discussion.  I  presume  every  gentleman  has 
made  up  his  mind,  and  I  do  not  expect  if  I  should  say 
anythiug,  to  influence  the  vote  of  a  single  member.  I 
do  not  desire  to  do  the  vain  thing  of  making  a  speech 
Jin  this  discussion.    I  think  it  more  important  that  we 


224 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


should  progress,  than  that  we  should  make  speeches, 
and  I  shall  yield  the  floor  cheerfully,  if  it  be  the  wish 
of  the  Convention  to  go  to-day  into  the  consideration  of 
the  basis  report. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  Understanding  that  it  will  not 
be  at  all  disagreeable,  but  rather  a  pleasure  for  the  gen- 
tleman from  Appomatox,  (Mr.  Bocock,)  to  forego  the 
privilege  to  which  he  is  entitled,  and  being  like  him  ex- 
ceedingly desirous  to  make  progress,  and  believing  on 
this  question  of  the  executive  report  with  the  gentleman 
from  Loudoun,  (Mr.  Janney,)  that  if  we  discuss  this 
proposition  until  Monday  week,  that  we  shall  not  be 
prepared  to  vote  on  it,  I  intend  at  a  proper  time,  to 
move  to  postpone  its  further  consideration  for  the  pre- 
sent, and  lay  it  on  the  table.  My  vote  on  that  question 
depends  entirely  on  the  decision  of  the  question  as  to 
how  much  power  and  patronage  this  governor  is  to  have. 
Upon  that  I  base  my  vote,  and  I  am  not  prepared  to 
vote  until  that  question  is  first  settled.  I  therefore, 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  gentleman  from  Appomat- 
ox, (Mr.  Bocock',)  will  move  to  amend  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Suemers,)  by  mo- 
ving to  strike  out  Monday  and  to  insert  to-day. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  stated  that  I  was  perfectly  wil- 
ling to  acquiesce  in  any  thing  that  might  be  the  wish  of 
this  body  in  reference  to  the  disposition  of  the  resolu- 
tion, so  far  as  the  time  was  concerned  when  we  should 
proceed  to  consider  the  report  on  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation. I  hope  my  friend  from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  Garnett) 
will  not  insist  on  the  amendment,  to  take  up  the  report 
to-day.  If  he  thinks  proper  to  move  the  amendment 
changing  the  time  indicated  in  the  resolution,  I  hope  at 
least  he  will  not  name  an  earlier  time  than  to-morrow. 
I  trust  he  will  not  be  guided  by  any  thing  which  has 
fallen  from  the  gentleman  faom  Appomatox,  (Mr.  Bo- 
cock,) as  to  his  willingness  to  forego  his  right  on  the 
floor  to-day.  I  think  that  we  ought  not  to  go  into  the 
committee  of  the  whole  to-day  on  the  report  on  the  ba- 
sis, under  the  circumstances.  The  gentleman  from  Ap- 
pomatox (Mr.  Bocock)  has  the  floor  on  this  question, 
and  I  am  sure  it  will  give  the  Convention  great  pleasure 
to  hear  the  gentleman.  I  think  it  very  probable  that 
there  may  be  others  who  desire  to  be  heard  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  I  have  inserted  Monday  in  the  resolution,  be- 
lieving that  it  would  meet  more  generally  the  approba- 
tion of  the  members  of  this  body,  and  thereby  give  the 
residue  of  the  week  to  the  consideration  of  the  execu- 
tive report.  I  hope,  at  all  events,  that  the  gentleman 
will  not  move  to  amend  by  naming  to-day. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  will  with  very  great  pleasure 
accept  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha, 
and  say  to-morrow.  For  my  part,  if  I  had  my  say  in 
this  matter,  I  would  make  the  basis  question  the  last 
question  to  be  taken  up  and  acted  on.  I  would  go  on 
and  settle  all  those  other  questions  of  reform  which  I 
think  are  desirable  first,  before  our  blood  shall  get  at 
all  heated,  before  any  thing  like  feeling  has  risen  on  the 
subject,  and  while  we  are  all  calm,  cool  and  deliberate; 
but  as  I  know  a  large  majority  of  the  membars  think 
that  the  basis,  of  all  questions,  should  be  first  settled,  I 
shall  defer  to  their  judgment. 

Mr.  BYRD.  I  hope  the  amendment  to  the  resolution 
will  not  be  adopted,  and  for  the  very  reasons  urged  by 
the  gentlemen  in  its  favor  for  its  adoption,  and  that  is, 
a  desire  on  their  part  to  promote  progress.  Now  for 
that  very  reason,  I  am  at  present  opposed  to  its  adop- 
tion. We  are  now  engaged  on  one  subject;  very  great 
progress  has  been  made  in  discussing  that  subject,  and 
I  do  not  perceive  how  we  are  to  gain  time,  before  we 
dispose  of  it,  by  laying  it  down  and  taking  up  a  totally 
different  one.  If  I  thought  the  circumstances  warranted 
me  in  the  conclusion,  that  with  the  termination  of  this 
day  would  terminate  our  action  on  the  subject  now  in 
hand,  I  would  certainly  go  for  fixing  to-morrow  as  the 
day  for  taking  up  the  basis  question.  But  does  any 
gentleman  believe  that  we  shall  make  a  final  disposition 
of  the  executive  report  to-day,  or  even  of  the  particu- 
lar question  which  has  been  discussed  here  for  the  last 
eleven  or  twelve  days  ?    I  think  that  question  has  been 


debated  long  enough,  and  I  am  ready  to  vote  upon  it 
now,  as  I  was  ten  days  ago ;  but  there  are  gentlemen 
who  desire  to  discuss  it  further,  and  who  are  entitled  to 
do  so,  if  such  is  their  wish,  and  who  will  do  so,  and 
thus  this  whole  day  will  be  consumed  in  debate  without 
arriving  at  any  conclusion.  Under  these  circumstances 
what  shall  we  gain  in  the  way  of  progress,  by  laying  it 
on  the  table  and  taking  up  a  different  subject?  We 
should  gain  this:  The  flood  of  debate  is  now  nearly 
run  out,  but  give  it  a  respite  for  a  few  days,  and  we 
shall  have  another  which  will  deluge  this  Convention. 
I  think,  therefore,  if  we  are  to  regard  economy  of  time, 
that  we  should  go  on  now  and  dispose  of  this  executive 
report,  and  then  take  up  the  next  report  in  its  order. 
After  all,  I  do  not  know  that  is  the  universal  wish  hera 
to  take  up  the  basis  and  settle  it  before  all  other  ques- 
tions; ®n  the  contrary,  I  think  there  are  other  questions 
which  ought  to  precede  it.  I  think  we  ought  to  take 
up  the  report  on  the  bill  of  rights,  then  the  report  on 
suffrage,  and  then  the  basis  question  or  any  other  that 
may  be  thought  proper;  but  I  see  no  reason  why  the  ba- 
sis report  should  come  first,  or  even  precede  the  ques- 
tion of  organizing  the  executive  department.  I  see  no 
reason  in  favor  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  Garnett,)  and  I  do  hope  that  it 
will  not  be  adopted  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  STRAUGHAN.  I  agree  in  part  with  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Frederick,  (Mr.  Btrd.) 
I  see  that  no  time  can  be  saved  by  laying  this  report  of 
the  executive  committee  on  the  table,  until  the  basis 
question  is  disposed  of.  I  for  one,  am  opposed  to  ta- 
king up  tthe  basis  question  until  this  and  every  other 
question  is  disposed  of.  It  may  be  that  I  am  in  a  deci- 
ded minority.  This  is  only  to  be  ascertained,  however, 
by  an  actual  vote.  My  reasons  for  it  are  these:  It  is 
not  to  be  disguised  that  the  question  involved  in  the  ba- 
sis is  one  of  political  power,  and  it  is  a  discussion  that 
will  have  a  tendency  to  create  warmth  of  feeling  in  this 
body,  perhaps  resulting  in  bitterness,  and  whenever  sec- 
tional feeling  is  excited  here,  there  will  be  a  manifest 
indisposition,  I  am  afraid,  on  the  part  of  gentlemen 
from  the  respective  sections  of  the  State,  to  go  on  and 
carry  out  those  other  reforms  for  which  we  were  as- 
sembled. There  were  some  remarks  which  fell  from 
gentlemen  in  the  early  part  of  the  session,  that,  not- 
withstanding they  were  elected  as  radicals  and  sent  here 
by  their  constituents  to  carry  out  certain  specific  re- 
forms, yet  that  their  votes  in  regard  to  these  reforms 
depended  on  the  settlement  of  the  basis  question.  ,Was 
not  this  as  much  as  to  say,  if  you  do  not  give  me  the  ba- 
sis I  am  in  favor  of,  I  will  suppress  all  other  reforms  ? 
I  am  free  to  declare  that  my  vote  on  other  reforms  does 
not  depend  in  a  single  instance  on  the  settlement  of  the 
basis  question.  I  see  no  relation  between  the  settle- 
ment of  the  basis  question  and  the  question  as  to  whethr 
er  the  people  shall  elect  a  sheriff  or  a  governor,  or  as 
to  the  terms  of  these  officers.  I  am  in  favor  of  set- 
tling all  other  reforms,  and  when  we  come  to  the  basis 
question,  let  it  be  the  very  last  question  disposed  of  by 
this  Convention.  These  views  which  I  entertain,  are 
concurred  in  by  other  gentlemen  in  this  Convention,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  question  in  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  this  movement,  I  move  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  table. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  understand  that  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  is  not  debatable,  and  that  no  gentleman  can 
give  his  reasons  for  voting  against  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.    The  motion  is  not  debatable. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  rejected. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  M. 
GARNETT,  to  substitute  to-morrow,  as  the  day  on 
which  the  report  of  the  basis  committee  should  be  con- 
sidered, and  it  was  rejected. 

,  The  resolution,  as  introduced  by  Mr.  Summers  was 
then  adopted. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SHEFFEY,  the  Convention  again 
resumed  the  consideration,  in  committee  of  the  whole, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


225 


(Mr.  Watts  of  Norfolk  in  the  Chair)  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 


RE-ELIGIBILITY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 


The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  first 
clause  of  the  first  article  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  the  executive,  and  the  amendments  pending  thereto 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    I  came  here  without  much  expecta- 
tion on  my  own  part,  of  entering  into  this  discussion, 
and  I  am  induced  to  do  it  now,  in  the  main,  from  one  or 
two  remarks  that  fell  from  the  gentleman  who  last  ad 
dressed  the   Convention  on  yesterday,  (Mr.  Botts.) 
That  gentleman  closed  the  remarks  which  he  made  by 
reference  to  an  impression  which  he  said  was  prevail- 
ing to  some  extent,  and  which  he  had  heard  out  of  doors, 
that  this  was  a  question  between  the  east  and  the  west. 
Now,  I  cannot  believe,  that  this  question  of  the  re-eli- 
gibility of  the  governor,  which  we  are  here  discussing, 
is  a  question  between  the  east  and  the  west.    I  do  not 
think  so,  although  it  is  true  that  several  gentlemen  from 
the  west  have  spoken  on  this  question  and  have  taken 
the  same  ground;  and  although  I  heard  with  some  re- 
gret, my  able  friend  from  Marion  (Mr.  Neeson)  make 
one  allusion  which  I  thought  looked  to  that,  yet  I  could 
not  believe,  nor  do  I  yet  believe,  that  it  has  become  a 
question  between  the  east  and  the  west.     I  recol- 
lect a  remark  of  that  gentleman  which  struck  me 
with  some  force  at  that  time.     He  was  comment- 
ing on  the  constitution  of  Maryland  as  sanctioning  the 
principle  contended  for  on  our  part,  that  the  gover- 
nor after  serving   one  term,  should  go  out.    He  re- 
marked that  in  that  constitution  was  another  peculiar 
provision,  that  the  governor  should  come  from  different 
sections  of  the  State  in  each  succeeding  term ;  and  he 
very  significantly  put  the  question  to  the  gentleman 
from  Goochland :    Is  that  the  motive  which  induces 
you  to  go  for  ineligibility?  I  do  not  know  what  were 
the  views  of  the  gentleman  from   Goochland,  (Mr. 
Leake,)  but  I  could  not  help  thinking  that  the  very  op- 
posite to  that  might  be  the  reason  which  induced  gen- 
tlemen from  the  west  to  go  for  re-eligibility,  name- 
ly: that  they  do  not  desire  the  governor  to  come 
from  different  sections  of  the  State.    If  the  one  reason 
could  induce  the  gentleman  from  Goochland  to  go  for 
this  restriction  of  the  governor,  would  not  the  opposite 
reason  induce  the  gentleman  from  Marion  to  go  against 
it  ?    My  own  view  of  the  subject  is  this :    If  I  was 
dreading  sectional  influence  in  the  executive  depart- 
ment, and  if  I  apprehended  that  western  Virginia,  hav- 
ing a  majority  of  the  votes  in  the  election,  would  al- 
ways cast  them  sectionally,  1  would  rather  that  the  same 
governor  should  stay  in  office  all  the  time,  so  far  as  that 
is  concerned,  because  his  sectional  feelings  would  wear 
away,  and  he  would  become  imbued  with  State  feelings. 
So  far  as  sectionalism  is  concerned,  therefore,  if  I  be- 
lieved the  western  section  desired  to  avail  itself  of  its 
own  strength  to  perpetuate  the  office  in  a  man  from 
that  section,  I  would  rather  have  the  same  man  than 
a  new  man  fresh  from  that  section  and  imbued  with 
all  its  peculiar  sectional  feelings.    I  can  see  no  rea- 
son, therefore,  why  this  question  should  be  sectional. 
Another  remark  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Hen- 
rico, which  I  think  claims  attention.    Now,  the  propo- 
sitions before  this  committee  are  three-fold.    One  is, 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  executive  depart- 
ment, that  the  governor  should  be  elected  for  four 
years,  then  go  out  and  be  ineligible.    Another  is,  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr. 
Tred  way.)  that  he  should  be  elected  for  four  years,  then 
go  out  for  one  term  and  return  to  the  people  to  be  re- 
eligible  at  the  expiration  of  the  succeeding  term.  The 
third  is,  that  he  shall  be  re-eligible  for  life.    The  gen- 
tleman from  Henrico  yesterday,  in  the  conclusion  of 
his  speech,  said  he  cared  very  little  for  the  matter  of 
re-eligibility  in  the  executive,  but  that  re-eligibility  was 
a  principle  which  he  desired  to  carry  out,  and  that  its 
decision  now  was  to  decide  the  principle  which  we  were 
to  apply  to  other  officers.    I  cannot  understand  the 
force  of  that  remark.    I  do  not  see  how  a  decision  as 
17 


to  the  propriety  of  re-electing  a  governor  decides  the 
propriety  of  re-electing  members  of  the  legislature.  I 
do  not  know  how  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  re- 
electing a  governor  decides  the  propriety  of  re-elect- 
ing our  judges.  I  humbly  apprehend  that  the  proprie- 
ty or  impropriety  in  each  particular  case  depends  upon 
that  particular  case.  Will  gentlemen  say  that  re-eli- 
gibility is  a  principle  which  should  be  carried  out  in  re- 
gard to  every  officer.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
I  am  sure,  will  not  contend  for  that,  for  he  has  said  he 
would  not  have  sheriffs  re-eligible. 
Mr.  WISE.  For  a  special  reason. 
Mr.  BOCOCK.  Well  there  is  a  special  reason  in  every 
case.  The  special  reason  applies  to  each  case,  and  there 
is  no  necessity  for  a  general  reason. 

Mr.  WISE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  state 
the  special  reason? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  When  the  question  as  to  sheriffs  comes 
up,  that  will  be  the  proper  time. 

Mr.  WISE.  Very  well,  I  will  not  interrupt  the  gen- 
tleman. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  put  the  gentleman  on  the 
right  track  as  to  my  proposition.  I  desire  the  gentle- 
man to  notice  the  discrimination  in  the  argument  I  made 
on  Saturday  between  the  right  to  re-elect  and  the  pro- 
priety of  re-electing. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  will  come  to  that  point.  I  mean 
simply  to  take  the  position  that  the  re-eligibility  or  in- 
eligibility of  the  Governor  does  not  decide  in  any  de- 
gree the  question  of  the  ineligibility  or  re-eligibility  of  a 
judge  or  of  members  of  the  legislature,  or  of  a  sheriff,  or 
of  any  other  officer  in  the  government.  Special  reasons 
apply  to  the  sheriff;  special  reasons  apply  to  the  gov- 
ernor; and  special  reasons  apply  in  every  case.  I  say 
that  when  gentlemen  assume  that  the  principle  of  re- 
eligibility  in  its  application  to  all  other  cases  is  to  be 
decided  in  this  case,  they  might  as  well  say  that  the 
principle  of  length  of  term  for  all  officers  is  to  be  de- 
cided in  deciding  the  term  of  the  governor.  Gentle- 
men might  as  well  say  that  they  would  go  for  a  term  of 
four  years  for  all  the  officers  of  government,  because 
that  principle  is  decided  in  fixing  the  term  of  governor 
at  four  years,  and  they  mean  to  carry  out  that  principle 
throughout.  There  is  no  more  principle  involved  in  re- 
eligibility  than  there  is  in  fixing  the  term  of  office.  The 
special  reasons  applicable  to  each  and  every  case  de- 
cide that  case.  That  is  my  proposition.  I  do  not 
agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Spottsylvania,  f(Mr. 
Conway,)  that  if  the  governor  is  to  be  re-eligible,  a  for- 
tiori, a  judge  is  to  be  re-eligible.  I  do  not  hold  the 
question  to  be  decided  in  every  case  when  we  decide  it 
in  reference  to  the  governor.  I  see  a  difference  between 
the  sheriff  and  the  governor.  I  see  a  difference  between 
a  member  of  the  legislature  and  the  governor.  There 
is  no  analogy  between  the  several  cases.  Each  depends 
upon  the  special  reasons  applicable  to  each. 

The  great  argument  which  gentlemen  make  in  regard 
to  this  principle  of  ineligibility  is  that  you  cannot,  ©r 
ought  not,  to  restrict  the  po  wer  of  the  people.  What  right 
have  we,  they  ask,  to  restrict  the  power  of  the  people? 
Do  I  state  their  proposition  correctly  or  not  ?  I  am 
sure  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  can  answer  me 
that.  We  have  no  power  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the 
people.  Am  I  right?  The  gentleman  does  not  contra- 
dict me. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    That  was  not  my  proposition. 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    I  appealed  to  the  gentleman  from 
Montgomery. 

Mr.  HOGE.    Does  the  gentleman  ask  me  for  a  reply  ? 
Mr.  BOCOCK.    1  was  simply  stating  your  proposi- 
tion.   Am  I  right  or  not  ? 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  do  not  answer  questions  categori- 
cally. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  can  answer  the  question  categori- 
cally. We  have  a  right  and  the  power  to  do  so  if  we 
choose.  What  are  we  ?  So  far  as  we  think  it  right 
and  proper  we  are  competent  to  exercise  any  power  of 
the  people,  because  we  are  the  representatives  of  the 


226 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


people — we  are  the  people.  They  have  sent  us  here  to 
make  a  constitution  for  them.  Are  we  a  body  separate 
from  and  independent  of  the  people?  No,  we  are  the 
people  assembled  in  primary  convention.  For  what?  To 
form  a  plan  of  organic  law.  Cannot  the  people  in  framing 
their  organic  law,  impose  any  restrictions  which  they 
please  upon  themselves  ?  Are  not  the  people  competent 
to  deny  to  themselves  or  to  their  agents  the  exercise  of 
any  powers  which  they  may  choose  ?  Can  they  rot  agree, 
as  all  power  belongs  to  them,  that  there  is  one  power 
which  they  will  not  exercise  ?  I  wish  to  know  about 
this  fourth  class  of  power— this  reserved  power.  What 
is  it?  It  is  a  power  which  the  people  agree  in  their 
primary  convention  that  they  will  not  exercise,  and 
that  nobody  else  shall  exercise.  All  these  reserved 
powers  which  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  speaks  of, 
are  powers  which  the  people  agree,  by  their  own  con- 
sent, are  not  to  be  exercised,  and  which  are  to  be  re- 
served and  not  to  be  brought  into  action  or  delegated. 
It  is  as  perfectly  competent  for  the  people,  as  it  is  for 
individuals,  to  bind  themselves  by  a  contract.  That  is 
the  great  merit  of  a  restriction.  It  binds  every  one 
who  is  a  party  to  it.  It  is  by  that  means  that  not  only 
the  power  but  the  liberties  of  the  people  are  preserved. 
Gentlemen  do  not  make  a  proper  distinction  between 
restricting  the  powers  of  the  people  and  restricting  their 
liberties  and  rights.  The  powers  of  every  man  ought  to 
be  restricted  in  regard  to  others  with  whom  he  acts. 
The  powers  of  the  whole  people  ought  to  be  restricted 
in  regard  to  every  individual  member  ©f  the  people,  for 
that  is  the  only  security  to  the  one  man  as  against  the 
whole  of  the  population  of  a  State  that  he  will  enjoy  his 
liberties.  The  people  have  entered  into  a  contract  with 
him,  the  people  being  one  party  and  he  the  other,  that  his 
liberties  shall  not  be  infringed  upon  by  them.  They  have 
the  power  to  appropriate  all  that  he  has — they  can  do  it  if 
they  choose.  The  majority  always  have  the  power  over 
the  minority.  The  people  have  the  power  over  every  in- 
dividual member,  and  the  great  object  of  the  constitution 
is  to  guard  every  single  individual  in  the  community 
from  the  power  of  the  whole  community.  Restrictions 
upon  power  are  not  restrictions  upon  liberty  ;  they  are 
the  guaranties  and  safe-guards  of  liberty.  When  I  am 
told  that  the  people  are  capable  of  self-government  I 
admit  it  in  its  fullest  extent.  I  know  that  unless  the 
people  govern  themselves  they  never  will  be  well  gov- 
erned. And  what  is  the  best  evidence  they  can  give 
that  they  are  capable  of  self-government?  I  look  with 
great  anxiety,  when  I  am  called  upon  to  judge  of  the 
ability  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  to  the  con- 
tract which  they  make  with  each  other  in  forming 
their  government.  When  they  frame  a  constitution 
and  impose  such  restraints  upon  their  power  that 
the  humblest  and  poorest  citizen  is  as  safe  under 
their  government  as  the  proudest,  and  strongest,  and 
wealthiest — that  is  the  best  evidence  they  give  me 
of  their  capability  for  self-government.  The  best 
evidence  of  their  capacity  is  given  in  the  exercise  of 
their  forbearance,  and  justice,  and  wisdom  in  so  framing 
the  constitution  as  to  secure  the  property  and  liberty  of 
each  and  every  citizen  by  limitations  upon  power.  There 
has  been  one  attempt  in  the  history  of  this  world  to  try 
this  plan  of  self-government  without  restriction  upon 
power.  There  was  a  government  created  which  was  a 
pure  representative  democracy.  It  was  created  by  the 
French  National  Assembly  and  the  French  Convention. 
It  was  carried  to  its  legitimate  results  in  the  action  and 
proceedings  of  the  French  constituent  assembly.  There 
were  the  people  of  France  without  restrictions  upon 
their  power,  represented  by  a  single  representative 
body,  exercising  the  whole  power  of  the  country  and 
the  whole  power  of  the  people.  And  what  was  the 
character  of  that  government?  Was  it  a  government  of 
liberty  ?  It  was  a  government  in  which  the  £ower;  of 
the  people  was  entirely  unrestricted  ;  but  was  it  a  gov- 
ernment which  secured  the  happiness  and  safety  of  in- 
dividuals? No,  it  was  a  reign  of  terror.  That  people 
were  radicals,  for  they  discarded  every  thing  that  was 
of  old.    They  were  infinite  radicals,  for  they  dethroned 


the  God  of  Heaven,  and  erected  a  Goddess  of  P  eason,  and 
worshipped  her.  They  were  infinite  radicals,  and  the  only 
ones  that  I  ever  knew  of,  until  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac declared  himself.  They  were  infinite  radicals, 
and  what  was  the  reign  of  infinite  radicalism  ?  The 
bloody  guillotine  ceased  not  its  motions  day  or  night. 
The  blood  of  innocent  citizens  ran  like  water  through 
the  streets.  Unoffending  citizens  perished  by  thous- 
ands, and  the  most  sanguinary  despotism  which  has 
been  known  in  the  history  of  man  grew  out  of  that 
government,  of  that  unrestricted  power  of  the  people, 
that  government  of  infinite  radicalism.  What  was  the 
result?  Why,  the  people  gladly  passed  from  that 
government,  under  the  dominion  of  a  military  hero, 
and  from  that  again  to  the  quiet  dominion  of  a  mon- 
archy. 

You  may  tell  me  if  you  choose  that  the  majority  has 
a  right  to  gjvern.  I  know  that  in  the  ordinary  trans- 
actions of  government,  the  majority  overrules  the  mi- 
nority ;  but  the  t  lan  of  government  which  we  ought 
to  adopt,  and  which  best  secures  the  rights  and  liber- 
ties of  the  people,  is  that  where  not  only  the  rights  of 
the  minority,  but  every  individual  man  is  protected. 
Well,  the  guards  to  be  thrown  into  a  plan  of  govern- 
ment to  achieve  that  object,  depend  upon  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  The  gentleman  from  Marion  said 
that  government  was  as  much  an  inductive  as  an  ex- 
perimental science.  If  by  an  inductive  science  he 
means  deducing  principle  from  facts  that  are  known,  I 
agree  with  him.  But  if  he  tells  me  that  one  system 
works  well  in  practice  and  the  other  ill,,  but  that  the 
last  system  is  moie  inductive  according  to  his  philoso- 
phy, I  tell  him  I  want  none  of  his  inductive  philosophy. 
I  want  a  system  that  secures  the  life,  liberty,  and  pro- 
perty of  each  and  every  citizen.  I  repeat,  then,  that 
the  distinction  which  gentlemen  fail  to  draw,  is  between 
a  restriction  upon  the  liberties  and  rights  of  the  citi- 
zens, and  a  restriction  upon  the  powers  of  the  people. 
But  I  wish  to  know  what  restriction  is  this,  even  upon 
the  powers  of  the  people.  The  gentleman  from  Acco- 
mac tells  us  that  when  there  were  a  thousand  men  from 
whom  to  select  a  governor,  and  one  should  be  taken 
away,  and  the  people  were  told  they  should  select  out 
of  the  nine  hundred  and  ninety -nine,  that  that  was  rae 
restriction  upon  their  powers.  Well,  I  admit  that  there 
is  a  restriction  to  that  degree  ;  but  I  wish  to  know  how 
it  affects  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  ?  Does 
it  restrain  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people,  for 
they  are  what  I  desire  to  preserve.  Gentlemen  have  failed 
to  tell  us  how  it  is  a  restriction  upon  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people.  My  friend  from  Montgomery 
admits  that  he  thinks  that  even  a  restriction  against  the 
election  of  an  alien  is  wrong — all  are  restrictions  upon 
the  powers  of  the  people,  and  in  his  opinion,  every  one 
is  wrong. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  do  not  ask  the  gentleman  to  yield  the 
floor  for  me  to  answer  his  inquiry.  I  do  not  answer 
questions  categorically,  and  therefore  shall  not  attempt 
to  answer  him  in  that  manner.  I  rise,  now,  merely  to 
set  the  gentleman  right  as  to  my  idea. 

I  did  think  that  my  position  on  this  subject  had  been 
made  plain  enough  for  the  comprehension  of  the  plain- 
est mind.  It  was  this  :  That  we  come  here,  sent  by 
the  people  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions, as  declared  in  the  bill  of  rights  ;  that  our  fathers 
intended  by  that  declaration,  that  the  government  should 
be  absolutely  and  strictly  a  popular  one,  and  that  the 
people  sent  us  here  to  make  the  government  conform 
to  that  principle.  Then  my  position  was,  that  con- 
sistently with  the  theory  of  a  popular  government,  we 
could  not  restrict  the  people  ;  for  the  theory  of  a  popu- 
lar government  is,  that  all  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
people,  and  that  if  you  restrict  that  power  to  the 
greatest  or  smallest  extent,  the  restriction  to  that  ex- 
tent is  not  contrary  to  the  theory  of  popular  govern- 
ment. It  is  to  that  extent  strictly  a  popular  govern- 
ment. If  you  hold  that  all  power  is  in  the  people,  and  you 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


227 


take  away  airy  of  that  power,  certainly  it  is  not  strictly 
a  popular  government.  And  my  positian  was,  that  con- 
s'stently  with  the  theory  of  a  popular  government  you 
cannot  take  away  the  powers  of  the  people.  If  you 
do,  to  the  extent  to  which  you  take  away  that  power 
it  ceases  to  be  a  popular  government.  I  think  I  am 
understood  now. 

I  wish  to  allude  to  another  subject  in  connection  with 
this.  It  is  in  regard  to  the  election  of  minors  and  females. 
I  said  expressly,  and  I  repeatel  it,  that  I  con- 
tended for  no  such  right.  My  position  on  that  subject 
was  that  the  powers  of  government  rested  in  the 
hands  of  those  having  the  right  to  the  exercise  of  politi- 
cal power ;  that  political  p^wer  was  not  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  minors  or  females.  They  could  not  exercise 
them,  and  therefore  could  not  be  selected. 

Mr.  B3CO0K.  I  do  not  think  I  misunderstood  the 
gentleman.  His  statement  now,  as  I  supposed  it  was 
before,  is,  that  if  you  have  a  popular  government  you 
cannot  restrict  the  rights  of  the  people.  That  is,  as 
all  power  belongs  to  the  people,  when  they  come  to- 
gether to  frame  a  form  of  government  they  cannot  re- 
strict their  own  power,  and  if  they  do  it  is  not  popu- 
lar government  at  all.  I  dissent  from  that  proposition. 
I  insist  that  if  the  people  desire  to  retain  all  power  un- 
restricted in  their  hands,  it  is  better  that  they  should 
not  make  any  constitution,  by  which,  in  any  way,  they 
should  bind  themselves.  They  hold  the  power  and  are 
able  to  exercise  it  without  any  restriction.  Now,  the 
Tery  contract  which  forms  the  government  restricts 
them.  All  power  belongs  to  the  people,  says  the  gen- 
tleman, and  I  agree  to  that,  but  I  ask  the  gentleman  if 
lie  would  not  restrict,  in  some  degree,  the  power  of  the 
people  ?  For  instance,  if  a  man  was  arrested  and  charged 
with  murder,  he  would  not  allow  the  people  to  gather 
together  in  a  mob  and  hang  him,  if  they  desired.  Yet 
to  prevent  this,  is  a  restriction  in  the  government  upon 
their  powers  He  would  put  that  restriction  there,  and  yet 
tells  us  that  in  doing  so  we  are  not  making  a  popular  gov- 
ernment. Is  that  not  so  ?  All  power  belonging  to  the 
people,  of  course  the  people  have  the  power  to  do  it. 
I  know  they  have  the  power  to  take  every  one  of,  us 
and  hang  us  before  we  get  our  dinners,  and  they  might 
•do  it,  had  they  not  restricted  themselves  under  laws 
■which  prevent  their  exercising  all  their  power  in  that 
•way.  Yet  will  it  be  said  that  on  that  account  our  gov- 
ernment is  not  a  popular  government.  The  gentleman 
is  mistaken  in  his  proposition.  A  popular  government 
is  one  created  by  the  people,  giving  certain  power  to 
chosen  agents  of  the  people,  who  exercise  it  for  the 
people,  and  the  more  restriction  you  have  upon  that 
exercise,  the  better  it  is  fur  the  people.  When  you  under- 
take to  preserve  all  this  power  to  the  people,  you  leave 
the  weak  at  the  mercy  of  the  strong.  I  desire  that  we 
should  have  restrictions,  not  for  the  benefit  of  the 
strong  or  the  powerful — not  for  the  benefit  of  the  man 
of  great  power  and  ample  purse,  but  for  the  feeble  man 
and  the  man  of  empty  purse.  These  things  are,  and 
must  be  regarded  "by  every  government.  The  distinc- 
tion is  apparent.  It  is  not  a  question  how  much  power 
you  restrict,  but  whether  your  restriction  of  power  is  a 
restriction  upon,  or  preservation  of  our  rights  and 
liberties.    That  is  the  question. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us  that  we  must  frame  our 
constitution  upon  the  principles  in  the  bill  of  rights.  I 
take  him  at  his  own  position.  We  have  got  to  form 
no  constitution  upon  the  French  ideas  of  popular  liberty. 
We  are  to  form  one  upon  that  plain  charter  before  us, 
which  is  not  to  be  scouted  because  it  is  old,  or  because 
it  came  from  our  forefathers.  I  think  with  the  gentle- 
man, that  we  must  and  should  forma  constitution  based 
upon  the  bill  of  rights.  I  think  it  is  a  declaration  of 
the  rights  of  the  people  of  this  State,  much  more  to  be 
relied  on  than  any  of  those  opinions  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Montgomery  advanced,  and  which  will  not 
bear  the  test  of  a  moment's  reflection.  Well,  -what  are 
our  rights  and  liberties  as  contained  in  thia  declaration 


made  heretofore  by  the  representatives  of  the  people  ? 
What  is  one  of  them  ? 

"  That  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  the 
State  should  be  separate  and  distinct  from  the  judicial, 
and  that  the  members  of  the  two  first  may  be  restrained 
from  oppression  by  feeling  and  participating  in  the  bur- 
thens of  the  people,  they  should,  at  tixed  periods,  be 
reduced  to  private  stations,  ret  irning  into  that  body 
from  which  they  were  originally  taken — vacancies  be- 
ing supplied  by  frequent,  certain,  and  regular  elections, 
in  which  all,  or  any  part  of  former  members  to  be  again 
eligible  or  ineligible,  as  the  law  shall  direct." 

The  bill  of  rights,  then,  says  that  eligibility  is  no  prin- 
ciple at  all.  That  is  to  be  settled  just  as  the  law  shall 
settle  it.  This  is  the  declaration  of  the  rights  of  the 
people  of  Virginia,  and  they  have  said  that  it  is  not 
one  of  their  rights  that  every  officer  shall  be  re-eligible, 
but  that  they  may  be  so,  or  may  not  be  so,  as  the  law 
shall  direct.  But  they  have  said  that  it  is  one  of  their 
rights  that  the  members  of  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive departments  of  government  should  return  at  fixed 
periods  to  private  stations,  and  to  the  body  from  which 
they  were  elected.  They  have  said  that  the  governor 
should  lay  down  his  aristocratic  plume,  and  that  he 
should  mingle  again  with  the  people  as  one  of  them; 
that  instead  of  taking  the  chair  of  State  as  Chief  Magis 
trate  again,  he  should  take  his  seat  in  the  galleries  as 
one  of  the  people,  know  something  about  them  and  parti- 
cipating in  their  feelings  and  interests.  Thi  9  is  one  of  the 
rights  which  belongs  to  the  people  of  Virginia.  Now,  are 
you  going  to  carry  out  that  right  when  you  say  "that 
the  governor  shall  be  re-eligible  continually?  But  gen- 
tle men  say  that  it  is  an  important  principle,  and  that 
he  must  be  re-eligible  as  long  as  the  people  choose  to 
elect  him,  and  they  say  further,  that  he  does  vacate  his 
chair  and  become  one  of  the  people,  after  his  term  has 
expired,  even  if  he  should  be  re-elected.  Now,  the 
governor  does  not  serve  a  few  months  and  then  go  home, 
-te  serves  from  the  first  of  January  to  the  thirty -first  of 
December ;  and  he  goes  on  in  this  way  until  his  term 
is  out  and  a  new  term  commences.  If  you  re-elect  him 
again,  I  desire  to  know  when  does  he  return  to  the  peo- 
ple and  take  his  station  among  them  at  the  close  of  his 
term?  His  term  is  out  at  12  o'clock  at  night,  and  he 
commences  another  term  at  12  the  next  day.  I  sup 
pose  in  such  a  case,  had  the  governor's  term  expired 
last  night,  he  might  have  mingled  to  some  extent  with 
the  people  by  attending  the  Hebrew  Ball.  I  do  not 
know  how  much  he  would  learn  ©f  the  grievances  or 
the  interests  of  the  people  there ;  but  he  would  have 
had  two  or  three  hours  to  participate,  as  a  private  citi- 
zen, among  the  amusements  of  the  people.  Or  he 
might  have  gone  to  the  theatre  and  mingled  with  the 
people  there.  But  this  would  be  the  fullest  extent  to 
which  he  could  have  mingled  with  them.  How,  then, 
are  you  to  carry  out  the  rights  of  the  people  as  declared 
in  their  great  charter  ?  I  would  require  him  to  lay- 
down  his  aristocratic  plume  not  only  for  the  moment, 
but  for  some  little  time,  so  that  he  may  go  and  mix  with 
the  people,  and  learn  again  to  be  one  of  them.  Let 
him  forget  those  aristocratic  feelings  which  come  upon 
all  men  in  high  office — for  it  does  come  upon  them 
sooner  or  later — which  leads  them  to  think  that  they 
are  not  one  of  the  people,  and  to  believe  that  they  are 
superior  to  their  fellow-men.  The  bill  of  rights  requires 
that  they  shall  undergo  a  course  of  teaching  which  will 
direct  them  and  the  ideas  which  they  have  thus  acquired 
in  office.  I  know  that  a  member  of  the  legislature  may 
be  re-elected  as  often  as  his  constituents  choose  to  re- 
elect him ;  bat  his  case  is  different  from  that  of  the 
governor.  He  serves  for  two  or  three  months  only,  and 
whether  he  remembers  or  forgets  the  people  during 
those  days,  he  soon  goes  home  as  one  of  _  the  peo- 
ple. He  participates  in  all  the  duties  of  citizenship, 
learns  all  about  the  people,  their  wants,  their  inter- 
ests, and  their  grievances,  because  he  mingles  with 
th'dm  and  is,  in  fact,  one  of  them. 


228 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


He  may  be  re-elected  according  to  the  spirit  of  the 
the  bill  of  rights.  But  with  the  governor  the  case  is 
very  different.  He  is  every  day  acting  as  governor, 
whether  he  is  here  or  elsewhere.  Members  of  the  house 
of  delegates  are  not  members  when  they  go  home. 
There  is  no  such  body  as  the  house  of  delegates  or  the 
senate  in  existence  when  they  adjourn  and  go  home. 
They  are  of  the  people,  and  mingle  with  them.  Not  so 
with  your  governor.  He  is  a  governor  every  day,  every 
night,  every  moment.  You  cannot  bring  him  down  to 
the  people  from  whom  he  sprung,  as  required  by  this 
article  in  the  bill  of  rights,  unless  you  make  him  lay 
aside  his  robes  of  office.  Then,  I  say,  that  this  prin- 
ciple of  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  is  one  which  the 
bill  of  rights  does  not  assert,  but  leaves  to  be  regulated 
according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case  by  law.  It 
is  no  principle  at  all,  but  a  mere  matter  of  expediency, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  executive,  the  true  principle  of 
the  bill  of  rights  rather  requiring  ineligibility,  at  least 
for  an  interval,  the  principle  is  that  these  legislative  and 
executive  officers,  and  especially  the  executive,  should 
"  be  restrained  from  oppression  by  feeling  and  participa- 
ting in  the  burthens  of  the  people,"  by  being  "  at  fixed 
periods  reduced  to  a  private  station,  and  returning  to 
that  body  from  which  they  were  originally  taken." 

That  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  Virginia  as  de- 
clared in  their  bill  of  rights.  Gentlemen  forget  this 
right  when  they  contend  that  re- eligibility  is  the.  only 
principle  involved.  For  myself,  I  prefer  to  stand  by 
the  bill  of  rights  rather  than  to  act  upon  the  opinions 
of  those  gentlemen.  I  supposed,  when  we  heard  of  this 
doctrine  of  the  restriction  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  that 
we  should  have  it  presented  to  us  in  various  other  forms. 
The  gentleman  from  Montgomery  (Mr.  Hoge)  goes  against 
various  restrictions  which  the  gentleman  from  Accomac 
(Mr.  Wise)  deems  to  be  proper.  The  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  I  think,  admits  the  right  to  protect  the  peo- 
ple from  the  election  of  an  unwise  governor.  He  advo- 
cates the  greatest  liberty  of  the  people,  and  yet  he  has 
so  little  confidence,  apparently,  in  the  capacity  of  the 
people  to  judge,  that  he  is  willing  to  restrict  them  from 
the  election  of  aliens  or  lunatics. 

Mr.  HOGE.  I  expressly  said  that  I  would  impose  no 
such  restriction. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  is  speaking  in  reference 
to  me,  but  I  have  nothing  to  say  now.  When  a  gentle- 
man- appeals  to  another  in  debate,  and  he  asks  an  op- 
portunity for  explanation,  and  it  is  denied  him,  he 
must  take  some  other  opportunity  to  carry  out  his 
purpose. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  You  asked  an  opportunity  to  give  me 
the  reasons  why  you  thought  a  sheriff  ought  not  to  be 
elected,  and  to  give  the  special  reasons,  therefor.  I 
tell  you  that  I  cannot  yield  the  floor  for  such  a  purpose 
at  this  time,  nor  will  I.  You  will  have  ample  opportu- 
nity to  do  so  when  that  question  shall  come  up.  If  I 
make  any  allusion  to  your'  argument  in  relation  to  the 
governor,  which  is  wrong,  you  shall  be  welcome  to 
explain,  because  I  think  I  can  set  forth  the  proposition 
I  make,  after  you  have  explained. 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  not  in  order  for  the  gentleman  to 
address  others  than  the  Chair. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  only  wish  to  remark,  that  my  own  rule, 
where  I  refer  to  gentlemen  in  debate,  if  I  do  think  it  ne- 
cessary to  refer  to  them,  is  always  to  give  them  the  op- 
portunity to  explain. 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  take  this  occasion  to 
remind  gentlemen  of  the  impropriety  of  addressing 
themselves  to  particular  members. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  aware  that  I  was  out  of  order 
in  that  particular  ;  and  I  ask  the  pardon  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 1  am  willing,  if  I  state  the  proposition  of  any 
gentleman  improperly,  in  the  matter  of  discussion  in 
which  I  am  engaged,  that  he  shall  correct  me  ;  for  I  do 
not  intend  or  desire  to  misrepresent  any  one.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  had  stated  in  debate, 
that  for  special  reasons  he  would  make  the  office  of 
sheriff  ineligible.    I  referred  to  that  fact ;  and  to  that 


alone,  to  show  that  he  regarded  special  reasons  as  appli- 
cable to  each  case.  He  desired  me  to  give  way  in  order 
to  state  the  special  reasons  which  are  applicable  to  the 
case  of  sheriff.  1  did  not  think  it  proper  to  give  way 
for  him  or  any  other  man,  to  say  what  special  reasons 
he  had  on  this  subject  in  regard  to  any  officer.  I  did  not 
refuse  to  give  place  to  that  gentleman  or  any  other  to 
correct  me  in  regard  to  any  matter  connected  with  this 
discussion.  That  is  the  distinction  I  make  and  I  think 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  will  himself 
see  that  it  is  right  and  proper. 

The  CHAIR.  There  can  be  no  personal  difference 
between  the  gentlemen. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  aware  of  that— at  least  I  hope  I 
am.  I  repeat  that  gentlemen  should  not  contend  for 
re-eligibility  as  a  right  guarantied  in  the  bill  of  rights, 
because  it  is  not  there  laid  down  as  a  right  of  the  people. 
It  is  expressly  admitted  to  be  a  matter  which  may  be 
regulated  one  way  or  the  other  by  law.  But  the  right 
of  the  people  to  have  their  executive  and  legislative  of- 
ficers again  returned  to  them,  to  be  one  among  them,  is 
a  right  laid  down.  And  1  maintain  that  as  to  the  exec- 
utive officer,  the  only  way  in  which  you  can  enforce 
that  right  is  by  making  him  ineligible  occasionally,  be 
it  the  long  or  short  term — for  if  he  is  re-elected  to  each 
succeeding  term  he  never  does  return  to  the  people 
at  all. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  mere  question  of  expediency 
and  set  aside  this  matter  of  right.  As  a  question  of  ex- 
pediency, should  the  governor  be  re-eligible  forever  or 
ineligible  for  a  term  ?  Gentlemen  tell  us  that  in  this 
discussion  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  on  us,  and  my  friend 
over  the  way  (Mr.  Neeson)  very  clearly  stated  that  un- 
less we  can  show  either  that  some  evil  is  to  be  avoided 
or  some  good  obtained  by  our  restriction  we  could  not 
claim  that  there  was  a  necessity  for  it.  That  I  un- 
derstood to  be  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman.  Now, 
I  differ  from  the  gentleman  altogether  in  this  respect.  I 
think  that  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  upon  gentlemen  who 
seek  to  make  this  change.  I  do  not  deny  that  gentle- 
men, who  because  they  find  this  in  the  old  constitution 
think  it  ought  to  be  otherwise  in  the  new,  can  fairly 
under  their  view  contend  that  the  burthen  of  proof 
does  not  rest  upon  them,  since  I  suppose  they  believe 
that  the  people  have  condemned  everything  in  the  old 
constitution,  and  of  course  that  they  have  condemned 
this  thing,  and  if  it  is  desired  to  retain  it,  under  their 
view,  those  who  express  that  desire,  must  show  affirma- 
tively that  it  ought  to  be  retained.  But  I  do  not  be- 
lieve their  view  is  correct.  We  come  here  to  make 
a  constitution  for  the  people,  and  in  making  that 
constitution,  what  ought  to  be  our  course  ?  Not  to 
change  everything  for  the  sake  of  change  ;  not  to  put 
in  a  different  clause,  because  a  certain  clause  is  in  the 
constitution,  but  to  change  it  in  such  particulars  and 
in  such  instances  as  the  people  have  indicated  to  us  they 
desired  changes  to  be  made.  I  am  not  an  infinite 
radical ;  I  am  not  a  conservative  ;  I  stand  in  that  mid- 
dle position  of  being  a  reformer,  and  my  desire  and 
object  is  to  make  those  changes  in  the  government  of 
the  State,  which  the  people  have  indicated  it  is  desir- 
able should  be  made.  I  will  give  to  them  the  election 
of  the  governor  and  of  the  judges,  and  of  every  other 
officer  that  they  may  desire  to  elect.  Now  as  to  this 
clause  in  the  present  constitution,  that  the  governor 
shall  be  in-eligible,  I  desire  to  know  what  member  ever 
heard  the  first  of  his  constituents  complain  of  that  pro- 
vision ?  "Who  can  tell  us  that  the  people  are  dissatis- 
fied with  it  ?  I  should  like  to  hear.  I  never  heard  a  man 
among  my  constituents  say  that  he  desired  that  provis- 
ion to  be  changed.  I  have  not  yet  heard  the  first  griev- 
ance that  has  grown  out  of  it,  or  the  first  objection  that 
has  been  made  to  it.  It  was  established  in  the  consti- 
tution of  '76  ;  it  was  retained  in  the  constitution  of  '29 
and  '30,  and  so  far  I  as  know  it  is  approved  by  the  peo- 
ple. I  certainly  have  never  heard  any  complaint  of  it. 
Well,  if  it  is  not  complained  of  by  the  people,  I  think 
the  burthen  of  the  proof  does  lie  on  those  who  ask  the 
change  to  be  made,  to  show  that  we  are  wiser  than  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


229 


people.  And  when  you  assert  that  we,  or  any  part  of  us, 
are  wiser  than  the  people,  I  must  think  that  the  burthen 
of  proof  lies  on  you.  If  the  people  have  indicated  their 
disapprobation  of  This  provision,  and  have  sent  us  here 
to  make  this  reform,  then  I  will  confess  that  the  burthen 
of  proof  does  lie  upon  us.  I  know  that  the  people  re- 
quire changes,  and  I  am  going  for  the  changes  which 
they  require ;  I  am  not  going  to  change  every  thing  for 
the  mere  sake  of  change.  That  would  be  following  the 
example  of  the  commonwealth  of  frogs  to  which  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  alluded  the  other  day.  When 
they  changed  king  log  for  king  stork-that  was  not  reform, 
it  was  change — because  they  had  had  king  log,  therefore 
they  wanted  king  stork.  That  is  not  the  reform  I  advo- 
cate. I  am  willing  to  make  such  changes  as  will  render 
the  constitution  more  satisfactory  to  the  people,  and 
which  will,  if  they  are  suffering  under  grievances,  rem- 
edy those  grievances.  I  will  not  follow  the  example  of 
that  commonwealth  of  frogs,  who,  for  the  sake  of  change, 
transferred  themselves  from  king  log  to  king  stork.  Did 
it  ever  occur  to  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  that  the 
election  of  king  stork  was  the  very  last  election  which 
that  commonwealth  ever  held  ?  I  have  never  heard  that 
there  was  an  election  after  king  stork  was  elected ;  and 
why  ?  Because  if  they  had  desired  change — if  they  had 
desired  another  ruler,  king  stork  would  immediately 
have  swallowed  every  one  who  intimated  that  wish. 
[Laughter.]  How  then  could  they  have  ever  rid  them- 
selves of  king  stork?  Why  by  a  principle  of  ineligi- 
bility. I  desire  that  principle  to  be  retained  in  our  con- 
stitution to  save  us  from  king  stork. 

The  gentleman  tells  us  that  to  contend  that  the  gov- 
ernor can  re-elect  himself  by  doing  wrong  or  seducing 
the  people  to  re-elect  him  by  evil  conduct,  is  to  assert 
that  the  people  are  incapable  of  self  government.  Some 
of  my  friends  have  told  me  elsewhere  that  if  I  would 
answer  that  proposition  I  would  make  the  best  speech 
that  has  been  made.  Of  course  I  cannot  answer  it,  for 
I  cannot  begin  to  make  the  best  speech  that  has  been 
made.  But  I  will  tell  gentlemen  what  I  think.  I  do 
not  believe  that,  because  the  officer  is  to  be  elected  by 
the  people,  he  will  be  certain  always  to  be  a  more  wor- 
thy and  honest  officer  than  if  he  was  otherwise  elected. 
I  know,  as  was  well  remarked  by  the  gentleman  from 
Loudoun,  (Mr.  Janney,)  that  I  am  fallible  _ind  capable 
of  being  deceived,  and  I  presume  that  every  member  of 
the  Convention  knows  it  to  be  true  of  himself.  I  will 
not  repeat  the  proposition  so  beautifully  put  by  the 
gentleman  from  Loudoun  that  if  we  are  all  fallible,  how 
dees  it  happen  that  fallible  men  are  sent  here  to  rep- 
resent infallible  constituents  ?  It  does  not  imply  that 
the  people  are  not  capable  of  self-government  because 
they  are  fallible,  and  are  also  capable  of  being  deceived, 
subject  to  like  passions,  and  operated  upon  by  the  same 
feelings  and  prejudices,  good  or  bad,  which  operate 
upon  us  here.  But  I  may  illustrate  this  point  better 
by  referring  to  the  idea  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico 
that  the  people  ought  to  have  the  selection,  as  well  as 
the  election  of  their  officers.  That  gentleman  says  that 
if  you  show  that  the  bad  conduct  of  an  officer  makes 
him.  more  acceptable  to  the  people,  then  you  prove 
that  the  people  are  not  capable  of  self-government.  Let 
us  refer  to  the  practice  in  the  election  of  officers,  and 
see  by  whom  and  how  this  re-election  will  be  made.  Be- 
fore the  governor  can  be  re-elected  he  must  be  a  candi- 
date, and  he  must  be  brought  out  by  his  party.  A 
governor  desires  to  be  re-elected ;  his  party  begin  to 
think  they  would  prefer  some  other  man.  Well,  the 
people  cannot  all  come  here  and  meet  in  convention  to 
nominate  a  candidate  ;  and  how  is  the  matter  arranged  ? 
They  get  up  meetings  in  the  different  counties  and 
send  delegates  to  represent  them.  Now,  this  governor 
is  a  man  of  very  plausible  conduct,  a  man  who  appears 
well,  but  who  is  a  very  deep,  designing  man.  Such 
men  there  are.  Well,  the  convention  has  assembled,  and 
you  will  observe  on  that  occasion  some  three  or  four 
men,  active  friends  of  his  nomination,  and  who  indeed 
are  the  most  active  men  in  the  convention.  These  men, 


you  will  notice,  have  more  to  say  and  do  uhan  any  other 
dozen  men  in  the  convention,  and  you  will  at  once  con- 
clude that  they  represent  a  large  portion  of  the  people  ; 
and  you  inquire  who  they  are  ?  You  ascertain  that 
they  are  bank  directors  whom  the  governor,  has  appoint- 
ed in  a  distant  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  BLUE.  They  cannot  do  that  in  my  county; 
they  have  no  power  at  all  there. 

Mr.   BOCOCK.     No  power?    Why  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  told  us  yesterday  that  two  bank  directors 
could  stop  discounts — that  the  governor  had  a  right  to 
appoint  three,  and  any  two  of  them  could  stop  the  dis- 
counts of  any  citizen.    But  it  is  not  in  your  county,  I 
presume,  that  this  convention  would  meet,  but  in  the 
city  of  Richmond.    And  you  may  have  a  bank  director 
in  your  county  who  has  no  power  at  all  there,  and  who 
would  be  a  very  valuable,  active,  and  talking  man,  on 
such  an  occasion  as  this,  and  seem  to  represent  more 
people  than  anybody  else,  and  this  man,  the  caucus 
being  nearly  equally  divided,  may  decide  the  nomina- 
tion.   But  the  gentleman  will  say  that  he  cannot  be 
elected  if  he  is  not  a  good  governor.    How  will  this  be  ? 
He  is  nominated  by  this  caucus,  and  will  be  regarded  as 
a  nominee  of  the  party,  and  will  run  upon  party  grounds. 
The  other  party  will  pursue  the  same  course,  and  thus 
a  selection  of  the  people  is  confined  to  the  two  persons 
whom  these  two  party  caucuses  will  have  presented  to 
jthem.    Well  you  come  to  the  election  ?    You  tell  the 
people  that  this  officer,  be  he  whig  or  democrat,  has 
acted  improperly,  and  you  ask  them  if  they  are  going 
to  vote  for  him.    The  answer  will  be,  I  shall  vote  with 
my  party.    I  know  that  he  is  not  exactly  what  he 
should  be,  but  yet  a  faulty  democrat  is  better  than  a 
whig,  or  vice  versa,  and  I  will  vote  with  my  party.  Now, 
in  •  such  a  case  as  this — and  such  will  be  the  course 
pursued — I  ask  you  if  the  people  are  electing  a  gov- 
ernor upon  his  merits  ?    Most  clearly  not ;  for,  in  their 
election,  they  are  obliged  to  choose  between  him  and 
the  man  nominated  by  the  other  caucus.    I  have  seen 
these  nominating  conventions  assemble,  and  I  have  seen 
the  most  strenuous    exertions  made    by  individuals 
against  the  general  desire  of  the  convention,  to  nomi- 
nate a  particular  man.    I  have  seen  the  occasion  when 
nothing  but  the  lightning  from  Heaven  has  saved  the 
accomplishment  of  such  a  nomination,  but  the  lightning 
of  Heaven  will  not  always  relieve  the  convention  from 
the  nomination  of  improper  men.    That  is  the  chance 
which  the  people  have,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  an  impu- 
tation upon  their  power  of  self-government  to  say  that 
they  may  not  re-elect  the  man  who  has  been  a  good 
officer.    I  think  it  far  preferable  to  let  the  man  who  has 
been  in  office  go  out,  and  then  give  the  people  an  op- 
portunity to  choose  between  two  men,  both  of  whom 
are  fresh  from  themselves.    Then  let  the  patronage  of 
the  governor  be  ever  so  little,  or  ever  so  much,  there 
should  be  no  object  for  him  to  abuse  it.    But  gentle- 
men say  that  he  will  use  it  for  his  party  if  he  does  not 
for  himself,  and  some  have  said  that  he  will  be  more 
likely  to  abuse  it  for  his  party  than  himself.    I  was  not 
aware  that  men  were  apt  to  exert  themselves  more  for 
their  friends  than  for  themselves.    I  did  not  know  that 
men  in  office  were  so  singularly  disinterested  as  that. 
I  suppose,  however,  it  is  to  be  accounted  for  on  the 
principle   broached  here,  that  being  in  effice  for  a 
long  time  makes  a  man  better.    That  is  not  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrines  of,  I  will  not  say   Locke,  but 
it  is  not  according  to  the  doctrines  of  the  old  men  whom 
I  have  heard  talk  on  the  subject.    It  is  not  according  to 
the  doctrines  I  have  heard  among  the  people.  They 
do  not  think  that  a  man,  by  staying  in  office  and  en- 
joying power  for  a  long  time,  becomes  better.  It  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  bill  of  rights  either,  and  I  rather  think 
that  from  the  days  of  Hazael  king  of  Syria  down  to  the 
present  time,  the  enjoyment  of  power  has  been  found 
to  be  more  or  less  corrupting  in  its  effects  upon  the 
person  who  enjoyed  it.  I  know  that  there  are  many  illus- 
trious exceptions  to  this  rule.    I  do  not  mean  to  apply 
it  to  the  legislative  representative,  or  to  any  man  who 


230 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


discharges  his  duties  for  a  few  mouths,  and  then  go  back  to 
the  people  to  be  approved  by  them.  Such  a  man  may 
become  better,  and  may,  from  the  long  confidence  which 
has  been  reposed  in  him  by  the  peopie,  think  more  and 
more  of  the  responsibility  and  obligation  under  which 
he  is  to  the  peopLe.  I  mean  one  who,  by  the  duties  of 
his  office,  is  separated  a  long  time  from  the  people.  In 
such  cases — and  the  office  of  governor  is  one  of  them — 
I  do  not  think  that  the  enjoyment  of  power  makes  a 
man  better,  or  has  a  tendency  to  make  him  better. 

It  has  been  said  here — and  the  executive  adminis- 
tration of  the  United  States  government  has  been  re- 
ferred to  as  evidence  of  the  fact — that  most  of  the 
bad  acts  of  an  execu  tive  are  performed  during  the  sec- 
ond term,  when  he  is  not  re-eligible.  If  1  were  to  use 
that  illustration,  I  should  say  that  if  the  second  term 
had  been  productive  of  such  bad  consequences,  it  was 
better  not  to  have  it.  But  gentlemen  say  that  these 
bad  consequences  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  incumbent 
for  a  second  term  cannot  expect  again  to  be  re-elected, 
and  does  not,  therefore,  feel  himself  responsible  to  the 
the  people,  from  the  knowledge  that  he  w.ll  not  again 
come  before  them.  Well,  what  would  be  the  legitimate 
result  of  that  argument  ?  Why,  if  that  you  "wanted  to 
keep  a  man  from  becoming  corrupt  in  office,  you  must 
continue  to  re-elect  him  for  life.  If  he  will  become 
corrupt  in  the  second  term,  from  being  deprived  of  a  re- 
election, he  will  be  equally  liable,  under  the  same  in- 
fluences, to  become  corrupt  in  the  third,  or  the  fourth, 
or  the  fifth  term ;  and  how  then  can  you  keep  him  pure 
but  by  holding  out  to  him  the  hope  of  re-election  for 
every  term  ?  But  I  do  not  think  that  gentlemen  have 
assigned  the  true  reasons  for  the  abuse  of  power  in  the 
second  term.  The  main  reason,  in  my  opinion,  is  the 
fact  that  the  incumbent  is  less  familiar  with  the  people 
in  the  first  than  the  second  term,  has  become  familiar 
with  the  tricks  of  office,  and  has  become  intoxicated 
with  the  love  of  power  and  desire  to  perpetuate  its  en- 
joyment. Power  is  like  strong  drink,  the  longer  a  man 
indulges  in  its  use,  the  more  reluctant  is  he  to  aban- 
don it. 

A  MEMBER.    Do  you  ?peak  from  experience  ? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  No,  I  speak  not  from  any  personal 
experience,  but  I  have  friends  in  my  eye  who  probably 
could  give  us  their  personal  experience  on  the  subject 
[Laughter.]  But  every  man  who  has  the  slightest 
knowledge  of  human  nature,  knows  that  the  remark  I 
have  male  is  true  in  regard  to  everything  that  intoxi- 
cates; and  power  intoxicates  as  much  as  anything 
else.  Gentlemen  have  said  that  re-eligibility  is  the 
only  means  by  which  the  public  officer  can  be  held  to 
an  accountability.  This,  as  I  have  before  stated,  would 
be  to  require  the  incumbent  to  be  re-elected  for  life, 
beciuseyou  could  not  otherwise  hold  him  accountable 
for  the  last  term  of  his  service.  But  I  ask  if  it  is  the 
surest  way  of  holding  an  officer  to  an  account,  to  tell 
him  that  if  he  abuses  his  power  he  may  stand  a  trial  or 
not  as  he  chooses.  The  accountability  is  only  to  be 
secured  if  he  choose  to  be  a  candidate  again.  If  it  is  a 
trial  I  insist  that  he  ought  to  be  subjected  to  it,  and 
to  secure  that  you  would  be  obliged  to  compel  him  to 
he  a  candidate  whether  he  would  or  not.  But  if  it 
it  is  a  trial,  as  gentlemen  contend,  it  is  not  a  fair  trial. 
Suppose  •  the  incumbent,  on  his  trial,  that  is  a  can- 
didate for  re-election.  If  he  is  a  good  and  conscientious 
man  he  wi!J  believe  that  his  primary  obligation  is  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  his  office,  and  thus,  while  his 
opponent  is  engaged  in  electioneering  throughout  the 
State,  he  will  be  engaged  in  his  duties  at  Richmond. 
Now,  I  appeal  to  every  member  of  this  Convention  to  say 
whether  a  man,  in  the  canvass  for  any  office,  has  exact- 
ly a  fair  chance,  a  fair  trial,  if  he  obliged  to  remain 
at  home  while  his  opponent  is  abroad  electioneering 
against  him?  Thus  the  conscientious  gentleman  in 
office  who  feels  it  incumbent  on  him  to  attend  first  to 
the  discharge  of  his  public  duties,  will  not  have  a  fair 
trial  by  any  snaans.    The  bad  man  who  loves  power 


better  than  an  honest  discharge  of  his  duties  on  the 
other  hand,  would  not  only  take  the  field  and  election- 
eer to  the  neglect  of  his  duties,  but  he  would  be  tempt- 
ed to  prostitute  the  power  and  patronage  of  his  office  in 
aid  of  his  re-election.  And  he  would  in  this  way  too 
have  two  chances  against  his  opponent —first  in  the  in- 
fluence which  his  patronage  would  secure  to  him,  and 
second,  in  his  own  efforts -in  electioneering.  I  do  not 
like  this  trial  which  gives  a  better  chance  to  a  ba  I  man 
and  a  worse  chance  to  a  good  man,  And  such,  it  seems 
to  me,  will  be  the  result  of  re-eligibility. 

There  is  another  objection  which  I  have  to  this  idea  of 
re-eugibihty  as  a  trial  of  merit.  The  office  of  governor  is 
a  political  one  and  the  election  to  fill  it  will  be  decided 
upon  party  ground,.  Weil,  the  governor  is  elected  by  one 
party  and  it  is  understood  that  he  is  to  be  a  candidate  for 
re-election,  aud  what  is  the  result?  Why  forthwith,  every 
man  of  the  other  party  begins  to  find  fault  with  him, 
and  at  once  a  great  party  is  arrayed  against  him,  to 
denounce  every  one  of  his  acts,  whether  it  be  good  or 
bad,  with  a  view  of  prejudicing  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple against  his  re-election.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
other  party,  and  whose  candidate  he  is  to  be  are 
equally  earnest  in  the  defence  of  all  his  acts,  whether 
good  or  bad.  Thus  the  passions  of  the  people  are  ex- 
cited, men  are  committed  before  hand,  aud  the  election 
is  decided  by  the  relative  party  strength  of  the  candid- 
ates, wholly  irrespective  of  the  consideration  of 
the  question,  whether  the  incumbent  is  a  good  or  a  bad 
officer.  The  incumbent  is  not  put  on  trial  as  to  his 
merits  or  demerits,  and  the  result  therefore  does  not 
decide  the  question  as  to  whether  he  is  a  good  or  a  bad 
officer. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  has  told  us  repeatedly 
that  although  he  could  have  quoted  from  Mr.  Jefferson 
in  support  of  his  position,  yet  he  would  not  do  it  be- 
cause if  Mr.  Jefferson  differed  from  him,  he  would  not 
regard  his  opinion.  Now  there  have  been  great  states- 
men in  this  country  who  have  taken  sides  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  I  think  Mr.  Jefferson  took  our  side.  There 
have  been  great  statesmen  also  who  have  taken  the 
other  side,  and  I  think  Alexander  Hamilton  was  the 
greatest  of  them  all.  He  it  was,  who  urged  that  the 
Chief  Executive  Magistrate  of  the  United  States  should 
be  re-eligible  from  term  to  term,  and  for  the  reasons 
which  have  been  given  by  the  gentleman  from  Pow- 
hatan, (Mr.  Hopkins,)  particularly,  that,  there  ought  to 
be  permanency  in  the  office,  that  the  President  ou^ht  to 
have  time  to  mature  and  carry  into  effect  his  plans, 
and  that  one  term  was  too  sh  )rt  for  such  a  purpose. 
The  legitimate  result  of  the  argument  was,  that  the 
President  ought  to  serve  during  good  behavior.  He 
went  for  continued  re-eligibility  because  he  be- 
lieved that  the  President  should  not  return  at  all 
to  the  great1  body  of  the  people,  but  should  serve 
during  good  behavior.  Those  who  sustain  his 
proposition,  mu^t  go  for  the  same  thing,  for  certainly 
their  arguments  lead  to  that  result.  It  is,  in  fact, 
an  argument  in  iavor  of  the  election  of  a  governor  for 
life.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  gentleman  has 
expressed  that  idea,  but  such,  I  contend,  is  the  result 
to  which  the  carrying  out  of  their  arguments  to  their 
full  and  legitimate  extent  will  lead.  Does  not  the  Con- 
vention remember  the  notice  taken  by  the  gentleman 
from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  of  the  statement  of  the 
gentleman  from  Marion,  (Mr.  Neeson,)  that  in  thirteen 
out  of  eighteen  cases  fie  governor  had  been  elected  in 
Virginia  as  long  as  he  cou.d  be,  under  the  cor  stilution? 
Do  they  not  also  remember  the  remark  of  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac  that  there  was  a  good  old  thingin  Virginia 
for  which  he  honored  the  people,  and  that  was  a  disposi- 
tion to  keep  their  officers  a  long  time  in  office,  and  he 
referred  to  the  instance  of  Mr.  Newton,  whom  the  people 
elected  for  thirty-one  years,  and  of  Mr.  Burwell  Basset 
whom  they  elected  for  thirty-five  years.  Now  in  this 
discussion  of  the  eligibility  of  the  governor  he  has  told  us 
that  the  governor  ought  to  be  re-elected  without  restric- 
tion, and  he  has  told  us  also  that  one  good  thing  which 
characterised  the  people  of  Virginia,  was  their  disposition 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


231 


to  retain  the  public  officers  in  service  for  a  long  time. 
What  is  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  when  taken  together,  if  it  be  not  that  the 
governor  should  be  continued  in  office  as  long  as  he  con- 
ducted himself  properly  ?  I  am  against  it,  whether  he  be 
a  good  or  a  bad  officer.  I  desire  that  he  shall,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  bill  of  rights,  return  to  the  body  of 
the  people  and  become  one  of  them  again.  I  be- 
lieve it  necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the  administra- 
tion of  the  office  pure  and  untarnished.  In  my  opinion 
the  framers  of  our  constitution  thought  that  from  the 
fact  that  the  governor's  was  more  of  an  aristocratic  office, 
one  more  monarchical  in  its  form  and  substance  than 
any  other,  that  it  was  necessary  that  this  restriction 
should  be  imposed  to  guard  against  the  tendency  to 
monarchy  or  to  a  life  office,  which  is  but  another  form 
of  monarchy.  And  gentlemen  who  advocate  the  removal 
of  this  wholesome  restriction  imposed  with  such  a  view, 
should  give  us  the  fullest  evidence  that  the  people  de- 
sire its  removal,  before  they  call  upon  us  to  aid  them 
in  removing  it.  This  they  have  failed  to  do.  Believing, 
therefore  that  the  establishment  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
re-eligibility  of  the  governor  is  not  desired  by  the  peo- 
ple, that  it  is  against  the  bill  of  rights,  and  that  it  is  anti- 
republican  in  its  tendency,  I  am  against  it. 

Mr.  PURKINS.    I  am  aware  that  at  this  late  hour  of 
the  discussion  the  committee  must  be  much  weari- 
ed.   I  feel  it  myself,  and  if  I  did  not,  the  indications 
which  have  been  manifested  too  frequently  within  the 
last  few  days,  would  admonish  me  most  clearly  of  it.  I 
did  not  intend  when  this  discussion  arose,  to  have  ming- 
led in  it  at  all.  nor  should  I  do  so  now,  but  for  the  unfor- 
tunate position  in  which  I  find  myself  placed,  differing 
in  the  vote  which  1  shall  be  compelled  to  give,  from  the 
majority  of  those  who  come  from  my  immediate  district. 
It  devolves  upon  me  then,  the  necessity  of  doing  what 
in  my  whole  life,  I  never  expected  to  do,  what  hereto- 
fore I  have  never  felt  either  a  desire  or  a  necessity  to 
do — to  define  my  position.    I  have  been  greatly  aston- 
ished, not  only  at  the  different  issues  which  have  been 
brought  into  this  debate,  but  at  the  great  magnitude  of 
the  debate  itself.    I  had  supposed,  when  this  question 
was  first  presented,  that  we  might  have  decided  it  in 
ten  hours,  instead  of  ten  days.    But  the  debate  has 
taken   a  wide  range,  has  embraced  almost  every 
subject    which    can    come    before    this    body;  and 
it  is  begun  to  be   clearly  indicated  now,  that  the 
decision  of  every  question  which  will  be  likely  to 
come  before  this  body,  is  to  depend  upon  the  decis 
ion  which   this   committee  make    of   this  question 
now  before  us.    I  do  not  mean  that  my  course  shall  be 
determined  by  any  such  vote.    I  mean  to  give  my  vote 
upon  each  pending  question,  independent  of  all  conside 
rations  connected  with  all  other  questions  which  maybe 
brought  up.    It  will  matter  little  with  me  whether  we 
make  the  governor  elected  for  two,  three,  four  or  any 
number  of  years,  it  will  not  change  the  votes  which  I 
intend  to  give,  either  for  or  against  the  proposition  for 
a  second  term,  or  to  let  the  people  decide  whether  he 
shall  be  restricted.  That  is  the  question  at  last,  whether 
this  body  intend  to  restrict  their  officer  to  one  term , 
without  regard  to  the  popular  will  upon  the  subject,  or 
whether  they  intend  to  leave  it  to  the  popular  will  to 
determine  whether  he  shall  continue  in  the  executive 
office  or  not.    I  have  been  astonished  by  the  positions 
which  have  been  taken  by  gentlemen  on  this  subject.  I 
was  astonished  at  first,  that  the  question  should  have 
originated  the  issues  as  to  whether  we  had  a  right  to  im- 
pose restrictions  upon  the  popular  will,  as  to  whether 
there  should  be  any  restrictions  upon  the  popular  will, 
and  as  to  whether  these  restrictions  should  be  carried 
to  a  definite  or  unlimited  extent.    I  was  raised  in  the 
school  of  politicians  that  taught  me  that  the  government 
itself,  all  the  laws  which  were  made  in  pursuance  of  that 
government,  were  designed,  as  they  really  were  when  they 
were  executed,  to  be  restrictions  upon  the  people  as  well 
as  upon  their  agents,  and  my  imagination  has  never  yet 
been  so  vivid,  and  I  trust  in  God  it  never  will  become 
so,  that  I  could  conceive  of  a  government  which  im 


posed  no  restrictions  whatever  upon  those  who  were  to 
be  subject  to  that  government.  I  never  read  in  history, 
I  never  heard  from  the  lips  of  mortal  man,  until  I  came 
into  this  body,  that  such  a  government  could  be  organ- 
ized on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Why,  your  federal  gov- 
ernment is  a  government  of  restrictions,  and  there  are 
complaints  on  the  one  side  that  the  restrictions  are  too 
limited,  and  on  the  other  side  that  restrictions  them- 
selves are  too  heavy  to  be  borne.  There  is  not  a  gov- 
ernment of  any  kmd  that  I  can  imagine,  in  which  the 
Constitution  of  the  government  is  not  a  restriction  upon 
the  rights  of  those  who  originate  that  government,  as 
well  as  upon  the  agents  who  are  to  carry  that  govern- 
ment into  effect.  1  am  not  one  of  that  class  of  politi- 
cians who  hold  that  no  restrictions  are  to  be  imposed  on 
the  rights  or  the  powers  of  the  people.  On  the  contra- 
ry, I  believe  that  we  have  met  here  for  the  very  purpose 
of  imposing  restrictions  on  the  people.  Why,  to  my 
mind,  if  you  impose  no  restrictions  whatever  on  the 
rights  of  the  people,  you  reduce  us  to  a  state  of  anarchy. 
The  people  did  not  send  us  here  for  any  such  purpose. 
I  came  myself  for  the  same  pu  ose  that  my  friend  from 
Appomattex  (Mr.  Bococx)  declares  he  came.  I  came 
to  look  at  every  question  which  might  be  brought  before 
us,  and  say  how  far  it  was  an  expedient  or  an  inexpedient 
restriction  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  and  upon  the 
agents  whom  the  people  have  selected.  I  regard  this 
question  of  re-eligibility  of  the  governor  of  the  com- 
monwealth as  a  question  of  expediency,  to  be  determin- 
ed as  the  best  judgment  of  this  body  may  think  it  ought 
to  be  determined,  either  the  one  way  or  the  other.  Sub- 
scribing to  the  general  views  in  reference  to  govern- 
ment, which  my  friend  from  Appomottox  lays  down,  I 
regret  most  siucerely  that  I  have  to  differ  with  him,  not 
oniy  in  the  conclusions  to  which  he  has  arrived,  but  also 
in  some  of  the  incidental  remarks  which  he  made.  One 
objection  which  he  urges  to  the  re-eligibility  of  the  ex- 
ecutive, is  that  of  the  .bill  of  right  requires  that  office- 
holders of  the  government,  shall  return  at  stated  peri- 
ods to  the  people,  and  to  private  station,  to  mingle 
again  with  the  people  and  become  a  part  of  the  people. 
Now  I  do  not  see*  how  that  clause  in  the  bill  of  rights 
is  to  decide  in  one  single  particular  as  to  the  course 
which  we  should  pursue  upon  the  amendment  of  my 
colleague,  (Mr.  Tredway)  or  upon  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts.)  I  do  not 
s;e  that  if  we  take  that  as  a  basis  upon  which  we  are 
to  build  all  our  rights  and  as  a  guide  to  the  course  which 
we  may  pursue  upon  this  question,  we  are  thereby  com- 
mitted .  me  way  or  the  other.  Why,  my  friend  h  imself  has 
practically  demonstrated  the  contrary  and  shown  that 
this  principle  of  re-eligibility  does  not  require  that  the 
officer  should  return  at  stated  periods  to  Ihe  people. 
He  foresaw  that  this  would  be  declared  to  him,  and 
hence  he  told  us  that  although  members  of  the  legislature 
were  elected  annually,  yet  actually  they  were  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  duties  of  their  office  but  three  months  during 
the  year,  and  then  they  returned  to  the  people  and  made 
one  or  more  crops  as  they  thought  best.  Then  the 
question  should  be  whether  the  governor  should  be  a 
farmer,  and  whether  he  shou.M  be  possessed  of  the1 
means  of  cropping,  for  in  truth  whether  the  governor  is 
re-eligible  or  ineligible,  he  would  occupy  the  same  po- 
sition as  the  members  of  your  State  legislature,  who  are 
elected  every  year,  and  he  might  make  his  crops 
through  his  agents,  as  most  farmers  do.  But  there  is 
an  anomaly  in  the  office  of  a  member  of  the  legislature 
which  would  hardly  occur  in  the  office  of  the  executive,, 
at  least  it  could  not  occur  for  so  long  a  period  of  time. 
They  take  their  seats  in  December  or  January.  Well, 
if  they  were  members  of  the  last  legislature,  they  have 
that  office  and  the  office  which  they  before  held,  stilt 
suspended  over  them.  This  could  never  occur  in  re- 
gard to  the  executive. 

I  was  a  little  struck  with  the  argument  of  my  friend 
from  Appomattox,  that  the  governor  had  the  appoint- 
ment of  bank  directors,  and  my  friend  savs  that  two* 
bank  directors  out  of  three  could  prevent  any  discount, 
and  this  he  said  in  connection  with  an  argument  whichl 


232 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


he  was  pressing  to  show  that  the  patronage  of  the  ex- 
ecutive, if  he  was  rendered  re  eligible,  would  be  so  awful 
and  dang-erous  as  to  corrupt  the  people.    Now,  did  any 
man  ever  hear  of  the  people  being  corrupted  by  the  re- 
fusal of  a  loan  on  the  part  of  the  banks  ?    I  should 
like  my  friend  to  tell  me  how  many  votes  he  supposes 
a  candidate  could  make  by  the  refusal  of  those  two  bank 
directors  to  discount  paper.    Another  position  which 
my  friend  from  Appomattox  took,  was,  the  ineligibility 
of  the  governor  would  most  certainly  break  down  the 
caucus  system.    Now  it  is  precisely  for  the  purpose  of 
breaking  down  this  caucus  system  that  I  shall  give  an 
opposite  vote  to  him.    If  there  is  any  one  means  which 
can  be  devised  by  the  wit  of  man  above  all  others  to 
perpetuate  the  caucus  system  in  Virginia  in  regard  to 
the  executive  officer  of  the  commonwealth,  and  to  throw 
the  election  of  that  officer  into  the  hands  of  politcians, 
and  corrupt  politicians  if  you  please,  it  is  to  render  him 
ineligible.    The  struggle  commences  as  soon  as  he  en- 
ters upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  and  commences  among 
the  politicians.    There  are  always  fifty  men  out  who' 
desire  to  get  in,  where  you  will  find  the  third  of  a  man 
in  that  desires  to  get  out.    The  effort  will  be  among 
politicians  to  take  his  place,  for  they  know  that  at  the 
expiration  of  his  term,  his  service  is  ended  forever  ;  that 
the  acts  of  his  administration  will  not  be  subject  to  pop- 
ular revision,  whether  for  approval  or  condemnation; 
and  they  will  set  themselves  to  work  to  fill  his  place 
with  one  of  their  own  body.    Where  will  it  commence  ? 
Why,  in  your  legislature— your  executive  will  be  at- 
tacked there.    The  debate  will  go  out  to  the  people, 
and  then  every  evil  which  is  to  result  from  partisanship 
in  the  election,  to  which  my  friend  from  Appomattox  re- 
ferred, will  come  with  doubled  and  redoubled  force  in 
every  election  that  shall  take  place.    If  you  would 
strike  an  effectual  blow  at  the  caucus  system,  you  must 
render  your  executive  office  re-eligible.    Let  the  people 
decide  whether  they  will  re-elect  him  or  not.    Let  the 
office-holders  keep  silence.    Let  them  know  that  if  they 
attempt  to  force  an  individual  upon  the  people  through 
the  caucus,  they  will  be  entirely  defeated  by  the  effort 
on  the  part  of  the  governor  himself,  or  of  his  political 
friends,  to  succeed  without  the  nomination. 

Now,  it  has  been  argued  that  the  first  term  of  the  of- 
fice of  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  always 
been  the  best  term  of  that  officer,  and  I  suppose  it  would 
have  been  conceded  as  resulting  necessarily  in  an  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  re-eligibility,  but  in  the  view  of  the 
gentleman  from  Appomattox,  the  intrigues  and  corrup- 
tions in  their  second  term  proceed  not  from  the  officer's 
ineligibility  to  the  third  term,  but  because  he  has  been 
re-eligible  and  been  absent  from  the  people  until  he 
has  learned  the  tricks  of  office,  and  become  corrupt. 
Now,  I  hold  that  in  making  the  governor  re-eligible, 
you  will  restrain  his  conduct  by  the  hope  of  reward  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  fear  of  punishment  on  the  other. 
Where  there  is  hope  of  reward  there  will  be  the  effort 
to  obtain  it ;  where  there  is  fear  of  punishment  there 
will  be  an  effort  to  avoid  it.  Where  you  hold  .  out  to 
him  the  hope  of  re-election,  as  a  reward  for  just  services 
rendered,  you  will  secure  purity  and  fidelity  in  the  of- 
fice holder;  you  will  thereby  have  a  better  assurance 
of  a  good  and  faithful  administration.  Iam  not  one  of 
those  who  believe  that  re-eligibility  to  any  office  is  the 
only  means  of  securing  responsibility  or  accountability. 
There  are  some  officers  that  we  shall  create  whom  I 
shall  vote  to  render  ineligible,  because  the  reasons  which 
govern  me  there  have  satisfied  my  own  mind  that 
it  will  tend  to  make  the  office  holders  in  that  instance 
"better,  more  faithful  and  honest  in  the  discharge  of  their 
official  duties.  In  high  political  offices,  like  the  execu- 
tive officer  of  government,  and  it  may  be  said  in  regard 
to  all  political  officers  of  the  commonwealth,  I  know  of 
no  responsibility  and  of  no  accountability  which  can  pos- 
sibly be  expected  to  be  rendered  by  him  which  is  so 
likely  to  produce  an  honest  discharge  of  the  duties  «f 
the  office,  as  to  make  him  amenable  to  the  people  by 
the  ballot-box. 


But  I  did  not  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
I  rose  merely  to  explain  my  own  position  in  this  "body, 
which,  I  will  take  occasion  to  say,  in  the  language  of  my 
friend  from  Appomattox,  is  neither  that  of  an  "  infinite 
radical,  nor  of  a  conservative,"  in  the  sense  indicated 
by  my  friend  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton.)  I  stand 
on  a  middle  ground  prepared  to  go  for  every  amend- 
ment, for  every  change,  or  every  reform,  which  may 
be  introduced  in  this  Convention,  which,  in  my  judg- 
ment, will  be  an  improvement  upon  the  government 
of  Virginia,  and  I  am  prepared  to  vote  against  every 
change  attempted  to  be  made  which,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  may  result  in  the  destruction  of  the  powers 
or  rights  of  the  people,  or  impair  and  destroy  the  gov- 
ernment itself. 

Mr.  STEWART,  of  Morgan.  I  do  not  rise  at  this  late 
hour  of  this  protracted  discussion  for  the  purpose  of 
making,  or  attempting  to  make,  a  set  speech.  A  great  ma- 
ny of  the  views  which  I  entertain  upon  this  subject,  have 
been  already  more  happily  expressed  by  ottier  gentle- 
men advocating  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  dis- 
tinguished gentleman  from  Henrk-o,  (Mr  Botts,)  than 
I  could  have  hoped  to  have  expressed  them  myself. 
For  this  reason,  I  will  not  worry  the  committee  by 
attempting  any  lengthy  repetition  or  reiteration  of 
those  views.  But  I  do  entertain  some  opinions  on  this 
question,  which  I  think  have  not  yet  been  expressed — 
at  least,  only  in  an  incidental  way — and  which  I  will  en- 
deavor to  present  to  this  committee  in  as  brief  a  form 
as  possible.  I  beg  leave  here,  in  passing,  to  remark 
that  I  have  listened  to  the  whole  of  this  discussion 
with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure.  It  is  true  that  it  has 
taken  a  very  wide  range,  and  has  been  discussed  in  al- 
most every  variety  of  shape  and  form,  gravely,  solemn- 
ly, philosophically,  metaphysically,  eloquently,  and 
laughingly,  so  that  the  field  of  argument  has  been  near- 
ly exhausted,  and  those  of  us  who  come  in  to  partici- 
pate in  it  now,  must  be  satisfied  with  being  mere  glean- 
ers of  the  work.  I  have  said  we  have  had  every  va- 
riety of  questions  discussed,  and  we  have  had  a  little 
of  democracy,  republicanism,  monarchy,  aristocracy  and 
oligarchy  defined  and  refined  by  gentlemen  here — until 
yesterday,  I  thought  we  had  reached  the  "jumping  off 
place,"  and  would  go  no  further,  when  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton.)  was  about  to  show  de- 
mocracy to  be  a  fighting  cock,  and  the  devil,  [laughter,] 
when  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  came  to  his  feet, 
and  turned  the  devil  into  a  dove.  I  then  thought, 
the  devil  had  come  to  us  with  an  olive  branch, 


as 

that  we 

had  at  last  found  a  resting  place  for  our  ark,  and  should 
find  the  water*  retiring,  and  the  deluge  almost  gone. 
But,  sir,  I  began  to  fear  this  morning,  while  my  worthy 
friend  from  Appomattox,  (Mr.  Bocock,) — who,  I  am 
sure,  meant  no  disrespect  to  the  gentleman  from  Acco- 
mac— was  speaking,  that  we  were  going  to  have  a  little 
more  of  the  lightning  and  the  tempest.  If  they  will  not 
deem  it  presumptuous  in  me — which  I  feel  assured 
they  will  not — I  beg  them  to  remember  that  we  neces- 
sarily must  have  free  discussion  here,  and  that  we  must 
bear  and  forbear  with  each  other,  and  not  get  angry 
at  trifles.  I  know  myself  to  be  one  of  the  most  excitable 
men  in  the  world,  yet,  so  help  me  Heaven,  I  do  not 
mean  to  get  angry  with  any  body  during  the  sitting 
of  this  Convention.  [Laughter.]  The  gentleman 
from  Richmond  city,  (Mr.  Davis,)  has  set  us  the  exam- 
ple of  quoting  poetry,  and  it  has  become  quite  fashion- 
able, and  as  I  do  not  wish  to  be  singular,  I  will  quote 
a  little  for  my  friends  from  Accomac  and  Appomattox, 
and  beg  them  to  remember  that — 

"  Let  dogs  delight  to  bark  and  bite, 
For  God  hath  made  them  so  ; 
Let  bears  and  lions  growl  and  fight, 
For  it  is  their  nature  too. 
But  little  children  you  should  never  let 
Your  angry  passions  rise, 
Your  little  hands  were  never  made 
To  tear  each  other's  eyes."    [Laughter  ] 

Now,  in  all  conscience,  we  have  trials  and  difficul- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


233 


ties  enough,  to  get  through  with  the  ordinary  duties  of 
this  Convention,  without  the  introduction  of  any  extra- 
neous subjects,  and  I  regret,  nay  sir,  I  deplore,  every 
time  I  hear  any  allusion  made  to  the  sectional  controver- 
sies existing  in  this  State,  and  among  members  upon  this 
floor.    I  do  not  like  this  outcry  about  eastern  and  wes- 
tern Virginia,    It  falls  as  gratingly  upon  my  ears  and 
as  heavily  upon  my  soul,  as  the  outcry  of  north  and 
south  when  applied  to  our  National  Union.    The  least 
we  refer  to  such  views  the  better  for  us — the  better 
for  our  children — the  better  for  the  common  renown, 
the  common  glory,  and  the  common  prosperity  of  our 
beloved  old  State.    I  am  a  western  man — perhaps  too 
western  in  my  feelings — but  I  do  not  mean  to  let  them 
control  me  so  far  as  to  forget  who  I  am,  and  where  I 
am.    I  hope  and  trust  in  God,  that  while  I  am  a  wes- 
tern Virginian,  that  I  shall  never  forget  that  I  am  a 
Virginian.    I  love  this  old  commonwealth  in  all  its 
length  and  breadth — from  the  Potomac — my  own 
home — to  the  Tennessee  line,  and  from  the  sea  to  the 
Ohio — and  I  know  she  has  trials  enough,  as  a  member 
of  this  great  confederacy,  to  try  her  patience  and  excite 
her  apprehensions,  without  stirring  up  strife  among  her 
own  sons  living  in  the  eastern  and  western  sections  of 
her  domain.    I  hope,  before  we  get  through  with  the 
discussions  which  must  necessarily  take  place  in  this 
Convention,  we  shall  be  enabled  to  reconcile — I  was  go- 
ing to  say — ail  this  dissimilarity  of  feeling  and  interest ; 
but  I  will  not  admit  that  there  is  any  material  dissimi- 
larity of  interest  between  eastern  and  western  Virginia. 
No — we  are  one  people,  one  in  interest,  one  and  indivis- 
ible for  weal  or  woe.    I  cannot  understand  why  1  who 
came  from  a  county  lying  immediately  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge,  and  my  friend,  in  my  eye,  from  Henry, 
(Mr.  Martin,)  from  a  district  lying  immediately  east  of 
that  beautiful  range  of  mountains,  should  belong  to  a 
different  people,  and  have  such  great  dissimilarity  of 
interests  as  to  drive  us  asunder.    We  never  were  any- 
thing else  than  one  people,  but  at  this  day  we  are  em- 
phatically one  people,  of  mutual  hopes,  mutual  inter- 
ests, and  mutual  dependences.    A  new  era  has  come — 
the  spirit  of  improvement  has  taken  possession  of  our 
people,  and  has  aroused,  and  will  continue  to  arouse,  if 
judiciously  managed,  the  old  commonwealth  to  a  true 
sense  of  her  condition  and  high  mission.    I  hope,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  remarked  the  other  day,  that 
we  may  live  to  seethe  pure  mountain  rills  gushing  down 
through  the  gorges  of  our  mountains,  and  rushing  on  to 
swell  and  disturb  the  stagnant  tadpole  pools  of  eastern 
Virginia.    Aye,  sir,  I  hope  that  day  is  not  far  distant 
when  we  shall  see  the  lofty  peaks  of  the  Blue  Ridge 
and  the  Alleghanies  bowing  their  heads  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  pick-axe  and  the  shovel  of  improvement ; 
and  the  deep  and  solemn  vales  of  those  mountains  ring- 
ing with  the  echoes  of  the  mighty  steam  engine  as  it 
bears  the  rich  treasures  of  the  trade  and  commerce  of 
the  Mississippi  valley  to  enrich,  build  up  and  prosper 
our  commercial  cities  and  towns  in  the  east.  I  trust  that 
our  western  friends  may  yet  be  enabled  to  see  the  com- 
pletion of  our  great  water  line  improvement,  and  proud- 
ly hail  with  exulting  voice  the  rich  wave  of  commerce 
as  it  comes  rushing  from  the  ocean,  through  the  gorges  of 
our  mountains,  to  mingle  itself  with  the  bright  waters 
of  the  beautiful  Ohio.    Then  we  are  one  people,  and 
it  is  commerce  that  is  to  level  our  mountains  and  fill  up 
our  vallies.    Commerce  is  the  grand  leveler  of  this 
day — it  is  the  great  radical,  who,  like  the  mighty  giant, 
has  risen  up  in  his  strength,  and  stricken  down  all  of  the 
impediments  which  their  old  theories  and  impracticable 
abstractions  had  placed  in  the  way  of  progress.    It  has 
created  a  tie  which  will  ever  bind  our  people  together. 
It  must  be  one  of  harmony  because  of  mutual  advantage 
and  benefit.    The  connection  of  interest  promotes  social 
intercourse — it  secures  the  bond  of  affection.    We  all 
know  the  ties  of  blood  and  kindred  may  be  severed  and 
broken,  but  it  is  rarely  ever  that  the  ties  of  commerce 
are  broken.    It  is  the  golden  link  which  now  secures 
the  harmony  of  our  own  country  and  England.    It  was 
18 


the  link  which  held  the  colonies  to  England  to  the  last. 
Look  at  its  influence  everywhere.  Look  at  it  at  home. 
Why  is  it  that  eastern  Virginia  is  now  seeking  to  reach 
the  Ohio  ?  Why  is  it  that  western  Virginia  wishes  to 
draw  near  to  the  Atlantic  f  It  is  because  we  are  one 
people — one  and  indivisible — of  mutual  interest  and 
mutual  dependences,  and  because  we  are  sensibly  aware 
that  the  ties  of  commerce  are  more  difficult  to  separate 
than  the  ties  of  blood.  If  these  views  be  correct,  let  us 
hear  no  more  on  this  floor  about  eastern  and  western 
Virginia  dissimilarity  and  want  of  homegeneousness  of 
interests. 

The  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts)  has  allu- 
ded to  the  talk  that  he  has  heard  out  of  doors,  that  if 
we  should  adopt  this  principle  of  re-eligibility,  the  west 
having  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  the  State,  that  the 
game  is  up  with  the  east,  and  that  the  east  will  never 
get  another  governor.  I  suppose  we  will  elect  one  of 
our  own  men  and  keep  him  there  as  long  as  we  choose, 
and  when  he  retires,  we  will  elect  another,  and  so  on 
ad  infinitum.  Truly  those  who  make  use  of  such  argu- 
ments must  regard  us  as  perfect  "  outsiders,"  as  barba- 
rians, as  men  who  have  come  here  to  fight  for  power 
for  the  sake  alone  of  its  possession,  to  enable  us  to  con- 
trol and  monopolize  the  honors  and  offices  of  the  State. 
Perhaps  we  are  to  be  measured  by  other  people's  bush- 
els, and  as  the  east  has  always  had  the  power,  the  offi- 
cers and  honors  of  the  State,  that  therefore  the  west 
wishes  to  play  her  for  even  from  this  time  forward. 
G-entlemen  who  talk  this  way,  know  but  little  of  western 
character — of  that  sterling  patriotism  and  homespun 
magnanimity  of  which  our  people  are  composed,  and 
which  they  practice  upon.  We  would  scorn  to  act  upon 
any  such  paltry  considerations.  I  predict  the  sequel  will 
prove  that  we  have  dealt  more  fairly  than  we  have  been 
dealt  with.  No  western  man  on  this  floor  has  ever  hinted 
such  a  desire  or  purpose.  We  have  sought  to  make  no 
sectional  issues,  or  make  any  sectional  appeals  since  the 
commencement  of  our  labors  here.  Who  came  into  this 
hall  to  throw  such  a  demon  of  discord  among  us  ?  Who 
started  this  idea  ?  Wa^  he  an  eastern  or  a  western 
man  ?  My  friend  from  Prince  George  told  me  the  other 
day  that  this  was  going  to  be  an  eastern  and  a  western 
question,  and  that  he  wanted  to  see  eastern  gentlemen 
face  the  music."  I  wish  him  to  tell  us  how  this  ques- 
tion is  to  assume  this  shape  ? 

Mr.  RIVES.  I  have  yet  to  hear  a  western  gentle- 
man advocate  the  adoption  of  this  resolution.  I  arrived 
at  my  conclusion  from  facts.  I  have  yet  to  hear  a 
western  gentleman  advocate  this  doctrine  of  ineligibil- 
ity. Facts  speak  louder  than  words,  and  to  that  degree 
certainly  the  question  has  assumed  an  eastern  and  wes- 
tern form. 

Mr.  STEWART.    That  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  a 
correct  conclusion.    Let  us  wait  till  the  vote  comes  and 
then  see.    I  know  of  western  gentlemen,  and  one  of 
them  is  a  colleague  of  mine,  who,  if  I  mistake  not,  dif- 
fers with  me  in  this  view,*  and  who  will  assume  the 
same  position  as  my  friend  from  Prince  George  and 
other  eastern  gentlemen  who  have  spoken.    There  are 
others  from  the  west  who  will  also  go  with  the  gentle- 
man, and  as  he  well  knows,  there  are  many  from  the 
east  who  will  go  with  me.    My  friend  seems  to  think 
because  western  gentlemen  do  not  choose  to  get  up  here 
and  inflict  a  speech  on  the  committee  upon  every  sub- 
ject, in  opposition  to  grounds  assumed  by  eastern  gen- 
tlemen, that  therefore  they  must  all  ex  necessitate  be 
against  those  views.    That  is  his  evidence — those  "the 
facts  that  speak  louder  than  words."    In  the  name  of 
God  has  old  Virginia  come  to  that  \  Deplorable 
as  she  has  been  represented  to  be,  I  never  knew  before 
that  she  had  bowed  her  head  so  low,  or  was  hobbling 
upon  such  crutches.    Great  God,  what  an  issue — what 
a  question  for  sectional  feeling  and  sectional  division ! 
I  trust  we  shall  hear  n©  more  such  arguments  as  those. 
No.    I  advocate  the  principle  of  re- eligibility  from  high- 
er and  more  noble  considerations,  I  trust.    I  do  not  ad- 
vocate it  as  the  gentleman  from  Spottsylvania  (Mr.  Con- 


234 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


way)  advocates  it,  as  a  question  of  expediency  simply. 
I  think  there  is  a  principle — a  vital  principle  involed  in 
it — if  I  did  not  think  so,  I  would  not  take  it  upon  the 
mere  ground  of  expediency  alone.  I  take  it  because 
there  is  a  principle  in  it,  which  is  above  any  mere  idea 
of  expediency. 

We  have  heard  all  kinds  of  despotism  spoken  of  on 
this  floor,  but  of  all  the  despotisms  that  have  ever  ex- 
isted under  the  sun,  this  doctrine  of  expediency  leads 
to  the  worst.  It  is  the  doctrine,  the  palliating  plea  and 
excuse  of  the  Jesuit,  and  carried  out  in  its  full  extent, 
it  would  quench  liberty  in  blood,  raze  religion  to  its 
foundations,  and  shut  the  gates  of  mercy  on  mankind. 
Tell  me  not  of  expediency  alone!  I  never  will  sacri- 
fice a  principle  to  expediency.  But  whenever  I  know 
a  principle  to  be  safe  and  sound,  and  it  is  right  and  pro- 
per and  expedient  to  apply  that  principle,  I  will  do  it. 

Gentlemen  have  refreshed  us  with  a  vast  deal  of 
learning  and  knowledge  drawn  from  the  philosophers, 
historians,  poets  and  fable  makers  of  both  ancient  and 
modern  times.  We  have  heard  of  the  Goths  and  Van- 
dals— and  of  king  log's  kingdom  and  king  stork's  king- 
dom— of  Locke,  Milton,  Puffendorf,  Vattel,  &c, — of 
the  Tribunes  at  Rome,  and  the  Archons  of  Athens. 
Indeed,  of  all  the  world  and  "  the  rest  of  mankind  " — 
for  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton)  yester- 
day gave  us  a  glance  into  the  palace  of  the  king  of  Tim- 
buctoo,  where  the  illustrious  monarch  of  that  distin- 
guished "  infusion  of  aristocracy,  monarchy  and  democ- 
racy "  had  two  wives  feeding  him  with  raw  beef  fixed 
upon  sharp  sticks.  [Laughter.]  This  morning  my 
friend  from  Appomattox  has  paraded  before  us  the  old 
"  raw  head  and  bloody  bones  "  of  the  French  revolution. 
Guibono?  What  application  has  it  to  the  subject  in 
hand  ? — And  I  ask  the  question  with  great  respect  and 
deference  to  the  able  gentleman  from  Appomattox.  That 
detestable  French  revolution — that  disgrace  to  mankind 
— that  reign  of  terror  which  stained  the  history  of  the 
world  with  the  blood  of  the  peaceable  and  unoffending — 
which  crushed  law  and  order,  and  swallowed  up  religion 
in  the  gulf  of  infidelity. 

The  CHAIR.  (Mr.  Sheffet,  temporarily  occupying 
it.)  It  is  not  in  order  for  the  gentleman  to  address  any 
but  the  Chair. 

Mr.  STEWART.  I  do  not  think  I  am  out  of  order, 
but  I  will  turn  round  to  you,  however.  [Laughter.]  I 
was  about  to  say  that  the  gentleman  had  warned  us 
that  the  French  revolution  had  settled  down  into  a  mil- 
itary despotism.  That  is  true — but  even  that  was  an 
improvement  upon  the  state  of  things  previous  to  the 
revolution.  It  was  escaping  from  a  rotten  and  corrupt 
despotism  of  priestcraft,  which  was  infinitely  worse 
than  the  despotism  of  the  bayonet.  I  speak  of  what 
history  tells  me  to  be  true.  After  all,  this  much  abused 
revolution  has  accomplished  good.  Religion  finally 
emerged  from  its  fangs  in  a  purer  state — the  wild  efforts 
at  popular  rights  and  popular  liberty  were  crushed — but 
the  seed  was  not  altogether  destroyed — it  has  bursted 
forth  again  after  many  years,  and  we  yet  hope  to  see  it 
grow  into  a  tree  sufficiently  strong  to  withstand  the 
lightning  and  the  tempest  of  that  volatile  people. 

But  to  come  more  closely  to  the  real  question  at  issue 
before  us.  Is  it  right  for  this  Convention,  as  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people,  to  take  away  the  power  of 
electing  the  governor  from  the  legislature — the  popular 
agents— and  transfer  it  to  the  people  themselves  ?  No 
gentleman  pretends  to  controvert  that  proposition.  It 
is  conceded  on  all  sides,  that  the  Governor  ought  to  be 
elected  by  the  people.  In  fact  we  have  passed  unani- 
mous sanction  upon  that  feature  of  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  the  executive  department.  Then,  if  it  be 
right  for  the  people  to  elect  a  governor  in  the  first  in- 
stance, it  certainly  is  right  for  them  to  re-elect  him  if 
they  choose  to  do  so — and  as  often  as  they  may  choose 
to  do  so.  Then,  if  the  principle  of  re-eligibility,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  be  wrong,  the 
principle  of  action  by  the  people  is  itself  wrong.  This 
is  the  point  to  which  this  question  resolves  itself,  when 


narrowed  down,  and  gentlemen  cannot  blink  it,  or  es- 
cape from  it.  I  say  it  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of 
the  capacity  of  the  people  for  self  government,  and 
without  intending  any  disrespect  whatever  to  gentlemen 
who  have  argued  this  question  on  the  other  side,  I  must 
say  that  I  think  I  have  seen  the  cloven  foot  sticking  out 
of  the  whole  of  their  argument.  Gentlemen  have  a 
fear  of  the  people,  and  though  they  may  avow  them- 
selves full  believers  in  the  capacity  ©f  the  people  for 
self-government,  yet  unconsciously,  perhaps,  they  have 
a  doubt  in  mental  reservation  really  as  to  their  capacity 
for  self-government.  I  repeat,  if  the  right  to  re-elect  be 
improper,  then  by  the  same  course  of  reasoning?  it  is 
equally  improper  to  elect  in  the  first  instance.  Indeed 
the  reasons  in  favor  of  a  re-election  and  of  the  principle 
of  re-eligibility,  are  stronger  even  than  those  which  ap- 
ply to  the  election  in  the  first  instance.  When  you  elect 
a  governor  for  the  first  time,  you  must  take  him  alto- 
gether upon  his  general  reputation,  and  how  do  you  get 
at  that  general  reputation  ?  Why,  by  hear  say— from 
the  mouths  of  his  personal  and  political  friends  and  par- 
tizans.  We  have  to  take  him  as  a  lady  does  a  husband, 
for  better  or  for  worse,  and  when  he  is  elected  he  is  in 
for  four  years.  But  when  we  come  to  re-elect,  then  we 
may  act  upon  some  judgment  of  our  own,  founded  upon, 
knowledge  and  acquaintance  with  the  officer,  his  views 
and  course  while  in  office,  and  of  the  manner  in  which, 
he  has  discharged  his  official  duties.  Thm  gives  the 
people  an  opportunity  to  judge  the  man — to  pass  in  re- 
view the  course  and  acts  of  the  incumbent. 

But  gentlemen  tell  us  he  will  become  corrupt  in  office,, 
and  will  use  his  position  to  secure  his  re-election.  low 
it  strikes  me  if  the  Governor  means  to  become  corrupt 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  re-election,  two  things  are 
necessary — he  must  have  somebody  to  corrupt,  and 
something  to  corrupt  with.  Who  is  he  to  corrupt  %  Hi* 
only  object  to  corrupt  any  body  is  to  get  into  office 
again,  and  again — it  must  then  be  the  appointing  pow- 
er—the people— whom  he  is  to  corrupt.  Gentlemen  must 
take  one  horn  of  the  dilemma  or  the  other.  If  the  gov- 
ernor becomes  corrupt,  and  corrupts- the  people — then, 
as  a  consequence,  the  people  must  foe  knaves  and  fools„ 
This  is  the  legitimate  deduction  from  the  argument  of 
gentlemen,  and  is  a  denial,  to  tha  t  extent,  of  the  capa- 
city of  the  people  for  self-government.  The  theory  of 
our  government  is,  that  it  is  founded  and  rests  upon  the 
virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people.  We  consider 
these  cardinal  requisites  to  exist  in  the  people.  All  re- 
gard them  to  be  as  necessary  to  the  existence  and  safe 
conduct  of  free  government,  as  are  the  properties  of 
light  and  heat  to  the  sun.  Then  if  it  be  true,  as  gen- 
tlemen argue,  that  the  people  can  become  corrupted, 
and  the  governor  can  corrupt  them,  I  say  they  are  both 
knaves  and  fools,  and  if  knaves  and  fools  they  are  not 
capable  of  self-government,  for  they  neither  have  the 
moral  nor  intellectual  capacity  for  the  discharge  of  the 
duty.  Knaves  and  fools  cannot  administer  government 
on  correct  principles — freedom  would  soon  sink  into 
vice  and  imbecility  in  such  hands.  That,  I  insist,  is  the 
legitimate  result  of  the  argument,  and  goes  to  show 
that  the  people  are  not  safe  depositories  of  power — but 
yet  gentlemen  will  not  so  openly  avow.  But  admit 
gratia  argumenti,  that  the  incumbent  would  become  cor- 
rupt, and  that  the  people  could  be  corrupted,  how  and 
with  what  is  the  corruption  to  be  effected  ?  There 
must  be  some  quid  pro  quo — some  reward — some  patro- 
nage to  bestow.  Now,  the  executive  plan  under  con- 
sideration proposes  to  strip  the  governor  of  power — 
absolutely  to  denude  him.  The  gentleman  from  Loudoun, 
(Mr.  Janney,)  who  all  so  highly  respect,  lectured  us  sol- 
emnly the  other  day  upon  executive  patronage,  its  dan- 
gers and  tendencies  to  corruption.  He  spoke  of  the  pa- 
tronage of  the  governor  being  greater  than  that  of  Pres- 
ident Fillmore  or  Queen  Victoria.  And  what  did  it 
amount  to — to  the  appointment  of  bank  directors,  in- 
ternal improvement  proxies,  inspectors  of  fish,  lard, 
flour,  <fec,  at  some  few  points  in  the  State.  The  argu- 
ment was  so  fully  and  triumphantly  met  by  the  gentle- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


235 


man  from  Hetirfro,  (Mr.  Botts,)  that  it  needs  no  further 
-elaboration  from  me  or  any  one  else.  In  fact,  the  gov- 
ernor n<rw  has  very  little  patronage,  and  will  have  less 
under  the  new  constitution.  The  intelligent  gentleman 
from  the  city  of  Richmond,  (Mr.  Meredith,)  who  ad- 
dressed so  clever  and  plausible  an  argument  to  us  some 
days  ago,  seemed  to  have  this  same  ghost  of  executive 
patronage  haunting  his  imagination.  He  said  it  was 
growing  in  the  State,  and  the  disposition  to  increase  it 
In  the  hands  of  the  governor  had  grown  with  fearful 
strides  in  the  last  ten  year?— -and  especially  by  the 
legislature,  in  their  extra  session  at  the  Fauquier 
Springs.  Now  I  deny  that  there  is  a  disposition  and 
desire  to  increase  patronage  in  the  hands  of  the  ex- 
ecutive of  this  State.  The  action  of  the  legislature 
at  the  springs  was  shaped,  as  was  openly  avowed,  not 
to  increase  executive  power,  but  to  curtail  power  in  the 
liands  of  that  obnoxious,  and  I  hope  doomed  oligarchy, 
the  county  courts.  That  was  it.  The  county  court  des- 
potism had  become  so  corrupt  and  overbearing,  that  it 
became  necessary  to  remove  all  the  power  possible  from 
their  hands.  They  preferred  to  place  it  in  the  hands  of 
the  governor,  till  such  time  as  the  people  could  take 
the  dispensation  of  it  into  their  own  hands.  They  wished 
to  curtail  the  powers  of  that  political  and  family  despo- 
tism in  the  State,  and  the  people  have  sanctioned  their 
action.  While  in  the  hands  of  the  county  courts,  every 
appointment  was  made  from  political  and  family  consid- 
eiations.  A  man  of  opposite  politics  to  the  majority  of 
the  court,  whether  whig  or  democratic,  stood  no  more 
chance  of  success,  than  a  patriotic  Hungarian  would  of 
pardon  if  in  the  hands  of  the  blood-thirsty  autocrats  of 
*'  the  allied  powers." 

The  OH  AIR.  The  Chair  would  remind  the  gentle- 
man that  the  question  is  upon  the  ineligibility  or  re- 
eligibility  of  the  governor,  and  that  therefore  debate 
cannot  be  entertained  on  the  question  of  the  county 
courts. 

Mr.  STEWART.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the  Chair 
for  calling  me  to  order,  but  in  truth  I  think  I  ought  to 
have  a  little  latitude  in  the  debate,  inasmuch  as  1  have 
not  spoken  before,  and  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that 
everybody  else  who  has  occupied  the  floor,  has  been 
allowed  to  discuss  everything  under  heaven.  I  was  re- 
plying to  an  argument  made  against  the  action  of  the 
legislature  in  transferring  the  appointment  of  inspec- 
tors, <fcc.,  from  the  county  courts  to  the  governor.  If 
the  argument  was  right  and  in  order  in  the  first  place, 
of  course  the  reply  was  right.  But  I  am  content  to 
to  leave  it,  as  I  was  done  with  that  point  when  called 
to  order. 

But  I  come  back  to  the  point  whence  I  digressed, 
and  I  beg  gentlemen  to  remember  that  if  the  people  be 
capable  of  self-government,  then  it  is  as  wrong  to  restrict 
them  in  the  power  of  re-election,  as  it  would  be  to 
restrict  them  in  the  first  instance.  I  wish  the  gentle- 
man from  Petersburg,  (Mr.  Rives,)  who  is  a  good  demo- 
crat, to  discard  his  eastern  notions,  and  act  upon  his 
democratic  creed,  and  come  up  on  the  republican  plat- 
form— the  capacity  of  the  people  for  self  government. 

The  fear  that  the  governor  will  electioneer,  is  another 
"  gorgon,  hydra  and  chimera  dire"  which  seems  to  dis- 
turb the  minds  of  gentlemen.  I  have  not  time  to  elabo- 
rate the  argument  here,  but  I  hope  he  may — it  will  do 
him  no  harm,  but  much  good — it  will  prove  a  mutual 
good  to  both  parties — the  governor  and  the  people. 
Free  canvassing — discussion  among  the  people,  imparts 
knowledge  to  the  people — clips  genius  of  its  wings  and 
teaches  common  sense — establishes  practical  views  in 
the  place  of  impracticable  abstractions.  It  was  the 
steel  which  struck  the  fire  from  the  flint  of  the  revolu- 
tion, aroused  the  people,  and  made  all  understand  its 
merits.  Our  public  men  need  to  know  Virginia.  One 
spirited,  free  canvass  upon  State  issues  would  impart 
more  Virginia  knowledge  to  the  people  than  all  of  the 
legislation  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  effectually  break 
down  this  eternal  cry  which  we  hare  so  constantly  rung 


in  our  ears  of  eastern  Virginia  interests,  and  western 
Virginia  interests — of  eastern  people,  and  western  peo- 
ple. 

It  seems  to  be  getting  very  unfashionable  and  dis- 
tasteful in  this  hall  to  speak  of  the  people,  and  the 
rights  of  the  people.  It  was  not  so  with  gentlemen 
when  they  were  on  the  hustings  in  August  last.  Aye,  it 
was  not  demagogueism  then  to  speak  of  the  people — of 
popular  rights  and  popular  liberty.  But  when  any 
one  rises  here  now  and  speaks  of  these  subjects,  it  is 
sure  to  curl  the  tip  end  of  some  conservati/e  nose,  and 
to  call  down  the  maledictions  of  some  conservative  rad- 
ical! Now  we  are  denounced  as  demagogues,  because 
of  our  professions  of  regard  for  the  people  and  their 
rights.  Be  it  so.  I  am  proud  of  being  such  a  dema- 
gogue. But  what  shall  we  say  of  radicals  who  in  Au- 
gust last  preached  as  we  now  do,  but  who  now  sneer  at 
these  dear  people  ?  I  should  call  this  the  double  distilled 
essence  of  the  demagogism  of  conservatism.  Perhaps 
some  of  these  "  dear  people"  in  the  counties  will  teach 
gentlemen  when  they  get  home,  that  they  too  under- 
stand it.    I  hope  so  at  least. 

Now  I  am  a  radical,  and  I  take  pride  in  saying  on  this 
floor,  that  I  belong  to  the  school  of  infinite  radicalism. 
Yes,  I  am  an  infinite  radical,  and  in  that  I  mean  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  I  am  a  true  conservative.  An  infinite 
radical  in  this  Convention  means  one  who  is  going  to  the 
i(  radix,"  and  with  a  determination  to  eradicate  and  ex- 
tirpate every  particle  of  monarchy,  aristocracy,  and  oli- 
garchy from  the  organic  law. 

The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton)  says  we 
have  come  here  to  amend,  but  I  cannot  see  what  there 
will  be  left  for  amendment  by  the  time  all  of  its  mon- 
archy, aristocracy,  and  oligarchy  is  eradicated.  It  will 
be  literally  used  up.  The  gentleman  knows  it  does 
not  answer  well  to  put  new  wine  in  old  bottles,  or  in- 
sert new  cloth  in  old — it  is  sure  to  make  the  rent  wider. 
This  is  what  we  mean  by  our  radicalism.  My  friend 
from  Berkeley,  (Mr.  Faulkner,)  now  in  my  eye,  on 
a  memorable  occasion  in  his  county,  when  he  and 
I  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  on  the  radical  plat- 
form, and  warred  against  new-fangled  conservatism, 
defined  "  republican  government  to  be  a  government 
of  the  people,  in  which  a  majority  prescribed  its 
laws  and  policy,  and  exercised  all  functions  of  legis- 
lative supremacy."  That  is  a  republican  govern- 
ment, and  all  the  consequences  flowing  from  such  a 
government  assert  the  capacity  of  the  people  for 
self-government.  That  is  all  that  an  infinite  radical 
wishes  to  assert.  He  wishes  the  people  to  exercise  all 
powers  which  it  is  not  necessary  and  indispensable  to 
the  existence  of  good  government  to  give  to  their  ap- 
pointed agents.  That  is  "  the  head  and  front  of  all 
the  offending  of  infinite  radicalism-— it  has  that  extent, 
no  more." 

But  I  have  trespassed  too  long  now  upon  the  patience 
of  the  committee  with  these  desultory  remarks,  and 
therefore  will  conclude  in  a  few  words. 

As  I  remarked  in  the  outset,  I  did  not  rise  to  make  a 
set  argument,  I  believed  the  committee  were  tired  of 
argument — hence  the  desultory  character  of  my  remarks. 
I  wished  to  cultivate  good  feelings  in  this  body — to 
harmonize,  as  far  as  my  humble  efforts  could  avail,  the 
sectional  feelings  of  gentlemen,  and  lead  them  to  be- 
lieve that  we  were  yet  children  of  one  common  house- 
hold, and  ought  to  remain  so  in  peace  and  harmony, 
and  endeavor  to  promote  a  common  good  in  every- 
thing. 

I  think  my  friend  from  Appomattox  (Mr.  Bocock) 
need  have  no  fears  of  his  western  brethren — they  will 
vote  for  eastern  governors.  I,  myself,  will  do  so,  when- 
ever I  think  it  right  to  do  so.  I  may  vote  for  my  friend 
from  Appomattox,  but  I  will  not  do  so  until  he  mends 
his  ways  and  gets  himself  a  wife. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  people  of 
the  west  will  vote  for  an  eastern  governor.  As  to  the 
qualification  which  he  requires  of  me,  should  I  desire 


236 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


to  become  a  candidate,  I  doubt  very  much  whether  the 
gentleman  is  not  right.  I  think  it  is  probable  that  he 
is  ;  but  I  suppose,  upon  his  principle,  that  he  does  not 
mean  to  put  it  in  the  constitution.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  think  it  was  the  duty  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  to  comprehend  the  position  which 
I  occupied  the  other  day,  before  he  attempted  to  answer 
it.  The  committee  will  remember  that  upon  that  occa- 
sion I  did  not  propose  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the 
various  questions  which  had  been  presented  to  the  com- 
mittee. I  desired  simply  to  define  my  own  position,  and  I 
did  not  occupy  more  than  five  or  six  minutes  of  time  in 
so  doing.  I  did  not  at  all  discuss  the  principle,  if  it 
be  one,  of  eligibility  or  ineligibility,  but  I  merely  stated 
that  I  considered  its  application  to  the  governor  as  a 
question  merely  of  expediency.  As  to  the  general 
policy  of  restrictions  upon  power,  I  entirely  concur  with 
the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  (Mr. 
Bocock.)  And  on  that  occasion  I  expressly  stated  that 
in  their  general  views  of  government,  I  concurred 
with  those  gentlemen  who  had  advocated  the  restriction 
here  proposed,  but  that  I  must  differ  from  them  in  the  vote 
I  should  give,  because,  so  far  as  the  application  of  that 
principle  was  concerned,  my  own  opinion  was,  that  it 
was  unwise  and  inexpedient.  In  other  words,that — look- 
ing to  the  great  end  in  view  in  all  these  various  proposi- 
tions, to  wit:  official  purity  and  diligence  in  the  incum- 
bent— in  my  judgment,  re-eligibility  would  better  secure 
that  end  than  ineligibility.  That  is  the  position  which  I 
occupied.  I  did  not  pretend  to  discuss  the  principle  of 
eligibility  or  ineligibility,  as  applied  to  any  other  case, 
but  merely  insisted  that  its  application  to  this  case  was 
a  mere  question  of  expediency.  And  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  gentleman  from  Morgan,  and  no  other 
gentleman  on  this  floor,  will  be  so  bold  as  to  deny  that 
the  application  of  this  principle  is  other  than  a  mere 
question  of  expediency. 

Mr.  STEWART.  I  comprehended  the  .  gentleman 
fully,  and  stated  him  precisely  upon  the  very  applica- 
tion which  he  has  given.  I  say  that  there  is  a  principle 
involved,  and  that  the  gentleman  alone  referred  to  the 
question  of  expediency.  I  said  that  upon  the  ground  of 
expediency  alone,  separated  entirely  from  principle,  that 
I  never  would  vote  for  it  under  any  circumstances  where 
a  principle  was  not  involved. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  I  understand  myself  as  occupying 
the  position  taken  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
when  last  up,  upon  this  point.  Certainly  there  can  be 
no  difference  of  opinion  between  gentlemen  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  question.  Look  to  the  other  provisions 
of  this  report.  There  is  the  restriction  as  to  age,  sanity, 
residence,  <fec.  Each  one  of  those  presents  the  question, 
is  it  or  is  it  not  expedient  to  impose  it  ?  That,  then,  is 
the  simple  question,  and  it  cannot  be  made  one  of  popu- 
lar sovereignty  at  all.    I  trust  I  am  now  understood. 

The  CHAIR.  The  friends  of  a  section,  or  of  any 
portion  of  it,  have  the  right  to  perfect  it  before  any 
portion  of  it  is  stricken  out.  The  question  then  comes 
up  first  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylva- 
nia (Mr.  Treadway)  to  strike  out  the  following  words 
from  the  first  section  : 

"  He  shall  be  ineligible  to  that  office  after  his  second 
term  shall  have  expired,  and  to  any  other  office  during 
his  term  of  service,"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words,  "  he  shall  not  be  eligible  for  the  term  next  suc- 
ceeding that  for  which  he  was  elected,  nor  to  any  other 
office  during  his  term  of  service,"  so  that  the  section 
will  read  as  follows  : 

1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  governor.  He  shall  hold  his  office 
for  the  term  of  four  years,  to  commence  on  the  —  day 

of          next  preceding  his  election,  and  he  shall  not 

be  eligible  for  the  term  next  succeeding  that  for  which 
he  was  elected,  nor  to  any  other  office  during  his  term 
of  service.  \ 

Mr.  BOTTS.    I  prefer,  if  the  question  is  about  to 


be  taken,  to  present  the  amendment  which  I  have  of- 
fered in  a  somewhat  different  form.  I  prefer  to  offer  a  , 
substitute  for  the  section  in  the  following  words: 

1.  The  chief  executive  power  of  this  Commonwealth 
shall  be  vested  in  a  governor.    He  shall  hold  his  office 

during  the  term  of   years  to  commence  on  the 

 day  of  ■   next  succeeding  his  election,  and  he- 
shall  be  ineligible  to  any  other  place  of  honor  or  emolu- 
ment. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Tredway — a  count  being  had,  Messrs.  Sheffey  and 
Taylor  acting  as  tellers — and  there  were — ayes  51, 
noes  33. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 
The  question  then  was  announced  to  be  on  the  substi- 
tute as  proposed  by  Mr.  Botts. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  move  that  the  committe  rise.  It 
is  manifest,  from  the  vote  that  has  been  taken,  that  the 
committee  is  very  thin,  and  ail  must  be  aware  that  there 
are  many  gentlemen  who  desire  to  vote  on  one  or  the 
other  side  of  this  question.  It  was  certainly  *  holly 
unexpected  that  the  vote  was  to  be  taken  to-day. 

The  motion  that  the  committee  rise  was  not  agreed  to. 
The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  substitute  offered 
by  Mr.  Botts— a  count  being  had,  and  the  same  gen- 
tlemen acting  as  tellers — and  there  were- — ayes  41 , 
noes  50. 

The  question  was  announced  to  be  on  the  first  sec- 
tion as  amended. 

THE  TERM  OF  OFFICE. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word  "four" 
and  insert  "two,"  so  that  the  term  of  office  shall  be  for 
two  years.  I  do  not  expect  the  proposition  to  carry, 
but  my  impressions  are  so  strong  as  to  its  propriety, 
that  I  desire  to  see  a  vote  taken  on  it. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  the  motion  to  strike  out 
was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  first  section  as 
amended  by  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Tredway' s  motion, 
and  it  was  agreed  to. 

MODE  OF  ELECTION. 

The  second  section  was  then  read  as  follows : 

2.  The  governor  shall  be  chosen  by  the  electors  of 
the  members  of  the  general  assembly,  at  the  times  and 
places  when  they  respectively  vote  for  members  there- 
of. The  returns  of  every  election  shall  be  sealed  and 
transmitted  by  the  proper  returning  officer  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  who  shall  deliver  them  to  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Delegates,  on  Ihe  first  day  of  the  ses- 
sion of  the  general  assembly  then  next  to  be  holden. 
The  speaker  of  the  house  of  delegates  shall  open  and 
publish  them  within  one  week  thereafter,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  majority  of  the  senate  and  house  of  delegates. 
The  person  having  the  highest  number  of  votes  shall  be 
governor  •  but  if  two  or  more  shall  be  equal  and  high- 
est in  votes,  one  of  them  shall  be  chosen  governor,  by 
joint  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  general  assembly. 
Contested  elections  shall  be  decided  by  both  houses  of 
the  legislature  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

There  being  no  amendment  proposed,  the  second  sec- 
tion was  then  agreed  to. 

QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  THE  OFFICE. 

The  third  section  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

3.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  governor 
unless  he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years, 
shall  bp  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  shall 
have  been  a  citizen  of  Virginia  for  five  years  next  pre- 
ceding his  election. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


237 


Mr.  CLAfBORNE.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word 
u  native,"  where  it  occurs  before  the  word  "  citizen"  in 
that  section. 

Mr.  DAVIS.    I  move  the  committee  rise. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — 
ayes  40,  noes  47. 

The  quest  ion  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Claiborne,  and  it  was  rejected — a  count  being  had — 
ayes  28,  noes  -55. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  I  move  to  strike  out  that  portion 
of  the  section  which  imposes  a  restiiction  as  to  age — 
the  words  "he  shall  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty 
years." 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  According  to  the  vote  taken  on  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  I 
believe  there  were  about  forty-rfour  members  absent. 
By  the  last  vote  there  appears  to  be  fifty-two  absent.  I 
■do  not  think,  therefore,  these  questions  ought  to  be 
pressed  here,  for  it  is  very  important  that  what  is  done 
here  should  be  done  by  a  majority  of  the  body. 

A  MEMBER.    We  cannot  get  them  here. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Then  we  ought  to  adopt  some  mode 
by  which  we  will  get  them  here.  I  move  the  com- 
mittee rise. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  hope  the  committee  will  rise  for  no 
such  reason. 

The  CHAIR.    It  is  not  a  debatable  motion. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  aware  of  that,  but  gentlemen  pre- 
face their  motions  by  explanatory  remarks.  It  will  be  a 
goo.  I  warning  to  absent  members. 

The  motion  that  the  committee  rise  was  not  agreed 
to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Mc  Comas,  audit  was  rejected. 

Mr.  McCOM.lS.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  latter! 
clause  of  the  section,  which  is  in  these  words  :  "  Andj 
shall  have  been  a  citizen  of  Virginia  for  five  years  next; 
precediug  his  election,"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  "  and  shall  be  at  the  time  of  his  election  a  citi- 
zen of  Virginia." 

The  motion  was  rejected. 

DISQUALIFICATION  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  M.  R.  EL  GARNETT.  I  move  to  add  the  fol- 
lowing proposition  at  the  close  of  the  section : 

"  Provided,  That  no  member  of  this  Convention  shall 
be  eligible  at  the  first  election  under  this  Constitution." 
[Laughter.] 

The  motion  was  rejected. 

The  third  section  was  then  agreed  to. 

SALARY  OF  THE  GOVERNOR. 

The  fourth  section  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

4.  The  Governor  shall  reside  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment, and  shall  receive  for  his  services  the  sum  of  five 
thuusaud  dollars  for  each  year  of  his  term,  and  shall 
not  receive  within  that  period  any  other  emolument 
from  this  or  auy  other  State  or  government. 

Mr.  G  J  JDS.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  words  five 
thousand,*'  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words 
11  four  thousand." 

The  motion  was  rejected. 

Mr.  BY'RD.  I  move  to  strike  out  the  words  "for  his 
services  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars,"  and  to  insert 
in  lieu  thereof  the  words  following  :  "  a  compensation 
to  be  fixe  1  by  law,  which  shall  neither  be  increased  nor 
diminished.'' 

I  think  this  body  should  carefully  refrain  from  exer- 
cising any  of  the  ordinary  functions  of  the  legislature, ' 
and  if  there  is  any  one  function  which  is  peculiarly  one 
of  legislation,  it  does  seem  to  me  it  is  this  business  of 
fixing  salaries.  In  regard  to  the  amount  of  salary,  as 
fixed  in  the  section,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  it  is  too 
high  or  too  low  ;  although  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
$5,000  is  an  enormous  salary  for  the  present  time,  but 
what  may  be  an  enormous  salary  now,  may  be  too  small 


a  salary  ten  years  hence,  and  that  is  evidence  of  the 
impropriety  of  this  Convention  attempting  to  fix  any 
salary  whatever.  It  is  a  matter  exclusively  of  legisla- 
tion, and  it  should  be  left  to  that  body. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  the  motion  was  re- 
jected. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  move  to  amend  the  section  by  stri- 
king out  the  word  -'term,"  and  to  insert  in  lieu'there- 
of  the  word  "  services."  His  term  is  for  four  years, 
and  before  the  expiration  of  it  he  may  die,  or  resign  his 
office. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to,  as  was  the  section 
thus  amended. 

POWER  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  OVER  THE  MILITIA. 

The  fifth  section  was  then  read  : 
5.  He  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted ;  shall  from  time  to  time,  communicate  to  the 
Legislature  the  condition  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measure?  as  he 
may  deem  expedient ;  he  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of 
the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  State  ;  shall  convene 
the  Legislature  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  when, 
in  his  opinion,  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth  shall 
require  it.  He  shall  have  power  to  embody  the  militia, 
when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it ; 
to  remit  fines  and  penalties,  under  such  rules  and  regu- 
lations as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons,  or  commute  the  punishment,  except 
when  the  prosecution  shall  have  been  carried  on  by  the 
House  of  Delegates,  or  the  law  shall  otherwise  parti- 
cularly direct  ;  to  conduct,  either  in  person,  or  in  such 
other  manner  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  all  inter- 
course with  other  and  foreign  States  ;  and,  during  the 
recess  of  the  legislature,  to  fill,  pro  tempore,  all  vacan- 
cies in  those  offices  for  which  the  Constitution  and 
Laws  make  no  provision:  Provided,  That  his  appoint- 
ments to  such  vacancies  shall  be  by  commission  to  ex- 
pire at  the  end  of  thirty  days  after  the  commencement 
of  the  session  of  the  Legislature  next  preceding  the 
date  of  such  commission. 

Mr  FUQUA.    I  move  that  the  committee  rise. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning,  at  11  o'clock. 


FRIDAY,  February  14,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kepler,  of  the  Episcopal 
church. 

The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  WHITTLE, 
resumed  the  consideration,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
(Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk  in  the  Chair,)  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 

POWER  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  OVER  THE  MILITIA. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  5th  sec- 
tion, which  was  read  by  the  Secretary,  as  follows : 

5.  He  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted ;  shall,  from  time  to  time,  communicate  to  the 
Legislature  the  condition  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he 
may  deem  expedient.  He  shall  be  commander-in-chief 
of  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  State  ;  shall  convene 
the  Legislature,  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  or 
when,  in  his  opinion,  the  interest  of  the  Commonwealth 
shall  require  it.  He  shall  have  power  to  embody  the 
militia,  when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  re- 


238 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


quire  it;  to  remit  fines  and  penalties  under  such  rules 
and  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law ;  to  grant 
reprieves  and  pardons,  or  commute  the  punishmeut,  ex- 
cept when  the  prosecution  shall  have  been  carried  on 
by  the  House  of  Delegates,  or  the  law  shall  otherwise 
particularly  direct ;  to  conduct,  either  in  person  or  in 
such  other  manner  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  all  in- 
tercourse with  other  and  foreign  States  ;  and,  during 
the  recess  of  the  Legislature,  to  fill,  pro  tempore,  all  va- 
cancies in  those  offices  for  which  the  Constitution  and 
L  iws  make  no  provision  :  Provided,  That  his  appoint- 
ments to  such  vacancies  shall  be  by  commission,  to  ex- 
pire at  the  end  ol  thirty  days  after  the  commencement 
of  the  session  of  the  Legislature  next  succeeding  the 
date  of  such  commission. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  Yesterday  evening  when 
that  clause  was  read,  was  the  first  occasion  on  which 
my  attention  was  called  to  it,  and  hearing  it  read,  it 
struck  me  that  it  proposed  to  grant  to  the  Governor 
mosi  extraordinary  powers,  and  such  as  ou^ht  never  to 
be  given  to  him.  I  will  call  attention  to  the  clause  in 
thU  section,  which  struck  me  as  being  improper.  It  is 
the  words,  And  he  shall  have  power  to  embody  the 
militia  when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  re- 
quire it."  I  perceive  it  is  an  extract  from  the  existing 
constitution,  but  the  fact  that  it  is  thus  extracted,  is  no 
reason  to  my  mind  why  we  should  continue  it  in  the  in- 
strument. You  will  perceive,  that  the  power  given  to 
the  Governor,  to  call  out  the  militia,  is  limited  only  by 
his  own  discretion  ;  and  whether  it  be  an  ill  or  a  sound 
discretion,  he  alone  is  to  exercise  it.  There  may  occa- 
sions arise  when  this  power  may  be  very  much  pervert- 
ed by  a  Governor.  Suppose  that  the  Governor  should 
believe  that  a  laur  of  the  general  government  was  ad- 
verse to  the  interests  of  the  State,  or  which  might  be,  in 
his  judgment,  unconstitutional,  here  is  power  given  to 
him,  if  in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion,  he  should  deem 
it  proper,  to  call  out  the  militia  to  resist  the  execution 
of  that  national  law.  Again,  suppose  that  North  Caro- 
lina or  Maryland,  or  any  other  State  in  the  Union, 
should  become  a  little  refractory,  and  resolve  to  resist 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  the  Governor  is  vested  with  the 
discretion  to  .determine  that  the  public  safety  requires 
that  the  militia  should  be  called  out  to  aid  in  the  re- 
sistance of  that  law.  I  do  not  say  that  his  power  ever 
will  be  exercised  in  this  way,  but  the  power  thus  to 
exercise  it,  certainly  exists  under  this  clause  of  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  ;  and  it  may  be  exercised,  as  the 
committee  may  well  see,  in  a  manner  most  alarming 
and  dangerous  to  the  rights  of  the  people.  I  need  not, 
in  this  discussion,  enlarge  on  constitutional  rights, 
and  my  own  opinion  is,  that  it  is  proper  to  confine  our- 
selves strictly  to  the  questions  in  controversy  before  the 
Convention. 

I  suggest  these  objections  to  the  clause  of  the  report 
with  all  due  deference,  for  it  has  not,  I  confess,  received 
much  consideration  on  my  part.    I  think  the  clause  has 
been  copied  from  the  old  constitution,  upon  trust  as  it 
were,  and  without  a  great  deal  of  consideration  on  the 
part  of  the  committee,  as  to  the  effects  which  might  re- 
sult from  it.    There  may,  however,  be  good  reason  why 
it  should  remain  as  they  have  reported  it,  and  which 
may  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  and  remove  my  objections 
to  it,  but  if  none  can  be  given  other  than  the  fact  than  i 
it  is  so  found  in  our  present  constitution,  that  alone 
will  not  satisfy  me  that  it  ought  to  be  retained.    I  hope  i 
that  the  chairman,  or  any  of  the  members  of  the  com-  1 
mittee  who  have  had  the  subject  under  consideration,  i 
nuy  give  some  reason  for  its  retention.    In  the  absence  1 
of  any  such  reason,  however,  I  move  to  strike  out  from  i 
the  section  the  words,  {  when,  in  his  opinion,  the  pub-  1 
lie  safety  shall  require,"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  1 
words,  '"to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  to  ] 
enforce  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  for  such  other  f 
specific  purposes  only,  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  t 
legislature."    The  clause  thus  amended,  will  read  as  ( 
follows : 

"  £Le  shall  hard  power  to  embody  the  militia  to  repel  < 


3  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  to  enforce  the  execu- 
t  tion  of  the  law,  and  for  such  other  specific  purposes 

-  only  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature." 
i     This  puts  the  whole  subject  under  the  control  of  the 
j  legislature,  and  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  Gov- 
i  ernor,  if  his  political  notions  should  happen  to  beincon- 

-  flict  with  those  of  the  Union  and  of  the  whole  State,  to 
r  call  out  the  militia  against  their  own  judgment,  and  it 

•  might  be  on  an  occasion  that  would  result  in  the  sever- 
l  ance  of  this  Union,  or  in  putting  this  State  in  conflict 

with  the  other  States  of  this  Union. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  beg  leave  to  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
»  from  Kanawha,  that  he  had  better  modify  his  amend- 
:  ment  so  as  to  reach  his  object.  I  do  not  think  the 
amendment  which  has  been  sent  to  the  chair  does  reach 
i  the  very  proper  object  which  he  has  in  view.  I  con- 
i  cur  with  him,  that  we  ought  to  limit  the  discretion  of 
,  the  Executive  in  calling  out  the  militia.    Now,  if  he 

•  may  call  it  out  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrec- 
i  tion,  and  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  law,  it  leaves 
i  the  discretion  just  as  latitudinous  as  it  is  now,  because 
i  the  Governor  will  be  the  judge  when  invasion  is  coming; 
i  he  will  be  the  judge,  of  course,  when  there  is  danger  of 

insurrection,  and  he  will  be  the  judge  of  the  manner  of 

•  enforcing  the  execution  of  the  law.  Now,  there  is  a 
i  phraseology  which  the  gentleman  may  adopt,  which 

will  reach  his  purpose  better.  I  concur  with  him  fully 
i  in  that  purpose,  and  suggest  to  him  this  alteration,  that 
he  shall  have  power  to  embody  the  militia  in  cases  of 
actual  invasion  and  actual  insurrection,  and  when  called 
upon  by  the  judiciary  or  the  Legislature,  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  law  in  cases  of  the  actual  resistance  to 
the  authority  of  the  courts.  I  know  of  no  occasion  in 
the  execution  of  the  laws  where  the  power  is  necessary 
to  be  exerted,  except  in  cases  of  resistance  to  the  judi- 
cial authority.  When  the  sheriffs,  for  example,  cannot 
execute  the  law  and  the  judicial  authority  of  the  courts, 
it  will  be  time  enough  for  the  Governor  to  execute  the 
law  when  called  upon  officially  to  do  so.  I  can  very 
well  imagine  that  a  Governor,  with  a  particular  set  of 
opinions  either  on  one  extreme  or  the  other,  may  choose 
to  judge  when  insurrection  or  invasion  is  coming,  that  it 
is  almost  upon  us,  or  he  may  create  a  danger  by  choosing 
to  suppose  a  danger,  and  may  call  out  the  militia  to  war 
upon  something  or  other  that  is  sacred  to  us.  I  would! 
not  give  him  that  discretion.  It  is  a  power  of  which 
we  ought  to  be  very  chary.  I  would  wait  until  there 
was  actual  invasion  or  actual  insurrection  before  he 
should  have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia.  I 
hope  the  gentleman  will  so  modify  his  amendment. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  I  have  no  especial  par- 
tiality to  the  language  which  I  used,  in  making  the 
amendment.  I  am  arriving,  if  I  can,  at  the  substance, 
and  with  the  utmost  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  I  really  think 
that  the  language  which  I  used  is  better  adapted  to  the 
purpose,  than  that  which  he  proposes.  That  is  the  im- 
pression that  I  have,  and  I  will  state  the  reasons  why  I 
think  it  is  preferable  to  that  which  he  proposes,  "to 
repel  actual  invasion  and  to  repel  actual  insurrection." 
Now,  that  would  prohibit  the  Governor  from  calling 
out  his  forces  whenever  invasion  was  coming  upon  us — 
to  take  it  at  the  first  hop — to  repel  invasion.  Foreign 
invasion  may  come  in  ships  from  the  ocean,  and  when 
we  have  an  assurance  that  there  is  an  invasion  coming 
upon  the  country,  why  this  authorizes  the  Governor 
to  prepare  for  it,  to  be  ready  for  that  invasion.  So  it 
is  with  insurrection.  We  want  to  resist  insurrection 
the  very  moment  it  commences,  and  not  to  wait  until 
it  assumes  so  definite  a  form  that  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion of  the  fact.  Therefore,  for  these  reasons,  while 
the  gentleman  and  I  aim  at  precisely  the  same  object, 
I  really  think  that  the  words  which  I  have  used  in  the 
amendment  which  I  have  offered,  are  better  calculated 
to  produce  the  desired  object  than  those  which  he  re- 
commends. 

Mr.  WISE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  will 
cite  the  language  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


239 


States,  if  the  Clerk  has  it  by  him.  At  any  rate,  I  think 
I  have  used  the  substance  of  the  language  of  that  instru- 
ment. If  insurrection  or  invasion  has  actually  com- 
menced, it  is  actual  invasion  or  insurrection. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  The  ships  might  be  enter- 
ing the  capes,  and  ready  to  land  upon  us.  He  should 
have  the  power  to  meet  them  and  drive  them  out. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  capes  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  Suppose  they  have  not 
yet  landed,  that  they  are  on  the  ocean.  I  think  it  would 
t>e  better  to  let  the  Governor  go  that  far,  and  meet  them 
•a  little  out  of  the  capes  if  necessary. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  was  about  to  say,  and  I  throw  out 
•the  suggestion  with  diffidence,  that  it  occurs  to  me,  that 
whenever  a  proposition  is  made  to  amend  the  report  of 
any  committee,  it  might  be  a  good  rule  to  adopt,  as  a 
matter  of  courtesy,  I  may  say,  of  right,  that  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  making  the  report,  should  either 
<adopt  or  answer  the  proposition  thus  made.  In  that  view 
I  was  ready  to  yield"  the  floor  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee.  It  seems  to  me  that  a  new  spirit  has  come 
•over  some  of  my  friends.  There  is  an  officer  who  is 
to  be  elected  by  the  people,  and  gentlemen  who  are  so 
anxious  for  that  election  by  the  people,  are  really 
alarmed  at  this  power  proposed  to  the  Governor  to  be 
given  him,  to  embody  the  militia  when  the  public  safety 
shall  require  it.  I  think  it  a  good  rule,  though  my 
friend  from  Accomac  and  other  &  differ  from  me,  that 
when  we  come  here  to  reform  the  constitution,  we 
should  look  somewhat  to  the  past,  and  not  reject  all  its 
wisdom  and  experience.  This  power  has  existed  in  this 
commonwealth  ever  since  it  has  been  one,  and  I  ask  if 
there  has  evef  been  an  abuse  of  it  ?  Is  it  likely  ever  to 
be  abused  ?  What  is  this  power  to  embody  the  militia  ? 
It  is  merely,  I  presume,  that  of  calling  the  militia  to- 
gether for  the  purpose  of  defending  the  public  safety. 
And  when  called  together,  the  act  must  be  sanctioned 
hy  law  in  making  provision  for  their  payment.  There 
is  no  reason  to  apprehend  that  any  Governor  will  be  so 
anxious  to  make  himself  conspicuous  as  to  mount  his 
charger  aad  place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  militia  and 
impose  >on  the  commonwealth  the  heavy  expense  of  em- 
bodying its  forces  to  repel  the  mere  phantom  of  danger. 
As 'to  the  idea  of  my  friend  from  Accomac,  that  the 
.governor  is  not  to  discipline  or  embody  the  militia  until 
the  invasion  or  insurrection  has  already  taken  place, 
until  our  houses  are  burned  and  the  throats  of  our  chil- 
dren are  cut,  I  submit  that  it  is  very  much  like  calling 
out  the  fire  engines  to  puc  out  a  fire  after  the  house  has 
been  destroyed.  Is  it  a  power  which  if  properly  re- 
stricted, can  never  be  abused  ?  The  power  is  given  as  a 
means  of  protecting  and  guarding  the  public  safety,  and 
we  cannot  in  any  constitution  we  may  frame  avoid  the 
necessity  of  reposing  some  confidence  in  those  to  whom 
the  powers  of  government  are  committed.  There  must 
be  confidence,  and  whilst  I  would  go  as  far  as  any  gen- 
tleman in  preventing  the  abuse  of  power,  or  in  granting 
power  likely  to  be  abused,  I  am  yet  to  see  how  this  sim- 
ple power  of  embodying  the  militia,  when,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  governor,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it, 
is  likely  to  be  abused  by  any  governor  in  this  free  com- 
monwealth. I  trust  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  com- 
mittee to  leave  the  report  in  this  particular  to  stand  as 
it  is. 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  shall  vote  for  the  motion  to  strxke  out, 
but  not  to  insert  as  proposed  by  the  gentlemau  from 
Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  but  I  will  make  this  suggestion. 
If  no  other  one  proposes  it,  I  propose,  and  I  will  suggest 
it  now,  by  way  of  argument,  to  insert  the  words  "  under 
such  rules  and  limitations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law." 
It  appears  to  me  that  language  of  that  construction  will 
accomplish  the  purpose  of  both  the  gentlemen  who  have 
had  the  floor  and  suggested  amendments.  I  would  re- 
mark that  that  provision  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  contains  the  substance  of  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  does  not 
give  to  the  President  the  power  to  execute  the  laws  of 


the  Uaion,  or  to  suppress  insurrection  and  repel  inva- 
sion. That  clause  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  simply  provides  that  Congress  shall  have  the 
power  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrection,  or  ttpel 
invasion.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  we  strike  out  and 
insert  the  words,  "  under  such  rules  and  limitations  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  law,"  we  will  g,ve  the  power  to 
the  legislature  to  take  the  whole  subject  up,  and  in  fact 
make  a  provision  to  harmonize  and  prevent  abuses  on 
the  one  hand,  while  on  the  other  the  power  may  Le  made 
co-extensive  with  legislative  control,  or  without  any  re- 
striction they  may  impose.  I  do  not  know  whether  it 
would  be  more  proper  to  move  to  insert  the  words  that 
1  have  read  instead  of  those,  but  I  desire,  if  it  is  proper, 
to  divide  the  question  on  striking  out. 

The  CHAIR.  The  question  is  first  to  be  taken  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smi'ih.) 

Mr.  hJDMUJNDS.  The  words  in  the  report  now  under 
consideration  are  the  same  as  are  used  in  the  present 
constitution.  1  am  one  ol  those  who  believe,  that  where 
a  particular  clause  in  the  constitution  has  for  a  long 
course  of  time  brought  with  it  no  evil  whatsoever,  and 
when  the  evil  consequences  to  result  from  that  clause, 
if  inserted  in  the  new  constitution,  are  drawn  from  the 
imagination  or  theory  or  suspicions  of  gentlemen,  that 
the  test  of  the  experience  of  some  fifty  or  sixty  years 
is  better  than  the  imaginary  fears  of  any  gentleman. 
We  know  that  no  evil  or  inconvenience  has  arisen  under 
this  clause  ;  therefore,  it  was  inserted  in  this  report,  and 
1  have  yet  to  hear  any  sufficiently  sound  and  good  reason 
why  we  should  not  retain  it.  The  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha (Mr.  Smith)  objects  to  it  because  he  feats  that 
some  conflict  of  opinion  upon  some  abstract  question 
between  the  State  government  and  the  government  of 
the  United  States  may  induce  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
to  call  out  the  militia  on  an  improper  occasion,  Now, 
the  Governor  of  Virginia  is  sworn  to  support  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  made  in  pur- 
suance thereof,  and  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  expressly  declares  that  the  constitution  and  the 
laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it  shall  be  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  the  constitution  and  laws  of  any  State  to 
the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  The  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia is  as  much  bound  to  execute  the  laws  made  in  pur- 
suance of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  he  is 
to  execute  the  laws  of  Virginia.  It  is  not  his  business 
to  interpret  those  laws,  but  the  judges  of  the  courts  of 
the  United  States,  or  the  judges  of  the  courts  of  his 
own  State,  must  expound  and  interpret  the  law.  both  in 
respect  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
that  of  his  own  State.  His  duty  is  to  execute  the  law. 
How?  By  the  ministerial  officers  of  the  law,  if  it  can 
be  executed  in  that  way,  if  not,  then  by  the  militia  I 
might  tell  the  gentleman,  that  I  fear  an  unconstitutional 
law  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  might 
be  attempted  to  be  enforced  by  the  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  he  might  call  out  the  militia  to  execute  a  law 
under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  the 
courts  of  Virginia  declared  to  be  unconstitutional,  asad 
which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  might 
declare  to  be  constitutional.  Where  is  the  final  arbiter 
who  is  to  decide  in  this  case  ?  Because  the  Governor 
ot  Virginia  is  bound  to  carry  out  the  law  of  the  United 
States,  made  in  pursuance  of  the  constitution,  and  is 
bound  (o  execute  the  laws  of  his  own  State.  I  might 
raise  that  imaginary  fear,  but  I  have  no  such  apprehen- 
sion whatever,  nor  have  I  any  •  apprehension  that  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  will  declare  a  law  of  the  United 
States  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  call  out  the  militia  on 
an  improper  occasion.  Suppose  you  restrict  him  in  the 
way  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Spott- 
sylvania  proposes,  that  he  shall  not  call  out  the  militia 
except  in  case  of  an  actual  invasion.  There  may  be  in- 
vasion threatened;  it  may  be  communicated  by  the  Presi- 
dent o  the  United  States  to  the  Governor  of  Viryhua, 
He  may  know,  but  how  can  the  Legislature  of  Virginia 
know  i    His  correspondence  with  foreign  authorities 


240 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


may  admonish  and  warn  him  that  invasion  is  threatened, 
and  he  may  cominunicate  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia  that 
it  is  necessxry  for  the  public  safety,  that  he  should  em- 
body tier  militia.    It  is  a  private  communication  made 
by  the  President  to  the  G-overnor  of  Virginia.    Shall  the 
Governor  then  not  be  allowed  to  act  on  information 
thus  communicated  to  him  by  the  President  ?    Yet  you 
have  not  provided  for  it  in  this  amendment.    And  in 
case  of  insurrection,  you  surely  mean  to  give  the  Gov- 
erner  power  to  embody  the  militia  before  open  and  ac- 
tual insurrection  shall  have  occurred.    If  a  large  num- 
ber of  private  citizens  should  communicate  their  fears  of 
an  insurrection  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  should  he  not 
have  the  power  to  embody  the  militia  if  he  should  deem 
it  necessary  ?    You  must  give  him  a  discretion,  and  how 
shall  it  be  given,  except  that  when  the  put  lie  safety  re- 
quires it,  it  matters  not  in  what  manner  the  communica- 
tion is  made  to  him,  whether  through  the  executive  of 
the  United  States,  or  through  the  well-grounded  or  even 
idle  fears  of  a  large  number  of  citizens,  however  it  comes, 
he  ought  to  have  the  pow  r  to  embody  the  militia 
promptly  and  efficiently.    But  the  idea  of  the  gentleman 
in  my  rear  is,  that  the  governor  shall  not  call  out  the 
militit  except  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  the 
law  may  prescribe.    That,  I  suppose,  applies  only  to  the 
mode  of  calling  them  out,  and  not  to  the  cause  for  that 
call.    Well,  you  must  have  an  organization  of  the  mili- 
tia. Tne  State  has  exclusive  control  of  their  regulations, 
and  you  must  prescribe  the  mode  in  which  the  governor 
shall  call  them  out  before  the  militia  can  be  embodied. 
But  the  question  as  to  when  they  should  be  called  out, 
and  why  they  must  be  embodied,  i*  a  totally  different 
thing  fram  the  organization  of  the  militia.    This  section 
confers  on  the  governor  the  privilege  of  calling  out  the 
militia  only  when  the  public  safety  requires  it,  and  he 
alone  can  possess  in  many  instances  information  of  what 
the  public  safety  does  require.    I  do  not  conceive  that 
language  can  be  used  more  guarded  on  this  subject  than 
is  contained  in  this  report,  and  until  stronger  reasons 
are  offered  for  a  change,  I  shall  sustain  it. 

Mr  JACOB.    I  will  say  to  the  gentleman  who  is  in 
my  fr-rnt,  though  I  am  not  a  military  man,  [laughter,] 
and  may  not  understand  precisely  the  meaning  of  the 
word  rmbody,  that  I  did  suppose  it  possibly  meant  a 
little  more  than  simply  to  call  out  the  militia,  but 
whether  I  am  wrong  in  that  construction  of  the  word 
embody  or  not,  it  seemed  to  me  that  my  proposition  is 
not  calculated,  unless  your  legislature  is  obstinate  or 
shall  refuse  to  act,  to  embarrass  the  governor  or  to 
bring  them  in  conflict  with  the  governor,  for  that  is  the 
last  thing  that  I  would  do  in  any  constitution  that  I  may 
be  called  upon  to  make.    But  I  am  free  to  confess  that  I 
have  some  respect  to  the  independence  of  the  various 
departments  of  the  government,  and  am  disposed  to 
Turing  thera  in  check  whenever  it  can  be  done  with  prop- 
er harmony,  if  I  may  use  the  expression.  Now  it  strikes 
me  that  when  you  have  provided  that  the  governor 
should  embody  the  militia,  subject  to  such  regulations 
as  the  legislature  may  require,  you  then  have  imposed 
upon  the  legislature  the  necessity  of  presenting  a  state 
of  things  which  would  show  that  it  was  requisite,  in  or- 
der to  secure  the  due  enforcement  of  the  law.    It  was 
in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  providing  for  all  these  cases 
in  the  constitution  that  I  offered  the  suggestion  which  I 
Shave,  that  it  should  be  left  to  the  legislature  to  decide 
the  special  cases.    I  am  not,  however,  tenacious  on  the 
subject. 

The  CHAIR.  Does  the  gentleman  offer  an  amend- 
ment ? 

Mr.  JACOB.  I  prefer  to  take  the  question  first  on 
the  motion  to  strike  out.  I  will  however  offer  the  amend- 
ment here  indicated. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee,  and  ef  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  to  the 
language  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  on  this 
subject,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  I  was  right  on  this  sub- 
ject when  I  was  up  before.    The  power  to  suppress  in- 


surrection and  to  repel  invasion  is  given  to  the  legisla- 
tive department  of  the  government  of  the  Union.  Then 
wnen  you  turn  to  the  executive  department,  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  reads  thus  ;  "The  President 
shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  militia  of  the  several  States 
when  called  iuto  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States." 
it  i»not  then  for  the  executive  of  the  United  States  to 
take  command  of  any  force  until  it  is  in  actual  service. 
So  the  two  provisions  of  the  constitution,  taken  togeth- 
er, do  not  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  judge  when  he  shall  embody  the 
militia  or  the  army   either.     They   must  first  be 
called  into  actual  service  before  be  can  put  him- 
self at  their  head.    And  that  is  exactly  what  I 
desire  of  the  executive  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  that 
there  must  be  an  actual  necessity,  and  let  me  say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Halifax  that  it  is  not  necessary  that 
invasion  or  insurrection  should  be  flagrant  before  it  is 
actual.    The  governor  when  he  calls  out  the  militia 
will'  be  compelled,  under  a  due  responsibility  to  the  leg- 
islative department,  to  makeout  the  actual  invasion  and 
the  actuality  of  the  insurrection.    In  all  cases  where  the 
insurrection  or  the  invasion  shall  be  so  eminently 
threatening  that  there  is  a  necessity  for  calling  out  the? 
militia  there  is  a  case  of  actual  insurrection.    I  can  well  " 
imagine  that  there  is  a  necessity  for  this  action  at  this 
time,  and  I  do  know  the  fact  upon  authority  which  I 
cannot  doubt,  that  it  is  not  exactly  true  that  within  the- 
last  fifty  years  the  State  has  never  been  in  danger  from 
the  exercise  of  this  power.    I  happened  to  be  informed 
from  the  highest  authority,  no  less  than  the  actors  them- 
selves in  the  scene,  that  in  my  time  of  day  and  actually 
within  my  time  of  public  life,  unknown  to  this  common- 
wealth, unknown  perhaps  to  the  legislature  or  the  lead- 
ing men  in  it,  that  this  commonwealth  has  been  at  one 
period  of  time  in  the  most  imminent  danger  of -the  exercise 
of  executive  authority,  in  calling  out  the  militia  of  this 
State.    We  have  at  times  been  in  perfect  repose  over  a. 
smouldering  volcano,  and  it  maybe  the  case  again.  The 
constitution  of  the  United  states  by  the  case  in*  refer- 
ence to  the  legislative  department  and  the  clause  in  re- 
ference to  the  executive  taken  together,  guard  the  powers- 
of  the  Union  in  this  respect  against  an  executive  ;  and 
I  tell  gentlemen  there  may  be  a  fearful  nece-sity  for 
guarding  against  the  abuse  of  that  power  in  this  State. 
I  have  no  fear  that  in  case  of  insurrection,  in  ease  of 
another  Southampton  scene,  that  the  militia  will  be' 
called  out  in  time.    And  in  the  event  of  invasion;  from 
abroad,  the  national  executive  will  always  know  of  it  in. 
time  to  apprize  the  state  executive.    And  in  case  of  an- 
other class  of  invasion,  I  pray  God  that  there  may  be 
every  restriction  thrown  in  the  way  of  speedy — of  wors& 
than  speedy  action.    1  can  well  imagine  an  occasion,  I 
say,  upon  one  side  or  the  other,  when  laws  may  be  pass- 
ed by  the  federal  government  which  are  unconstitutional,, 
when  we  have  a  governor  who  would  gladly  enforce  an. 
unconstitutional  law  on  this  people.  Or  I  can  imagine  on 
the  other  side  an  occasion  when  there  may  be  a  man  at 
the  head  of  the  State  government  of  Virginia,  that  de- 
sires to  see  the  Union  dissolved,  and  who  may  seize  upon- 
any  crisis  in  our  affairs  that  may  come  in  less  than  eighteen,' 
months  after  this  Convention  adjourns,  to  call  out  the 
militia.    I  wish  this  Convention  to  stand  as  a  peace 
maker  between  all  warring  spirits.    I  wish  an  obstacle 
to  be  interposed  between  them.   I  wish  to  see  actual  in- 
vasion here  before  an  executive  shall  have  the  power  to 
raise  the  keen  spirits  of  the  land  and  send  theni  forth  an 
embattled  host  against  our  peace.    There  is  a  necessity 
for  some  such  guards  as  this,  and  I  again  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  that  his  words  do  not  reach 
his  ends.    I  would  use  the  language  that  is  used  in  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  that  he  shall  be  the 
head  of  the  militia,  that  he  shall  embody  the  militia  in 
case  of  actual  insurrection,  in  case  of  actual  invasion,  or 
when  called  upon  by  the  judiciary,  or  when  called  upon 
by  the  legislature.    That  will  reach  it  and  be  power 
enough  ;  and  "  sufficient  unto  the  day  will  be  the  evil 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


241 


thereof,"  when  actual  invasion  or  actual  insurrection 
occurs. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.    Mr.  Chairman  

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  remark  that  several 
gentlemen  have  already  exhausted  their  privilege  of 
speaking  under  the  rule. 

MANT  MEMBERS.    Leave!  Leave! 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  rise  merely  for  explanation.  The 
gentleman  from  Accomac  surely  could  not  think  I  was 
conversant  with  any  subject  in  this  government  which 
he  says  was  unknown  to  more  than  five  or  six  public 
men  in  Virginia.  What  was  the  case  to  which  the  gen- 
tleman refers  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  I  could  tell  the  gentleman,  if  it  were 
proper  on  this  occasion,  but  I  do  not  wish  to  involve 
persons  or  names.  I  repeat  again,  that  I  do  know  that 
the  question  has  been  actually  ai-gued  in  the  executive 
chambers  of  this  State,  on  one  very  vital  occasion. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  1  could  not  be  expected  to 
know  what  has  transpired  in  the  chambers  of  the  execu- 
tive of  this  government.  That  changes  the  matter  al- 
together. I  have  nothing  more  to  say,  of  course, 
having  exhausted  my  privilege  of  speaking. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  should  like  to  hear  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax  express  his  vie.^s  on  this  subject,  and  I 
hope  he  may  be  permitted  to  proceed. 

The  CHAIR  put  the  question  on  the  motion  to  sus- 
pend the  rules  so  as  to  give  leave  to  the.  gentleman  from 
Halifax  to  proceed,  audit  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  am  obliged  to  the  committee, 
though  I  had  no  idea  of  a  speech  being  imposed  upon 
me.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac,  I  know,  is  aware  of 
the  fact  that  the  President  of  the  United  States,  can 
never  command  the  militia  until  they  are  called  out. 
But,  then  there  is  a  standing  army  of  the  United  States, 
and  he  is  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States — not  of  the  militia  at  all,  until  called 
into  actual  service. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  read  to  the  gentleman  from  the 
constitution : 

"  The  President  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  and  navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia 
of  the  several  States,  when  called  into  the  actual  service 
of  the  United  States." 

And  he  is  commander  of  neither  until  called  into 
that  actual  service.  He  is  no  more  commander-in-chief 
of  th3  army  of  the  United  States  than  he  is  of  the 
militia,  until  they  are  called  into  actual  service. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac  is 
certainly  mistaken.  He  is  commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  of  the  United  States  at  all  times. 

Mr.  WISE.  At  all  times  when  they  are  called  into 
service. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  They  are  always  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States.  They  are  enlisted  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  WISE.  There  is  no  difference  between  us.  In 
time  of  peace  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States 
are  in  actual  service,  and,  therefore,  the  President  com- 
mands them.  But  he  cannot  call  out  an  army — that  is 
what  I  meant  to  draw  attention  to — in  the  sense  of  em- 
bodying, to  which  the  gentleman  called  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wheeling.  The  law  must  embody 
and  create  the  army  first.  It  is  not  a  force  which 
sleeps,  like  the  militia,  in  repose  until  called  out  by  the 
President.  The  standing  army  is  formed  by  enlist- 
ment under  regulation  by  law,  and  when  called  into 
service — that  is,  when  formed  and  embodied  by  law — 
the  President  of  the  United  States  takes  command  of 
them.  But  here  is  the  distinction.  The  militia,  though 
organized  by  law,  is  not  commanded  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  ;  it  reposes  until  called  into  actual 
service.  There  is  certaiuly  a  distinction  between  the 
two.  I  would  make  the  governor,  in  like  manner,  com- 
mander of  the  militia  only  when  it  was  embodied  by 
law,  and  called  into  actual  service,  and  then  he  should 
command  them. 
19 


Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  army  of  the  United  States  is 
always  in  actual  service.  It  is  enlisted,  and  the  number 
regulated  by  law,  but  from  the  moment  the  soldier  is 
enlisted,  he  is  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  President  is  the  commander-in-chief.  And  so  in 
respect  to  the  navy.  But  in  respect  to  the  militia  of 
the  States,  the  control  belongs  to  the  several  States 
until  called  into  actual  service  by  the  United  States, 
and  the  President  has  no  more  authority  over  them 
than  he  has  over  a  private  citizen.  When  called  into 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  then  he  becomes  their 
commander-in-  chief,  but  not  until  then.  Of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States  he  is  the  commander-in-chief 
at  all  times. 

The  Governor  of  Virginia  may  embody  the  miiltia 
only  when  the  "public  safety"  requires.  He  cannot 
for  light  and  trivial  causes  embody  the  militia,  or  to  re- 
sist a  law  passed  in  pursuance  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  If  he  undertook  to  do  that,  why  he  him- 
self would  be  impeached  by  the  house  of  delegates,  and 
carried  before  the  senate  for  trial.  If  the  judiciary  of 
his  own  State  pronounce  the  law  unconstitutional,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  pronounce  the 
law  constitutional,  if  resisted  at  all,  it  must  be  rented' 
by  the  marshals  of  the  district,  or  by  the  sheriffs  ;pf  your 
own  counties.  Now,  the  only  fear  that  can  be  enter- 
tained is,  that  when^the^.government  of  the  United 
States  have  passed  <itfj&tf&  and  the  Judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  have  p*Bjpnced  that  law  to  be  constitu- 
tional, and  the  marshal  of-- tb^e  United  States  is  proceed- 
ing to  execute  that.,iaw^:--€he  government  of  Virginia 
may  call  on  the^^pjM^or  of  Virginia  to  embody  the 
militia  to  resist^fnlexecution  of  that  law  within  the 
limits  of  the^Eate.  How  can  he  interfere  in  the  case 
of  South  Carolina  ?  Suppose  that  State  should  under- 
take, at  this  moment,  to  secede  from  the  Union, how  can 
the  governor  call  out  the  militia  to  interfere  ?  Is  there 
any  law  to  be  executed  in  Virginia  which  he  can  resist  ? 
Can  he  embody  the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  to  sup- 
press insurrection,  or  to  provide  for  the  public  safety  of 
Virginia  ?  Clearly  not,  and  he  is  not  called  upon  to 
provide  for  the  public  safety  of  South  Caroliuia.  He 
is  not  called  upon  to  resist  the  law  of  South  Carolina, 
nor  is  he  called  upon  to  carry  the  law  into  execution 
there.  He  is  only  called  on  to  embody  the  militia  when 
the  public  safety  of  Virginia  requires  it,  and  at  no 
other  time.  If  the  general  government  undertakes 
to  execute  a  law  in  Virginia,  they  must  execute  it 
through  your  sheriffs,  or  their  marshals,  and  if  it  be 
constitutional  in  reference  to  the  constitution  of  Virgi- 
nia, and  of  the  United  States,  the  governor  is  sworn  to 
execute  the  law  with  the  whole  military  power  of  the 
State.  If  he  fails  to  execute,  with  the  whole  military 
power  of  the  State,  if  necessary,  a  law  which  has  been 
pronounced  by  your  judicial  authorities  to  be  con- 
stitutional, then  he  is  liable  to  impeachment  for  mal- 
administration in  office.  You  must  give  a  discretion  to 
him  in  calling  out  the  militia,  for  if  you  limit  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power,  great  evils  must  arise,  while  from 
the  discretionary  exercise  of  the  power,  I  cannot  imag- 
ine a  single  evil  which  will  result.  In  what  man- 
ner can  the  governor  involve  the  State  government  in 
a  conflict  with  the  United  States  ?  Here  is  the  legis- 
lature, which  may  call  itself  into  session,  and  which  can, 
in  any  attempt  of  the  governor  to  abuse  this  power,  at 
once  check  and  restrain  him.  They  can  remove  him 
from  office,  and  then  there  is  the  lieutenant  governor 
to  take  his  place,  and  then,  also,  the  provision  of  the 
constitution,  which  declares  that  if  both  are  incompetent 
to  hold  the  office,  the  general  assembly  may  provide  for 
some  other  person  to  hold  the  offiee. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  dislike  to  trouble  the  committee  in 
this  matter,  but  I  can  give  the  gentleman  the  examples, 
one  at  either  end  of  the  Union,  and  first  I  will  take  an 
example  north.  Nullification  in  the  south  is  a  most 
odious  thing  to  the  north  ;  and  I  should  think  that  nul- 
lification at  the  north  ought  to  be  equally  odious  to  the 


242 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


south.  It  is  to  me.  Here  is  a  State  of  the  Union  that 
undertakes  to  declare  that  a  fugitive  slave  shall  not  be 
reclaimed.  Suppose  it  goes  a  step  further,  and  de- 
clares that  the  owner  of  the  slave  shall  be  a  k/dnapper 
ipso  facto,  if  he  pursues  a  slave  in  the  north.  Suppose 
it  goes  further  and  by  an  ordinance  of  a  Convention  at 
once  applies  an  odious  test  oath  to  the  State  judges,  not 
to  execute  the  fugitive  Slave  Bill.  Well,  suppose  you 
or  I  go  to  the  north  to  recapture  fugitive  slaves; 
apply  then  this  principle.  The  State  government,  say 
of  Vermont,  instead  of  delivering  up  under  the  consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States,  our  fugitive 
slaves,  commands  us  to  be  arrested  as  kidnappers.  The 
State  judges  are  sworn  to  execute  the  law  of  Vermont. 
They  put  us  in  prison  ;  we  apply  to  the  State  judge 
for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  release  the  body,  the 
State  judge  is  sworn  to  execute  the  law  of  the  State, 
and  not  to  execute  the  fugitive-slave  law.  We  then 
apply  to  the  federal  judge  to  release  our  bodies.  He 
orders  the  marshal  to  bring  the  body,  on  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  before  him.  A  State  sheriff  stands  at  the 
door  of  the  bastile  and  forbids  the  execution  of  the 
order  of  the  federal  judge.  What  is  to  be  done  ?  I 
suppose  there  would  be  a  report  to  the  judge  by  the 
marshal,  that  he  could  not  execute  his  order,  and  that 
he  was  resisted  by  the  State  authorities  of  Vermont ; 
and  there  would  be  a  report  made  by  the  United  States 
judge  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that  the 
laws  of  the  Union  could  not  be  executed.  Then,  un- 
der the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  he  must  call 
forth  the  army  and  navy  to  compel  Vermont  to  yield 
the  body  of  a  Virginia  citizen  from  imprisonment. 
The  army  of  the  United  States  starts  from  its  various 
posts,  and  some  intervening  abolition  State  chooses  to' 
call  that  march  of  the  federal  army  across  her  borders 
an  invasion,  and  to  take  up  the  doctrine  that  a  State 
cannot  be  compelled  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  the  Union.  They  undertake  to  say  that  their 
borders  shall  not  be  passed  by  the  forces  of  the  federal 
Union,  to  open  the  bastile  which  imprisons  the  body 
of  a  southern  slave-holder.  I  ask  gentlemen  of  the 
south,  whether  they  can  tolerate  the  idea  of  a  governor, 
say  of  the  State  of  New  York, — it  might  be  a  Governor 
Seward — in  calling  out  the  militia  of  New  York,  in 
undertaking  to  say  by  his  magisterial  authority,  that  it 
was  invasion;  and  that  a  sovereign  State  of  this  Union 
could  not  be  made  to  release  your  body  or  mine,  im- 
prisoned under  such  circumstances  ?  I  beg  leave  to  say, 
that  I  can  imagine  that  case  at  the  north ;  and  I  can 
easily  put  a  case  in  the  south.  Suppose  that  there  had 
been  a  flash  of  a  musket  in  Texas  the  other  day.  Sup- 
pose there  had  been  a  flash  of  a  musket  in  South  Caro- 
lina in  attempting  to  collect  the  customs  of  this  country 
there ;  and  to  reverse  the  case,  that  an  army  was  to 
set  out  from  fortress  Monroe  here,  or  to  come  from  its 
various  posts  to  pass  Virginia's  borders,  and  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia  should  put  his  arms  akimbo  and  say 
that  this  force  shall  not  march  through  this  State,  and 
he  would  find  a  great  many  too,  who  would  be  ready 
to  seize  on  fortress  Monroe.  God  knows  where  any  of 
us  would  be  in  such  a  case.  Which  side  is  the  Govern- 
or to  take  here?  If  he  is  a  good  man,  if  he  is  a 
Washington,  according  to  the  best  lights  before  him, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  reason  and  his  love  of 
country,  he  will  try  to  keep  the  peace,  he  will  under- 
take to  preserve  order,  and  the  right  of  the  law,  and 
the  rule  of  the  constitution,  according  to  the  best  of 
his  abilities.  If  he  is  an  extremist  on  the  one  hand  or 
the  other,  he  will  resist  in  the  north  the  passage  of  the 
troops  to  release  the  body  of  a  citizen  of  Virginia 
from  imprisonment;  he  would  call  it  an  invasion; 
and  if  it  was  a  Virginia  governor  who  had  to  resist  the 
power  of  a  federal  government  marching  south,  he 
might  choose  to  consider  that  an  invasion;  he  mi^ht 
undertake  to  decide  that  he  was  the  judge  of  the  pal- 
pable and  gross  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  tell  the  gentleman  again  that  that 
very  question  has  been  once  discussed  solemnly  over  the 


midnight  lamps  in  the  executive  chamber  in  Virginia. 
It  is  no  case  of  imagination — it  is  no  case  of  fiction. 
It  is  a  case  that  is  daiJy  debated  in  the  minds  of  men, 
of  every  man  here  present  and  of  every  man  in  the  com- 
munity, east  and  west,  north  and  south.  The  ques- 
tion is,  what  will  we  do  in  case  civil  war  comes  upon 
us  ?  It  is  not  worth  while  to  be  mawkish  about  it. 
We  need  not  pretend  to  discuss  it  here,  but  still  we 
must  look  at  the  dangers  that  not  CDly  may  come,  but 
which  I  fear  will  come,  and  it  is  a  time  when  you 
you  should  impose  restraints,  looking  either  to  nulli- 
fication of  the  north,  or  to  nullification  of  the  south, 
or  to  consolidation  from  the  one  side  or  the  other.  I 
wish  to  guard  the  State  rights  of  the  State ;  I  wish  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  country,  and  I  will  never  con- 
sent here  to  put  the  peace  of  my  constituents  at  the 
sole  and  unguarded  discretion  of  any  State  executive. 
At  the  time  when  the  constitution  was  formed,  the  dan- 
gers t  hat  beset  us  now  were  never  foreseen,  or  if  foreseen, 
it  was  trusted  that  there  were  guards  enough  to  resist 
it  then.  But  I  tell  you  that  if  ever  any  rash  man,  any  man 
of  extreme  opinions  has,  at  this  day,  in  his  power  to 
risk  the  peace  of  the  country,  either  under  one  tocsin 
of  alarm  or  the  other,  either  upon  grounds  of  alarm  for 
the  Union,  or  alarm  for  the  rights  of  the  State,  the 
peace  of  the  country  maybe  endangered,  and  that  right 
soon. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  first  case  put  by  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac,  as  I  understand  him,  is  this  :  A  citizen 
of  Virginia  may  pursue  a  fugitive  slave  into  a  northern 
State,  and  may  be  apprehended  there  under  a  law 
which  declares  that  the  apprehension  of  a  fugitive  slave 
shall  be,  ipso  facto,  kidnapping. 

Mr.  WISE.  Such  a  law  has  passed. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Admit  that  such  a  law  has  passed. 
Now  the  judiciary  of  every  State  are  sworn  to  support 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  laws 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  the  governor  of  every 
State  is  sworn  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Upited  States 
when  in  pursuance  of  the  constitution.  The  case  put 
is  where  the  State  legislature  prescribes  an  oath — 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  put  a  case  that  is  not  merely 
supposable  or  imaginary,  but  one  that  has  actually 
happened  in  our  history.  The  case  of  South  Carolina, 
who  by  convention  passed  an  ordinance  which  swore 
thejudges  to  execute  all  her  laws  against  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  above  everything  else. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  intend  to  come  to  that  when  I 
get  through  the  first  case.  A  test  oath  which  swears 
the  judge  to  expound  and  interpret  a  law  under  which 
a  citizen  of  Virginia  in  pursuit  of  his  slave  is  declared 
ipso  facto  a  kidnapper ;  and  this  when  the  judges  of  the 
States  are  sworn  to  expound  the  law  made  in  pursuance 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  !  "When  such 
a  case  as  that  arises  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  must 
be  fully  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  constitution  and  law 
of  the  United  States,  made  in  pursuance  of  that  con- 
stitution, cease  to  have  any  effect  in  the  government. 
The  judge  of  every  State  is  sworn  to  expound  that  consti- 
tution and  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  is 
bound  by  his  oath  to  set  aside  the  law  of  any  State  when 
the  law  of  that  State  is  in  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  ;  but  if  he  disregards  his  solemn  of- 
ficial oath,  and  if  the  governor  of  the  State  disregards  his 
solemn  official  oath,  1  can  only  say  that  it  is  a  case  for 
which  we  cannot  provide.  If  a  citizen  of  Virginia  when 
in  pursuit  of  his  slaves,  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  is  declared  to  be  a  kidnapper  under  the  law  of 
any  one  State,  and  if  the  authorities  of  that  State  shall 
refuse  to  deliver  him  up  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus- 
from  a  federal  court,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  marshal 
to  report  that  fact  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United 
States;  then  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States  to  call  upon  the  President  to  exe- 
cute this  law  of  the  United  States,  which  he  is  bound 
to  execute  by  the  military  power  of  the  United  States. 
He  must  execute  the  law;  and  it  is  no  case  for  Vir- 
ginia to  interpose. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


243 


Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  has  misunderstood  me 
entirely  in  the  application  of  the  argument.  I  do  not 
put  it  that  it  is  a  case  for  Virginia  to  interpose,  but  I 
put  a  case  where,  by  virtue  of  this  discretionary  power 
vested  in  him,  the  Governor  of  Virginia  might  declare 
that  the  march  of  the  United  States  forces  through  her 
limits  would  be  an  invasion  of  the  territory  of  Virginia. 
"What  is  to  limit  the  discretion  of  the  governor  in  deci- 
ding what  is  invasion?  Thatjs  what  I  desire,  and  to 
that  t  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  was  following  the  case  which  the 
gentleman  put,  through  every  phase  of  it.  So  far  as  the 
State  is  concerned  which  has  imprisoned  the  citizen  of 
Virginia,  he  is  under  the  protection  of  the  laws  and 
constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  gentleman  sup- 
poses that  the  marshal,  in  attempting  to  execute  the  or- 
der >f  the  United  Stites  court,  arid  release  the  citizen 
of  Virginia  thus  imprisoned,  is  resisted  by  the  State  au- 
thorities, and  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
is  then  called  upon  to  execute  the  law  and  carry  out  the 
process  of  that  court,  and  that  for  that  purpose  it  may 
be  necessary  to  march  the  army  of  the  United  States 
through  the  territory  of  New  York,  which  State  then 
calls  out  her  militia.  This  is  the  case  supposed.  Now, 
in  such  a  case,  for  what  purpose  would  New  York  call 
out  her  milicia  ?  Would  it  be  because  her  public  safety 
require  1  it?  No,  and  wherefore  then  should  she  call 
them  out  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman.  The  governor 
of  New  York  may  call  them  out  for  precisely  the  reason 
which  it  is  dreaded  the  governor  of  Virginia  in  an  op- 
posite case  may  call  out  the  militia  of  Virginia,  to  pre- 
vent a  free  soil  State  from  being  compelled  to  obey  the 
laws  of  the  Union.  The  governor  of  New  York  might 
sympathise  so  far  with  the  governor  and  legislature  of 
Vermont,  as  to  aid  her  in  resisting  the  execution 
of  the  laws  of  the  Union,  That  is  the  reason  which  I 
apprehend  might  induce  the  action  of  a  governor  of  the 
north,  and  on  the  other  hand  I  can  imagine  the  case  of 
a  governor  of  the  south  interposing  to  prevent  a  south- 
ern State  from  .being  compelled  to  obey  the  law. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  case  presented  is  one  of  a  clear 
conflict  between  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New 
York  and  the  authority  of  the  general  government.  The 
government  is  marching  its  forces  through  New  York, 
and  New  York  sympathising  with  the  State  which  holds 
a  citizen  of  Virginia  in  custody  contrary  to  the  laws 
and  constitution  of  the  United  States,  its  governor  in- 
terposes to  arrest  the  march  of  the  forces  of  the  United 
States  through  its  territory.  That  is  the  case  supposed, 
and  for  what  purpose  does  the  governor  of  New  York 
do  this  ?  Merely  because  he  sympathises  with  the.  gov- 
ernment of  the  other  State.  I  can  only  say  that  when 
that  case  does  actually  occur  this  confederacy  will  be 
at  an  end.  Whenever  the  case  arises  that  a  State  gov- 
ernment refuses  to  allow  the  marshal  of  the  United 
States  to  execute  the  law,  and  the  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  undertakes  to  march  the  forces  of  the  United 
S:ates  to  the  assistance  of  the  marshal  in  the  execution 
of  the  law,  and  the  passage  of  that  army  through  this 
State  is  prohibited  by  the  governor  of  Virginia,  and  he 
calls  out  the  militia  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the 
march  of  that  army,  then  there  is  an  open  conflict  be- 
tween our  State  authorities  and  the  general  govern- 
ment. 

Mr  WISE.    That  is  what  I  desire  to  prevent. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  And  are  we  to  provide  here  for 
such  a  case  as  that  ?  I  really  thiuk  it  is  a  case  which 
ou^ht  not  to  be  supposed.  Should  South  Carolina  nul- 
lify the  law,  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  un- 
dertake to  execute  the  law  within  her  limits,  and  the 
troops  of  the  United  States  be  ordered  there  to  aid  in 
their  execution,  is  the  public  safety  of  Virginia  endan- 
gered thereby?  Is  the  governor  of  Virginia  under  this 
clause  of  the  constitution  which  we  propose  to  retaiu 
authorised  to  call  out  the  militia,  because  the  President 
of  the  United  States  has  ordered  the  forces  to  South 


Carolina  ?  If  the  public  safety  of  Virginia  requires  it, 
then  he  may  call  them  out,  but  no  one  will  suppose  that 
in  the  case  referred  to.  the  public  safety  of  Virginia  will 
require  the  calling  out  of  the  militia,  and  therefore  he 
would  not  be  authorized  to  do  so  under  the  constitution 
in  any  such  emergency.  The  "  public  safety  ''  of  Vir- 
ginia and  the  public  safety  of  South  Carolina,  or  of  any 
northern  state,  are  distinct  and  separate  questions ; 
and  the  power  to  embody  the  militia  when  the  "public 
safety  "  of  Virginia  requires  it,  does  not  carry  with  it 
any  discretionary  right  to  interfere  between  the  general 
government  and  any  other  State.  That,  I  think,  is  an 
answer  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr  -JACOB.  In  the  present  state  of  the  question  I 
prefer  to  withdraw  my  amendment  and  let  the  question 
be  first  on  the  motion  to  strike  out. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Sm'th,  of  Kanawha. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  regret  that  my  friend  from  Ohio 
(Mr.  Jacob)  has  withdrawn  his  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment, and  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  it  in  a 
somewhat  different  form.  I  move  it  as  an  amendment 
to  the  amendment,  and  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee to  submit  a  word  or  two  in  relation  to  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Allow  me  to  ask  a  question  as  a  mat- 
ter of  order.  Suppose  the  amendment  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Hunter)  proposes  to  offer 
is  offered,  is  it  not  competent  still  to  ask  a  division  of 
the  question,  and  will  not  the  question  first  come  up  on 
striking  o  at  ? 

The  CHAIR.  It  is  an  amendment  to  an  amendment, 
and  the  question  will  be  first  upon  the  amendment. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  amendment  I  propose  is  this: 
to  strike  out  the  word  "  embody  "  and  the  words  "  when 
in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it,"  and 
insert  the  words  that  will  make  the  paragraph  read 
thus  : 

"  He  shall  have  power  to  call  out  and  employ  the  mi- 
litia in  such  cases  as  may  be  authorized  by  law." 

The  object  of  this  amendment  is  to  present  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  committee  the  question,  whether  it  be  not 
better  to  confide  the  whole  subject  of  defining  the  exigen- 
cies or  the  cases  in  which  the  governor  may  exercise  his 
executive  power  of  employing  the  militia,  to  the  legisla- 
ture, and  not  to  attempt  it  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
land.  My  impression  is,  that  this  subject  is  one  of  the 
most  important  and  most  dangerous  that  has  yet  em- 
ployed the  attention  of  this  Convention.  I  beg  lea\re  to 
advert  for  a  moment  to  a  remark  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Norfolk,  (Mr.  Taylor,)  that  it  was  sufficient 
to  justify  us  in  retaining  this  provision  in  the  constitu- 
tion, that  we  had  not,  from  past  experience  in  this  com- 
monwealth, found  any  evils  resulting  from  it.  Now,  in 
regard  to  this  matter,  I  say  this,  that  in  my  humble 
judgment,  we  are  likely  to  commit  a  great  error,  not 
only  upon  this,  but  upon  many  other  subjects,  by  this 
mode  of  looking  backward  too  much — if  I  may  use  a 
homely  expression — this  wearing  our  eyes  in  the  back 
of  our  heads  too  much.  I  am  not  for  discarding  the  les- 
sons of  history,  or  of  experience — very  far  from  it — but 
in  this  progressive  age,  when  we  are  now  engaged  in  the 
great  experiment  of  self-government,  and  have  reached 
a  point  that  is  full  of  interest,  if  not  of  danger,  it  strikes 
me  that  it  will  be  far  more  proper,  and  far  better,  while 
listening  to  the  lessons  that  are  taught  us  by  history, 
and  by  past  experience,  that  we  look  forward  to  what  is 
before  us.  And  in  this  view,  in  my  humble  judgment, 
the  investing  the  governor  with  this  wide  discretionary 
power  upon  the  subject  of  calling  out  the  militia,  and 
wielding  the  war-arm,  there  is  much  danger. 

Now,  lest  I  forget  it,  let  me  answer  the  inquiry  pro- 
pounded by  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  (Mr.  Edmunds) 
in  regard  to  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  governor, 
in  the  ordinary  cases  that  arise  out  of  the  necessity  of 
enforcing  the  decrees  of  the  courts.  It  is  We  that  the 
ordinary  mode  known  to  us  all  is,  that  when  the  sheriff, 
with  his  posse,  finds  difficulties  interposed  in  the  way  of 
his  executing  the  precepts  of  the  court,  he  must  call 


244 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


upon  the  executive  for  aid  and  he,  of  course,  must  call 
out  the  militia  for  that  purpose.  If  any  one  will  take 
the  trouble  to  turn  to  the  fourth  volume  of  Munford's 
reports,  he  will  find  there  a  case  reported,  which,  at  the 
t.me  excited  great  interest — the  celebrated  case  of  Hun- 
ter vs.  Fairfax,  in  which  these  facts  are  presented :  It 
was  a  land  case,  and  was  decided  by  the  court  of  appeals 
in  favor  of  the  plaintiff.  At  that  day,  if  I  am  correctly 
informed,  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  a  case  of 
that  kind,  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States, 
that  the  record  should  be  certified  by  the  State  court  or 
one  of  its  judges.  At  first  this  certificate  was  refused, 
but  was  eventually  grmted  under  circumstances,  into 
which  I  will  not  stop  to  inquire.  The  record  was  brought 
up  before  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  and 
there  the  judgment  of  the  State  court  was  reversed. 
Then  according  to  the  practice  of  that  day,  in  the  course  of 
proceedings,  an  order  was  sent  down  from  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States,  to  the  court  of  appeals  of 
Virginia,  directing  that  court  to  carry  out  the  judgment 
of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States.  The  court 
of  appeals  of  Virginia,  after  a  solemn  argument  which 
covers  100  pages  of  the  reporter,  refused  to  do  it;  and 
thereupon,  one  or  more  judges  of  that  court  intimated 
to  the  plaintiff  that  if  he  desired  it  the  sheriff  should 
put  him  in  possession  of  the  property,  notwithstanding 
this  reversal  of  their  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  su- 
preme court  of  the  United  States.  The  offer,  I  say 
was  made,  as  I  am  well  informed,  (being  indirectly 
one  of  the  victims  of  the  decision  of  the  supreme 
court,  if  erron  ous)  to  send  the  sheriff  to  put  the  plaintiff 
in  possession  of  the  property  in  despite  of  that  decision, 
and  while  the  plaintiff  was  considering  the  matter,  an  in- 
timation was  received,  that  if  such  an  attempt  was  made 
the  marshal  of  the  federal  court  would  be  directed  tu 
prevent  it.  What  would  have  been  the  result  here  ? 
The  sheriff  would  have  been  directed  to  execute  his 
process,  difficulties  would  have  been  interposed  in  his 
way,  and  a  requisition  would  have  been  made  on  the 
governor,  and  he  exercising  his  discretion  would  have 
called  out  the  militia.  Of  course  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  upon  a  similar  requisition  being  made 
upon  him  by  the  authority  of  the  supreme  court, 
would  have  called  out  either  the  regular  army  or  the 
militia  from  some  other  quarter,  and  what  then  would 
have  followed  ?  Bloodshed  would  have  been  the  re- 
sult, and  then  where  would  we  have  been?  Now,  this 
thing  may  occur  again,  and  I  am  unwilling  that,  in  a 
case  of  that  kind  the  governor  should  have  the  power 
to  jeopardize  the  very  existence  of  the  Union.  I  am 
unwilling  that,  in  any  case,  it  should  be  left  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  any  single  individual,  to  light  up  a  fire  which 
may  consume  this  glorious  Union  itself.  I  have  put 
this  case,  in  addition  to  others  that  have  been  mentioned 
by  gentlemen,  to  show  that  there  may  an  exigency 
of  this  kind  arise  even  in  times  of  profound  peace, 
which  would  render  it  improper  and  dangerous  to  in- 
vest any  one  man  with  this  power.  The  power  must 
be  somewhere,  however,  and  the  question  then  is,  who 
is  to  ext  rcise  it  ?  It  seems  to  me  the  safest  course  is  to 
commit  the  whole  matter  to  the  legislature,  where 
the  popular  voice  can  be  heard,  so  that  if  it  ever  be- 
comes necessary  to  place  this  State  in  collision  with 
the  federal  government,  or  any  other  government,  it 
may  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  popular  voice  of 
the  Commonwealth.  There  should  be  careful  conside- 
ration, full  deliberation,  earnest  inquiry,  and  deep 
thought,  before  such  a  course  should  be  decided  upon, 
but  once  decided  upon  by  the  people  of  the  State,  what 
would  be  the  action  of  the  legislature  ?  They  would 
at  once  give  the  governor  the  power  to  call  out  the 
militia.  There  is  no  difficulty  about  that.  But  the 
question  of  power  in  case  of  invasion  is  one  of  some 
difficulty,  and  I  would  prefer  that  provision  should  be 
made  by  law  to  meet  this  necessity. 

In  respect  to  foreign  invasion,  there  is  no  difficulty — 
but  what  might  be  termed  an  invasion  of  the  Federal 
Government  is  another  question. 


What  is  the  state  ol  things  which  exist  around  us 
in  Virginia  ?  1  dislike  to  refer  to  it  as  it  now  exists,  or 
may  be  made  to  exist  in  a  few  weeks.  What  may  be 
the  awful  character  of  the  exigency  or  crisis— to  use 
a  common  phrase — which  may  be  upon  us  in  a  short 
time?  I  do  not  choose  to  follow  this  idea  out,  but 
there  is  no  man  in  this  body,  who  will  permit  his  thoughts 
to  go  forward  a  little,  who  will  not  perceive  at  once 
that  we  may  be  placed  in  imminent  danger,  to  say  the 
least,  of  the  most  deplorable  occurrences,  if  we  give 
this  power  to  a  governor,  elected  for  four  years,  who 
by  a  mere  mistake  may  bring  about  a  state  of  things  that 
may  lead  to  blood-shed.  I  would  prefer  that  the  legis- 
lature, by  law,  should  give  the  power  at  once  in  those 
plain  cases,  that  can  produce  no  danger— that  of  sup- 
pressing insurrection ,  and  if  it  is  thought  best,  within  cer- 
tain limitations,  of  enforcing  the  decrees  of  the  courts 
— and  then,  whenever  the  exigency  arises,  let  the  gov- 
ernor exercise  his  power  of  calling  the  legislature  to- 
gether, and  ask  them  to  vest  him,  for  the  time  being; 
and  only  for  the  time  being,  with  the  power  of  em- 
bodying the  militia,  if  it  should  be  necessary.  The 
legislature  can  thus  dc  what  we  cannot  do  in  the'ergan- 
ic  law.  We  must  necessarily  deal  in  generals,  and  must 
be  brief  and  concise.  The  legislature  having  its  atten- 
tion drawn  to  the  subject,  may  set  to  work  and  occupy 
more  space  in  framing  the  required  law.  They  can 
guard  the  power,  take  from  its  exercise  all  danger,  and 
may  make  it  temporary  in  its  execution. 

Not  to  detain  the  committee  longer,  I  submit  to  the 
deliberate  and  serious  consideration  of  everv  member 
of  this  body,  whether  there  are  not  dangers,  and  not  im- 
aginary dangers  either,  which  may  lead  to  the  most  se- 
rious consequences,  and  which  are  even  imminent  be- 
fore us  at  this  time,  that  render  it  highly  expedient 
that  we  should  take  care  that  power  is  not  vested  in  the 
hands  of  any  single  individual,  the  exercise  of  which 
may  by  any  possibility  precipitate  upon  us  consequen- 
ces such  as  these.  Is  it  not  better  to  leave  it  with  the 
legislature  and  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  to  be  exer- 
cised as  they  may  desire,  when  the  exigencies  arise. 
There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  the  case  where  it  is  re- 
ferred to  the  legislature.  There  will  always  be  time 
enough  for  them  to  act,  except  in  cases  of  domestic  in- 
surrection, acd  in  such  cases  I  would  confer  upon  him 
the  power  to  act.  But  whenever  he  is  called  upon  to 
meet  a  crisis  of  this  kind,  it  ought  to  be  by  the  unani- 
mous expression  of  the  people,  if  possible,  or  at  least 
by  such  an  expression  of  the  popular  will  as  will  be 
undoubted  evidence  of  the  public  feelings,  for  he  will 
need  such  support  in  order  to  carry  him  through. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha,  that  he  modify  his  amendment  by  accepting 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson,  (Mr. 
Hunter,)  so  as  to  make  the  clause  read,  "He  shall  have 
power  to  embody  the  militia  to  repel  actual  invasion  or 
to  suppress  actual  insurrection,  and  in  such  other  cases 
as  may  be  provided  for  by  law." 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  would  leave  out  the  word  "inva- 
sion." 

Mr.  WISE.  He  will  then  have  a  definite  power  with- 
out the  aid  of  a  statute,  which  will  be  restricted  by  the 
word  actual,  and  all  cases  beyond  that  may,  according 
to  the  idea  of  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson,  be  provi- 
ded for  by  law. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  would  suggest  that  the  amendment 
be  withdrawn  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  sense  of  this 
committee  in  reference  to  the  discretionary  power  being 
vested  in  the  governor.  If  the  committee  agree  to  strike 
out  that  portion  of  the  section  indicated  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  it  will  be  in  its  power 
to  fill  the  blank  with  such  phraseology  as  it  may  agree 
upon.  Let  the  test  question  be  on  depriving  the  gov- 
ernor of  this  discretionary  power. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  will  withdraw  my  amendment  for 
that  purpose. 

The  CHAIR  stated  that  the  question  would  then  re- 
cur on  the  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  section  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


245 


•words  "when  in  his  opinion  the  public  safety  shall  re- 
quire it,"  a  division  of  the  question  having  been  asked 
for. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  case  put  by  the  gentleman 
from  Jefferson,  (Mr.  Hunter,)  as  I  understand  it,  was 
this  :  There  was  a  conflict  between  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  court  of  appeals  of  Vir- 
ginia. They  entered  different  judgments,  and  both  on 
constitutional  grounds,  as  the  gentleman  says.  Now,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  executive,  certainly,  to  execute  the 
laws.  The  only  question  then  was,  what  was  the  law? 
Had  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  or  the 
supreme  court  of  Virginia  interpreted  the  law  cor- 
rectly? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  gentleman  will  permit  me  to  re- 
mind him,  that  in  that  case  the  court  of  appeals  took 
the  ground  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States 
had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case.  It  was  a  case  arising 
under  the  treaty  of  1783. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  That  does  not  alter  the  aspect  of 
the  case.  The  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  de- 
cided that  they  did  have  jurisdiction,  and  they  exercised 
it.  Then  the  question  comes  up,  what  was  the  law  of 
the  State  which  the  governor  should  execute  ?  The  law 
was  properly  expounded  on  the  one  side  or  .on  the 
other,  which  the  governor  of  Virginia  must  execute  at 
his  discretion,  or  under  the  constitution.  Now,  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson,  (Mr.  Hun- 
ter,) is  to  throw  upon  the  legislature  the  interpretation 
of  the  law,  and  the  execution  of  the  law.  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  is  a  judicial  function,  and  not  a  func- 
tion of  the  legislature.  The  execution  of  the  law  is  an 
executive  function,  and  not  a  legislative  one.  To  adopt 
the  gentleman's  idea,  then,  would  be  to  say  that  the 
legislative  power  shall  make  the  law,  then  decide  what 
is  the  law,  when  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States  and  the  supreme  court  of  the 
State,  and  in  addition,  shall  provide  for  the  execution 
of  the  law.  I  trust  the  gentleman  will  see  the  impro- 
priety of  throwing  upon  the  legislative  department  of 
the  government  the  interpretation  of  the  law,  and  then 
the  executi  n  of  the  law. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  certainly  did  not  argue  for  any- 
thing looking  to  the  end  which  the  gentleman  suggests, 
by  any  means.  I  simply  pointed  out  the  case  referred 
to  as  one  of  the  cases  which  might  arise,  which  in  my 
judgment  would  place  the  executive  officer  of  this 
Commonwealth  in  a  position  where  he  might  be  able,  by 
a  mistake  on  his  part,  to  embroil  us  in  a  collision  with 
the  federal  government,  and  that  therefore  it  was  a  se- 
rious and  important  power  to  be  placed  into  his  hands. 
I  urged  that  in  cases  of  this  kind  the  legislature  should 
take  up  each  specific  case,  and  decide  each  by  itself, 
but  before  a  collision  should  be  brought  on  between  the 
State  and  Federal  government  that  might  end  in  blood- 
shed. I  would  have  the  legislature  determine  not  the 
the  question  of  law,  but  whether  the  militia  of  the 
State  should  be  embodied  to  vindicate  it.  Indeed  I 
would  rather  require  a  convention  of  the  people  and 
their  primary  direct  action  on  the  subject  before  that 
result  should  happen,  than  to  leave  it  even  with  the 
legislature  to  decide.    That  is  my  position. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  understand  the  position  of  the  gen- 
tleman to  be  this  :  There  certainly  was  a  law  in  the  case  to 
be  executed.  The  courts  of  Virginia  had  certainly  decided 
what  was  the  law,  and  the  supreme  court  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  certainly  decided  that  the  reverse  was  the 
law.  Now,  the  duty  was  devolved  on  the  executive 
department  of  executing  the  law,  but  the  question 
arose,  which  was  the  law,  the  decision  of  the  court  of 
Virginia,  or  of  the  court  of  the  United  States?  If 
there  was  law,  that  law  is  to  be  executed,  and  it 
must  be  executed  by  the  executive,  or  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  legislature.  To  execute  the  law,  the  legis- 
lature, in  a  conflict  between  two  courts,  must  decide 
what  is  the  law,  because  the  two  supreme  judicial  tri- 
bunals have  expounds  d  the  law — the  one  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  ot  ler  on  the  reverse.  If  the  governor  ex- 
ecutes the  law,  he  must  either  decide  the  question  him- 


self, or  throw  upon  the  legislature  the  decision  of  the 
judicial  question,  because  there  is  no  other  tribunal. 
The  law  must  be  enforced  by  some  department  of  the 
government.  But  if  you  throw  back  upon  the  legisla- 
ture the  duty  of  deciding  what  w^s  the  law  in  ihe  case, 
and  then  the  responsibility  of  the  execution  of  the  Jaw, 
it  strikes  me  that  you  very  improperly  mix  up  the  three 
departments  of  government,  the  law-making,  the  law-in- 
terpreting, and  the  law-executing  departments.  Ihe  leg- 
islative, judicial,  and  executive  functions  of  the  govern- 
ment will  be  devolved  upon  one  department.  The  three 
departments  of  the  government  are  declared  to  be  sepa- 
rate and  distinct,  so  that  neither  shall  exercise  the  powers 
properly  belonging  to  another,  and  I  cannot  c<  nsentto 
such  an  arrangement  of  the  powers  as  will  unite  the 
functions  of  two  in  one. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  agree  with  those  gentle- 
men who  are  in  favor  of  the  clearest  definitions  of  the 
powers  which  are  to  be  confided  to  the  chief  magistrate 
of  this  Commonwealth  ;  and  I  agree,  also,  that  we 
should  leave  as  little  as  possible  to  individual  discre- 
tien.  I  shall  vote  therefore,  for  the  motion  to  strike  out, 
but  none  of  the  propositions  with  which  it  is  contem- 
plated to  fill  the  blanks  exactly  meet  my  views.  I 
am  unwilling  to  confer  upon  this  officer  the  power  to  call 
out  the  militia  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  the  public 
safety  may  require  it.  Such  a  grant  of  power,  it  seems 
to  me,  carries  with  it  no  limitation  whatsoever.  He 
will  be  made  the  judge  of  the  occasion  ;  he  will  deter- 
mine for  himself  when  the  public  safety  may  require 
the  embodying  of  the  militia.  I  do  not  see  any  neces- 
sity whatsoever  for  clothing  him  with  this  broad  power. 
I  am  willing  to  clothe  him  with  the  power  to  call  out 
the  militia  of  the  State  in  certain  exigencies,  and  I  see 
no  difficulty  whatsoever  in  defining  in  the  constitution 
itself,  in  plain  terms,  the  exigencies  in  which  the  pow- 
er shall  be  exercised.  I  think  he  ought  to  have  the 
power  to  call  out  the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  whether 
that  invasion  be  actual  or  threatened  ;  I  think  he  ought 
to  h  tve  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  to  suppress 
insurrection,  whether  the  insurrection  be  raging,  or 
about  to  rage  ;  1  think  he  ought  to  have  the  power  to 
call  them  out  to  enforce  the  law,  and  he  ought  to  have 
this  power  irrespective  of  the  legislature.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  organize  an  executive  department  with  proper 
efficiency  to  meet  the  emergencies  of  the  State,  unless 
we  clothe  bhat  department  with  some  discretionary 
powers.  We  must  confide  some  trust  to  it,  but  there 
is  no  trust,  however  broao  or  however  limited,  which  it 
will  not  be  in  his  power  to  abuse.  This  clanger,  how- 
ever, we  must  encounter  whenever  we  vest  authority 
anywhere.  If  we  empower  the  governor  to  call  out 
the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection, 
and  to  exeaute  the  law,  why  is  it  necessary  to  confer  up- 
on him  any  further  power  ?  What  case  can  arise  ? 
What  case  is  it  probable  will  arise  other  than  those 
enumerated,  which  will  justify  the  governor  in  calling 
out  the  military  of  the  State.  I  do  not  think  we  ought 
to  leave  these  things  to  legislative  discretion.  If  you 
adopt  the  suggestion  of  my  friend  from  Jefferson,  (Mr. 
Hunter,)  and  refer  this  matter  entirely  to  the  legisla- 
tive department,  what  must  that  department  do  ?  What 
authority  must  it  confer  on  the  executive  branch  of  the 
government  ?  Must  it  withhold  all  authority  until  the 
case  for  its  exercise  shall  arise  ?  Must  it  withhold  the 
power  to  repel  invasion  until  invasion  shall  come,  and 
the  legislature  be  convened  to  consider  of  it  ?  Must  it 
withhold  the  power  to  suppress  insurrection  until  insur- 
rection rages,  and  to  execute  the  law  until  the  law  is  re- 
sisted ?  Is  it  not  plain  to  every  one  that  there  are  oc- 
casions requiring  prompt  action  ?  Prompter  action  than 
it  would  be  possible  to  obtain  if  these  powers  were  to 
lay  dormant  until  called  into  activity  by  special  acts  of 
legislation.  What  danger  can  there  be  in  conferring  this 
power  upon  the  governor  ?  I  apprehend  that  the  case 
put  by  my  friend  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  of  the 
marching  of  troops  of  the  United  States,  through  the 
territory  of  Virginia,  could  not,  by  aay  construction, 


246 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


authorize  the  governor  to  call  out  the  militia  under  the 
plea  of  repelling  an  invasion;  whereas  I  do  see  that 
such  an  occasion  might  very  readily  give  the  opportu- 
nity to  call  out  the  mlitia  under  the  pretext  that  the 
public  safety  required  it.  It  would  be  no  invasion,  if 
the  troops  of  the  United  States,  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  were  to  march  through  the  territory 
of  Virginia,  to  any  destination,  for  any  purpose,  but  up- 
on the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  I 
repeat  that  it  might  well  be  considered  by  a  governor, 
holding  peculiar  opinions,  as  an  occasion  upon  which 
the  public  safety  of  this  Commonwealth  might  require 
the  military  force  to  be  embodied.  I  am  for  striking 
out,  therefore,  those  words  from  the  committee's  report. 
I  am  for  taking  from  the  executive  officer  this  broad 
discretion — a  discretion  which,  in  my  judgment,  would 
clothe  him  with  unlimited  power.  Bat  if  the  report  be 
amended  so  as  to  specify  the  occasions  upon  which  the 
power  is  to  be  exercised,  and  the  specifications  be  limited 
to  the  cases  of  invasion,  insurrection  and  the  execution 
of  the  law,  I  shall  have  no  objection  whatsoever  to  it. 
I  am  willing  to  confide  this  power  to  the  chief  execu- 
tive magistrate,  however  he  be  appointed,  whether  by 
the  popular  vote  or  by  the  legislative  branch,  because 
thus  limited,  I  do  not  apprehend  that  it  is  a  power  very 
liable  to  abuse.  I  do  not  know  the  precise  terms  of 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, (Mr.  Smith,)  but  I  infer  from  the  discussion,  that 
he  proposes  to  strike  out  those  words  from  the  report, 
and  supply  their  place  with  others  which  will  limit  the 
power  to  call  out  the  militia  in  cases  where  it  shall  be 
necessary  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  and 
execute  the  law.  To  that  extent  I  concur  in  the  amend- 
ment. But  there  is  no  occasion  to  go  further.  We  need 
say  nothing  here  of  the  legislative  department.  If  it 
were  proposed  to  define  the  legislative  power,  and  de- 
clare that  the  legislative  department  of  the  government 
should  exercise  no  other  powers  than  such  as  shall  be 
specially  granted  by  the  constitution,  there  might  be 
some  propriety  in  that  portion  of  the  amendment  which 
contemplates  conferring  power  in  respect  to  this  sub- 
ject upon  the  legislature,  but  I  apprehend  that  it  is  not 
proposed  to  attempt  to  define  the  powers  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  all  that  we  mean  to  do  is  to  place  certain 
restrictions  upon  their  exercise,  leaving  the  legislative 
department  to  exercise  all  powers  in  their  nature  legis- 
lative, not  prohibited  in  this  or  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  But  in  respect  to  the  executive  depart- 
ment, we  design  to  proceed  upon  a  different  principle, 
and  to  define  in  clear  and  precise  terms  all  the  powers 
which  under  this  government  that  department  is  to 
exercise,  and  not  permit  it  to  exercise  any  power,  how- 
ever executive  in  its  nature  it  may^  be,  unless  conferred 
by  the  constitution  or  an  act  of  legislation.  Therefore, 
as  I  said  before,  I  am  in  favor  of  striking  from  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  the  objectionable  words,  because 
they  confer  a  vast  and  unlimited  discretion  upon  the 
Governor,  and  to  substitute  the  words  declaring  spe- 
cifically that  he  shall  have  power  to  call  out  the  mili- 
tia to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  and  execute 
the  laws. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  There  is  an  objection  ta- 
ken by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  to  the  latter  clause 
of  the  amendment,  which  objection  seems  to  be  founded 
upon  the  opinion  that  it  gives  more  power  than  ought 
to  be  given  to  the  executive.  Now,  I  insist,  that  the  lat- 
ter clause  referred  to,  instead  of  conferring  power  upon 
the  governor,  is  a  limitation  upon  it.  If  you  strike  it 
out,  you  leave  the  legislature  full  power  to  confer  such 
authority  upon  the  governor  as  to  them  may  seem  prop- 
er. All  power  not  withheld  from  the  legislature  by  the 
constitution,  is  undoubtedly  returned  by  and  vested  in 
that  body.  Well,  now,  the  legislature  may  grant  a  gen- 
eral power  to  the  governor  in  these  matters,  and  thus 
is  intended  to  restrict  the  action  of  the  governor  in  eve- 
ry instance  where  the  power  is  not  given  especially, 
and  in  reference  to  an  especial  case.  It  is  designed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  governor,  and  to  deny  to  him  the 


right  of  exercising  any  power  granted  by  the  legisla- 
ture, which  is  not  specific  in  its  terms.  Hence  it  is 
not  an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  governor  as  I 
understand  it.  The  legislature  may  do  wrong — they 
may  grant  a  general  and  sweeping  power  to  the  gov- 
ernor in  this  matter,  but  under  this  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution, the  governor  would  not  be  at  liberty  to  exer- 
cise any  such  power,  because  it  would  not  be  specifical- 
ly given.  This  was  intended  to  be  the  effect  of  the 
amendment.  It  was  drawn  up  by  me  hastily.  I  have 
no  particular  partiality  for  its  phraseology.  I  go  for 
the  substance,  and  any  proposition  that  can  be  offered, 
which  will  attain  the  result  desired,  will  be  equally 
acceptable  to  me.  My  desire  is  to  guard  against  re- 
sults, which  I  have  supposed,  need  only  to  be  mention- 
ed, to  be  seen  and  observed  by  all.  This  seems  to  be 
the  desire  of  all  who  have  spoken  here,  and  I  repeat  I 
am  willing  to  agree  to  any  amendment  which  will 
efficiently  limit  this  immense  power.  It  is  a  power  of 
peace  or  war,  and  a  power  which  may  dissolve  the 
Union,  and  that  certainly  is  a  power  too  vast  and  mo- 
mentous in  its  consequences  to  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  any  one  man. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  coincides  more  nearly  with  my  own  opin- 
ions on  this  subject,  than  any  gentleman  who  has  yet 
spoken.  He  is  opposed  to  mingling  the  three  depart- 
ments of  government,  though  he  is  disposed  to  permit 
the  legislature  to  specify  the  case  in  which  the  govern- 
or may  call  out  the  militia.  Now,  in  the  three  cases 
of  which  he  speaks,  I  suppose  he  means  to  leave  it  dis- 
cretionary with  the  governor  when  he  shall  call  out 
the  militia.  For  instance,  when  in  his  opinion  inva- 
sion is  threatened,  he  may  call  out  the  militia.  I  de- 
sire to  know  what  is  the  understanding  of  the  gentle- 
man, because  I  am  anxious  to  know  in  whom  this  dis- 
cretion is  to  rest. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  would  use  just  the  lan- 
guage of  the  federal  constitution. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  That  is  the  language  of 
the  amendment.  ' 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  If  you  confer  the  power  unlimited 
on  the  executive,  to  call  out  the  militia  to  repel  inva- 
sion, to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  enforce  the  execu- 
tion of  the  laws,  I  cannot  see  how  the  powers  are  guard- 
ed. For  example,  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  would 
not  require  the  governor,  in  calling  out  the  militia,  to 
specify  the  cause  for  which  they  were  embodied.  It 
might  be  improper,  and  there  might  be  some  secret  cor- 
respondence between  him  and  the  federal  executive, 
which  would  require  him  to  call  out  the  militia  without 
proclaiming  the  reasons  for  the  call.  It  might  be  commu- 
nicated to  him  that  there  was  imminent  danger  of  insur- 
rection, the  knowledge  of  which  it  might  be  necessary 
to  conceal  in  calling  out  the  troops.  Now,  if  it  requires 
the  governor  to  specify  the  reasons  for  which  he  calls  out 
the  militia  in  such  case,  the  amendment  might  be  of 
some  effect,  rut  if  he  is  not  thus  to  specify  the  reasons, 
and  has  the  unlimited  discretion  to  call  them  out  in  those 
cases,  he  may  abuse  the  power  just  as  much  as  he  may 
under  the  unlimited  discretion  imposed  upon  him  in  the 
clause  as  it  stands.  The  assumption  is,  that  there  will 
be  no  danger  of  an  abuse  of  this  power  of  calling  out 
the  militia  unless  the  governor  does  abuse  the  power 
conferred  on  him  by  the  constitution.  The  idea  is,  that 
he  will,  under  the  pretext  that  the  public  safety  requires 
it,  improperly  call  out  the  militia,  and  call  them  out 
too,  when  the  public  safety  does  not  require  it.  That 
would  be  a  gross  abuse  of  power  ;  but  I  concur  with 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  in  saying  that  he  must  have 
confidence,  both  in  the  legislature  and  executive,  that 
they  will  use  their  power  with  discretion.  We  are 
obliged  to  confide  in  the  discretion  of  the  executive  in 
other  cases,  and  we  must  do  it  in  this  case.  If  the 
governor  is  disposed  to  abuse  the  discretionary  power 
confided  to  him,  and  to  call  out  the  militia  when  the 
public  safety  does  not  require  them  to  be  embodied,  he 
he  may  equally  abuse  the  power,  if  there,  be  a  specific 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


247 


grant  of  power.  If  you  once  presume  an  abuse  of  his 
power,  that  abuse  may  arise,  whether  his  power  is 
limited  by  "public  safety,"  or  by  the  three  specified 
grants — "  insurrection,  invasion,  or  execution  of  the 
laws." 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  agree  with  the  gentleman, 
and  I  said  when  I  was  up  before,  that  it  is  impossible 
when  you  create  a  power  and  appoint  an  agent  to  exercise 
it,  to  guard  against  every  possible  abuse  ;  that  we  ought 
to  guard  against  abuse  as  far  as  practicable,  and  in  this 
case  we  progress  to  some  extent  towards  that  object, 
when  we  limit  this  power  to  certain  cases  and  define 
clearly  what  those  cases  are.  If  the  report  stands,  cloth- 
ing the  executive  with  power  to  call  out  the  militia 
whenever,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  requires  it, 
does  not  every  one  see  that  it  clothes  him  with  a  power 
to  call  out  the  militia  in  every  conceivable  case  what- 
ever ?  Is  there  any  gentleman  in  this  body  in  favor  of 
clothing  the  executive  department  of  the  government 
with  that  broad  and  unlimited  power — power  over  the 
military  strength  of  the  State,  a  power  to  call  it  into 
action  whenever,  in  his  individual  judgment,  the  safety 
of  the  commonwealth  may  require  it.  I  think  there 
may  be  occasions  when  safety  will  require  the  governor 
to  call  out  the  militia.  I  think  the  Convention  can 
foresee  those  occasions,  and  foreseeing,  can  define  them.  I 
think  it  is  its  duty  to  define  them,  and  not  leave  it  to  the 
broad  discretion  of  the  governor.  I  think  that  in  cases 
of  invasion,  of  insurrection,  and  of  opposition  to  the 
execution  of  the  law,  it  may  be  necessary  to  call  out 
the  militia.  And  we  do  all  that  is  possible  for  human 
agents  to  do,  to  guard  against  abuse,  when,  in  the  act  of 
conferring  it,  we  require  that  it  shall  be  exercised  only 
when  the  safety  of  the  commonwealth  shall  be  endan- 
gered, by  one  or  the  other  of  these  emergencies.  I  think 
there  is  a  great  difference — a  wide  difference  between 
the  grant  of  power  in  these  restricted  terms  and  the 
grant  of  power  contained  in  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee. 1  think  there  is  a  great  difference  between  giving 
this  power  to  the  governor  in  the  enumerated  cases,  and 
giving  it  to  him  in  any  or  in  every  case  according  to  his 
judgment  and  discretion. 
<  Mr.  SOUTH  ALL.  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  indica- 
tions of  the  committee  are  against  conferring  upon  the 
governor  this,  to  my  mind,  most  unlimited  executive  pre- 
rogative— that  of  deciding  upon  the  occasion  when  the 
public  safety  shall  require  the  calling  out  and  the  em- 
bodying of  the  militia  of  the  State  ;  and  our  object,  it 
seems  to  me,  should  be  so  to  confer  this  power  upon 
the  executive  of  the  State  as  to  guard  against  any  im- 
proper exercise  of  it.  In  the  exercise  of  this  indefinite 
power  the  chief  magistrate  might  deem  the  State  or  its 
safety  in  danger  when  a  very  large  portion — perhaps  a 
large  majority — of  the  people  might  entertain  the  opin- 
ion that  there  was  no  danger  at  hand,  and  that  the  pub- 
lic safety  did  not  require  its  exercise.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  so  far  as  he  has  gone, 
indicated  the  right  view  on  this  subject,  and  if  we  add  a 
single  word  to  the  amendment,  it  will  perhaps  carry  out 
the  object  in  view,  and  deny  to  the  legislature,  if  it  should 
be  diposed  to  exercise  it,  the  power  of  conferring  upon 
the  chief  magistrate  any  other  power  touching  the  mi- 
litia of  the  commonwealth  than  those  prescribed  in  the 
constitution.  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, and  others,  to  indicate,  and  in  that  I  go  with  them, 
that  the  governor  should  possess  the  power  to  call  forth 
the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  whether  the  invasion  be 
threatened  or  actual,  to  suppress  insurrection,  whether 
there  be  a  case  of  overt  act  or  threatened,  and  to  enforce 
the  due  execution  of  the  laws.  If  this  be  a  power  all- 
sufficient  with  which  to  arm  your  executive  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  care  of  the  public  safety,  you  must  limit 
the  other  departments  of  government  from  conferring  on 
him  any  additional  power  upon  the  subject,  otherwise 
you  will  not  have  advanced  an  inch.  Because  if  you 
only  go  so  far  as  to  prescribe  and  declare  in  your  organic 
law  that  the  governor  mar  call  out  the  militia  for  the 


three  purposes  mentioned,  you  have  not  thereby  denied 
to  the  legislature  the  power  of  conferring  on  him  other 
and  additional  power  over  the  militia.  You  are  just 
running  in  a  circle,  and  may  not  guard  against  the  ap- 
prehended power  ultimately  finding  its  way  into  the  ex- 
ecutive department.  If  you  believe  it  is  inexpedient  to 
confer  upon  the  executive  the  discretion  to  determine 
when  the  public  safety  may  require  the  embodiment  of 
the  militia,  certainly  we  ought  to  deny  to  the  legisla- 
tive department  the  power  to  confer  that  right  upon  him. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  presume  that  we  are  now 
upon  the  article  organizing  the  executive  and  not  the 
legislative  department,  and  we  are  to  consider  what 
power  it  is  proper  or  improper  to  confer  upon  the  ex- 
ecutive. When  we  come  to  consider  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  government,  then  we  may  consider  in  what 
it  may  be  proper  to  restrict  that  branch  of  the  govern- 
ment. As  to  what  my  iriend  proposes,  it  does  seem  to 
me  to  be  such  a  limitation  upon  the  legislative  power  as 
would  not  find  a  proper  place  in  this  report. 

Mr.  SOUTHALL.  That  may  or  may  not  be.  In  or- 
ganizing your  executive  department,  it  may  be  proper  or 
necessary  to  prescribe  and  to  limit  his  duties,  and  there- 
by to  prohibit  the  legislative  department  when  they 
come  to  exercise  the  powers  conferred  on  them  to  extend 
to  the  executive  any  additional  prerogatives  over  the 
militia  ;  or  it  may  be,  as  the  gentleman  says,  a  matter  of 
policy  first  to  prescribe  in  general  terms,  without  limita- 
tion, the  powers  and  duties  of  the  executive,  and  then 
when  we  come  to  organize  the  legislative  department, 
there  to  restrict  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  power.  But 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  might  at  once,  so  far  as  this  com- 
mittee is  disposed  to  unite  in  the  proposition,  and  settle 
the  question  by  simply  prescribing  here  that  the  gover- 
nor shall  have  power  to  call  out  the  militia  only  to  re- 
pel invasion,  only  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  only  to 
execute  the  laws.  You  will  determine  then  at  once 
what  power  the  executive  should  exercise,  and  render  it 
wholly  unnecessary,  when  we  come  to  the  legislative  de- 
partment, to  say  that  they  shall  not  confer  on  the  execu- 
tive any  power  touching  the  prerogative  which  you 
propose  to  confer  on  him  over  the  militia.  It  is  to  me 
a  matter  of  entire  indifference  where  this  limitation  shall 
come  in,  whether  in  the  legislative  or  in  ti  e  executive 
department. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  presume  there  is  very  little  difference 
of  opinion  prevail  ng  in  the  Convention  as  to  what  is 
proper  to  be  done  upon  this  subject.  I  had  not  the 
good  fortune  to  come  in  at  the  moment  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha  submitted  his  amendment,  nor 
had  I  the  good  fortune  to  hear  the  proposition  submitted 
by  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson,  (Mr.  Hunter,)  but  I 
heard  his  remarks,  and  I  have  listened  with  attention 
and  interest  to  the  remarks  made  by  others  who  follow- 
ed him.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  but  one  opinion 
that  does  or  ought  to  prevail  in  this  Convention,  and 
that  is  to  provide  especially,  so  far  as  it  is  in  our  power 
to  do,  for  the  cases  in  which  the  governor  shall  be  au- 
thorized to  exercise  his  powers  of  calling  out  the  militia. 
But  it  seems  to  be  apprehended,  and  perhaps  with  some 
propriety,  that  other  questions  may  arise  which  we  can- 
not expressly  provide  for  in  the  constitution.  Under 
these  views  it  has  suggested  itself  to  my  mind  that  the 
most  proper  provision  which  could  be  incorporated  in 
the  constitution  on  this  subject,  which  would  meet  en- 
tirely, if  I  understood  them,  the  views  expressed  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Fauquier,  Jefferson,  and  Albemarle,  and 
I  hope,  entertained  by  the  resolution  of  the  Convention 
would  be  to  incorporate  in  the  constitution  a  provision 
of  this  kind,  that  he  shall  have  the  power  to  call  out 
the  militia  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  invasion,  sup- 
pressing insurrection,  or  in  such  cases  as  the  legislature 
may  specially  authorize. 

It  does  appear  to  me  that  there  is  no  case  likely  to 
arise  in  which  we  ought  to  call  out  the  militia  except 
in  the  special  cases  of  repelling  invasion  and  suppressing 
insurrection ;  but  if,  in  his  opinion,  a  case  should  arise 


248 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


and  a  necessity  should  exist,  you  have  already  in  the  pre- 
ceding section*  given  the  governor  power  to  "  couvene 
the  legislature  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  when  in 
his  opinion  the  interest  of  the  commonwealth  shall  re- 
quire it."  Now,  what  is  the  case  likely  to  arise  other 
than  those  of  invasion  and  insurrection,  in  which  the 
governor  might  feel  it  his  duty  to  call  out  the  militia  ? 
Is  there  any  case  likely  to  happen  thut  will  require  such 
prompt  and  instant  action  as  would  forbid  him  for  want 
of  time,  from  convening  the  legislature  and  asking  for 
authority?  Suppose  the  case  instanced  of  the  federal 
government  to  suppress  an  invasion  or  an  insurrection 
elsewhere  than  in  this  State.  Suppose  the  Governor  of 
Virginia,  knowing  nothing  of  public  opinion,  should  hold 
that  the  public  safety  required  that  the  marching  of 
those  troops  should  be  resisted.  Is  that  a  case  in  which 
the  Convention  proposes  to  vest  this  high  discretionary 
power  in  a  single  individual?  Should  they  not  make  it 
his  duty  in  such  circumstances,  before  he  should  exercise 
the  power,  to  call  together  the  legislature  and  ascertain 
what  was  public  sentiment  on  the  question?  It  seems 
to  me  that  such  a  position  as  I  have  indicated,  would  be 
proper  to  incorporate  in  the  constitution,  and  would 
cover  all  the  cases  likely  to  arise. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  With  one  exception  the 
amendment  indicated  by  the  gentleman  is  identical  with 
the  one  I  offered.  He  has  simply  omitted  the  words 
"  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws."  The  amendment  I 
offered,  provides  that  besides  these  cases  specified,  he 
shall  have  power  in  only  such  cases  as  the  legislature 
may  specially  authorize  him  to  act 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  stated  that  I  had  not  heard  the  propo- 
sition. If  it  is  as  the  gentleman  says,  I  have  no  objec- 
tion to  it. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  (a  division  having  been 
ordered,)  on  the  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  report 
of  the  committee  the  words  following  :  "  when  in  his 
opinion  the  public  safety  shall  require  it,"  and  it  was 
agreed  to. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Smith, 
of  Kanawha,  to  insert  in  lieu  of  the  words  thus  stricken 
out,  the  following  :  "  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  in- 
surrection, to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  for 
such  other  specific  purposes  only  as  may  be  authorized 
by  the  legislature." 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  There  seems  to  be  a  gen- 
eral misunderstanding  of  the  latter  clause  of  the  amend- 
ment. It  seems  to  be  supposed  that  it  is  a  restriction 
upon  the  legislature.  It  is  not  so.  It  is  a  restriction 
upon  the  governor.  The  governor  is  to  exercise  no 
power  but  that  which  is  first  granted  by  the  legislature, 
and  it  must  be  a  special  grant  from  that  body,  before  he 
can  exercise  it.  Suppose  the  legislature  was  to  pass  a 
law  on  this  very  same  question.  This  is  a  restriction 
upon  the  power  of  the  governor,  in  the  execution  of  any 
such  general  law  which  the  legislature  may  pass.  It  is 
not  to  restrict  the  legislative  power  at  all;  it  is  a  re- 
striction upon  the  powers  of  the  governor  under  a  gen- 
eral legislative  act.  The  very  purpose  of  the  amend- 
ment is  to  restrict  the  action  of  the  governor  to  such 
matters  as  should  be  specially  defined  by  the  legisla- 
ture. 

Mr.  WISE.  My  objection  to  the  latter  terms  of  the 
amendment  is  not  that  they  are  words  of  limitation  up- 
on the  legislative  department,  or  that  they  are  words  of 
restriction  upon  the  executive  department ;  but  my  ob- 
jection is  rather  the  reverse,  that  in  this  place  you  give 
the  governor  unlimited  discretion  to  exercise  executive 
power  in  any  case  which  the  legislature  may  direct  by 
law. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  When  we  come  to  the 
article  on  the  legislative  department,  then  we  may 
restrict  the  legislature,  if  it  is  desired,  from  conferring 
any  power  on  the  governor  which  is  not  specific,  and 
then  the  two  clauses  will  be  consistent. 

Mr.  WISE.  It  will  be  impossible,  I  venture  to  sug- 
gest to  the  gentleman,  to  incorporate  when  you  come  to 


the  report  on  the  legislative  department,  a  legislative 
restriction  to  the  extent  the  gentleman  designs.  And  I 
would  repeat  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, (Mr.  Scott,)  that  the  executive  cannot  exercise 
discretionary  power  beyond  the  terms  and  limitations 
which  you  propose  to  have  introduced  into  this  article 
on  the  executive  department.  You  will  have  said  that 
he  shall  call  forth  the  militia  only  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
pelling invasion,  of  suppressing  insurrection,  and  of  ex- 
ecuting the  laws.  That  embraces  every  case,  and  every 
category  of  cases.  If  you  go  no  further  the  legislature 
will  not  be  authorized  to  confer  executive  power  that 
is  not  already  conferred  by  the  constitution  ;  and  if  you 
go  as  far  as  is  proposed  by  these  latter  terms  of  the 
amendment,  why,  you  go  to  the  extent  that  has  been 
well  put  by  the  gentleman  from  Albemarle,  (Mr.  South- 
all.)  You  do  not  restrict  the  power  of  the  legislature, 
but  you  are  giving  the  legislature  an  unlimited  power 
to  create  the  governor  dictator,  to  clothe  his  right  arm 
alone  with  the  war  power  of  the  Commonwealth,  I 
am  not  prepared  to  do  that ;  I  am  not  prepared  to  trust 
myself  when  we  come  to  the  legislative  department  to 
guard  this  power  by  any  limitation  there  in  the  consti- 
tution. I  do  not  believe  that  human  language  can  do 
it.  Without  these  words  this  executive  power  will  be 
well  guarded.  We  desire  him  not  to  exercise  this  exe- 
cutive power  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  repel  inva- 
sion, to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  execute  the  laws. 
To  give  the  legislature  authority  to  invest  the  governor 
with  executive  power  beyond  that,  I  say  is  going  too  far, 
and  I  think  we  had  better  stand  upon  the  amendment 
without  those  words.  I  move  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  the  latter  words,  "  and  for  such  other 
specific  purposes  only  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  le- 
gislature," so  that  the  clause  will  read  "  he  shall  have 
power  to  embody  the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  to  sup- 
press insurrection,  and  to  execute  the  laws." 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  I  have  no  sort  of  partiali- 
ty as  to  the  phraseology  of  this  amendment  at  all,  and  I 
have  no  objection  to  accepting  the  amendment,  unless 
other  gentlemen  should  object  to  it,  because  it  was  one 
of  debatable  policy  with  me  when  I  introduced  it ;  but  I 
thought  occasions  might  arise  in  which  it  might  become 
essential  for  the  governor  to  exercise  other  powers  than 
those  embraced  in  the  three  purposes  specified.  I  will, 
therefore,  yield  to  the  suggestion  of  my  friend,  and  ac- 
cept the  amendment. 

The  amendment  was  accordingly  modified,  as  suggested 
by  Mr.  Wise,  so  as  to  read  "to  repel  invasion,  suppress 
insurrection,  and  to  execute  the  laws." 

Mr.  SOUTHALL.  I  move  that  the  word  "  only"  be 
inserted  in  the  amendment,  so  that  it  shall  read  he 
shall  have  power  to  embody  the  militia  only  to  repel 
invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  execute  the 
laws." 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  remark  to  the  gentleman  from 
Albemarle,  that  the  word  is  unnecessary.  The  limita- 
tions are  limitations  ex  vi  termini.  They  are  not  only 
limitations  ex  vi  termini,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  ex- 
ecutive department  itself  the  legislature  can  confer  no 
power  upon  it  which  is  not  conferred  by  the  constitu- 
tion. And  when  you  say  that  the  power  shall  be  exer- 
cised by  the  executive  only  to  repel  invasion,  suppress 
insurrection,  and  execute  the  laws,  these  are  the  only 
cases  enumerated,  and  of  course  it  does  not  include  any 
others. 

Mr.  SOUTHALL.  If  I  thought  as  the  gentleman 
from  Accomachas  indicated,  I  certainly  should  not  insist 
upon  the  amendment,  but  I  differ  entirely  with  him  as 
to  the  interpretation  which  he  seems  to  put  on  these 
words,  should  they  stand  in  the  amendment  as  I  have 
suggested.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Accomac 
to  say  that  the  legislative  committee  cannot  confer  other 
powers  upon  the  executive,  as  to  embodying  the  militia, 
if  those  words  are  not  inserted  ?  Why,  if  the  gentleman 
will  look  at  the  existing  constitution,  he  will  find  that 
there  are  many  powers  now  exercised  by  the  Governor 
of  Virginia,  that  do  not  appear  in  that  Constitution. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


249 


The  constitution  of  1829,  conferred  upon  the  executive 
certain  powers,  and  among  others  the  one  under  discus- 
sion, also  the  right  t©  grant  reprieves  and  pardons,  <fec. ; 
and  yet  we  find  that  from  that  time  to  this  the  legisla- 
ture by  law  have  been  conferring  upon  the  executive 
various  other  powers  not  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
constitution.  Is  there  any  power  given  to  the  governor 
by  the  constitution  of  1829,  to  appoint  inspectors,  and  to 
exercise  many  other  powers  which  might  be  named;  and 
which  have  been  conferred  upon  him  by  the  legislature? 
If  I  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  as  to  the 
interpretation  to  be  given  to  the  words  offthe  amend- 
ment, I  should  be  perfectly  indifferent  as  to  the  insertion 
of  the  word,  which  I  now  deem  necessary  as  a  check  on 
the  powers  of  the  legislature.  The  executive  is  confined 
to  its  grant  of  powers.  The  legislature  is  restrained  but 
by  limitation.  It  is  my  object  at  present,  (whilst  I  de- 
sire to  be  understood  as  not  being  committed  irrevocably 
to  the  views  I  have  thrown  out  on  this  subject,)  to  tie 
up  the  hands  of  the  legislature.  The  gentleman  seems 
to  agree  with  me  that  the  word  "  only"  inserted  here 
will  do  no  harm.  It  is  a  small  word  it  is  true,  but  it 
will  be  potent  and  powerful  for  the  object  I  have  in 
view. 

Mr.  "WISE.  I  agree  it  will  do  no  harm,  but  I  do  not 
see  that  it  will  do  any  good. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  Under  the  solicitations  of 
gentlemen  around  me,  I  have  acoepted  of  various  amend- 
ments suggested,  but  upon  further  reflection,  I  am  sat- 
isfied that  my  amendment,  as  originally  introduced,  will 
better  attain  the  end  which  I  desire,  and  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  committee  I  will  decline  the  modifications 
that  have  been  made,  and  present  my  amendment  in  its 
original  form  again.  If  any  gentleman  desires  the  lat- 
ter clause  to  be  stricken  out,  he  can  make  a  motion  to 
that  effect,  and  the  sense  of  the  Convention  can  be  taken 
on  it. 

The  amendment  was  then  modified,  so  as  to  read  as 
originally  introduced. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  renew  my  motion  to  strike  out  the 
words  "  and  for  such  other  specific  purposes  only,  as 
may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature." 

Mr.  SOUTH  ALL.  I  renew  my  amendment  to  insert 
the  word  "  only." 

Mr.  WISE.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Albemarle  comes  in  properly  only  in  case  the  words  I 
propose  shall  be  stricken  out,  and  I  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  he  withhold  his  amendment  until  the  ques- 
tion is  taken  on  my  motion. 

Mr.  SOUTHALL.    I  will  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Mr.  BROWK  I  hope  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
committee  to  strike  out  the  latter  clause  of  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr. 
Smith,)  and  I  trust  that  after  that,  it  will  be  their  plea- 
sure to  insert  the  word  "only"  as  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Albemarle,  (Mr.  Southall.)  I  understand 
that  the  Convention  is  now  fixing  the  powers  of  the  ex- 
ecutive with  regard  to  the  militia  of  the  Conimon  wealth, 
and  that  the  Convention  is  now  considering  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha.  Now  striking 
out  the  latter  clause,  will  confer  on  the  executive  the 
power  of  embodying  the  militia  for  three  purposes  and 
for  three  purposes  only,  so  far  as  the  constitution  is 
concerned. 

So  far  as  there  is  a  grant  of  power  by  the  constitution 
to  the  executive,  he  can  only  embody  it  for  three  speci- 
fied purposes,  if  the  word  only  shall  be  inserted  as  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Albemarle.  It  is  true 
that  the  legislature  may  confer  other  powers  on  the  gov- 
ernor, than  those  conferred  by  the  Constitution;,  but  I 
understand  the  object  of  the  gentleman  from  Albemarle 
is  to  deny  to  the  legislature  the  power  of  conferring 
other  executive  powers  upon  the  Governor,  with  regard 
to  the  militia.  He  does  not  design  to  limit  the  power 
of  the  legislature,  to  confer  other  powers  upon  the  exe- 
cutive, in  regard  to  other  subjects,  but  he  desires  to  de- 
signate in  the  Constitution  the  entire  power  of  the  gov- 
20 


ernor  over  the  militia.  Then  we  will  take  from  the  le- 
gislature, should  the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  be 
stricken  out,  the  power  of  authorizing  the  executive  to 
embody  the  militia  for  any  other  than  the  three  pur- 
poses proposed  to  be  designated  in  the  constitution.  I 
know  that  the  power  may  be  left  with  the  legislature, 
and  very  properly,  of  conferring  other  executive  powers 
upon  the  governor,  upon  other  subjects  than  those  of 
embodying  the  militia ;  and  when  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  government  shall  be  under  consideration, 
we  may  regulate  their  powers  as  we  may  see  proper, 
but  if  the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  ©f  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha  be  stricken  out,  and  the  word  only 
inserted,  then,  so  far  as  the  militia  is  concerned,  the  con- 
stitution will  have  fixed  the  executive  power. 

Mr.  M.  R.  H.  GARNETT.  I  am  glad  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha  has  adhered  to  his  amendment, 
and  I  am  opposed  to  striking  out  the  latter  clause  of  it, 
not  so  much  for  the  effect  that  clause  would  have,  as  on 
account  of  the  purpose  avowed  on  this  floor  by  some 
gentlemen  at  least,  in  striking  it  out.  As  I  understand 
this  question,  it  presents  to  us  the  simple  issue  whether 
such  discretionary  power  should  be  lodged  with  the  ex- 
ecutive or  the  legislature.  I  had  supposed  that  gentle- 
men here  would  all  agree  that  whenever  the  public 
safety  required  it,  the  government  of  the  State,  in  some 
of  its  branches,  should  have  the  power  to  embody  the 
militia.  Under  the  old  constitution  that  power  was 
lodged  with  the  governor,  and  it  has  been  exercised 
with  safety  for  seventy  odd  years.  The  gentlemen 
from  Accomac  and  Jefferson  alluded  to  certain  cases, 
to  show  that  danger  might  have  resulted  from  an  abuse 
of  power,  and  yet  it  appeared  that  even  in  such  cases 
no  abuses  had  actually  occurred.  The  governors  who 
safely  exercised  that  power  for  over  seventy  years, 
were  elected  by  the  legislature,  by  that  much  abused, 
that  corrupt  body,  as  gentlemen  are  now  in  the  habit 
of  calling  it ;  but  when  our  governor  is  to  be  elected 
by  the  people,  by  what  is  described  to  us  as  an  infalli- 
ble constituency,  it  instantly  becomes  necessary  to  take 
from  him  this  discretionary  power  and  lodge  it  in  other 
hands.  In  such  inconsistencies  do  the  advocates  of  this 
proposition  involve  themselves.  But  the  question  has 
assumed  another  form.  It  is  no  longer  a  question,  shall 
the  governor  be  invested  with  this  discretionary  power 
of  embodying  the  militia,  but  shall  the  discretion  be 
taken  from  the  governor  altogether,  and  the  power 
confined  to  only  three  cases.  In  other  words,  whether 
we  shall  now  define  what  the  public  safety,  in  all  future 
time,  may  require.  I  think  the  limitations  by  which 
gentlemen  propose  to  obtain  this  object,  are  perfectly 
nugatory,  for  the  legislature  may  enact  any  law,  and 
under  this  provision,  the  governor  may  embody  the 
militia  to  execute  it.  And  thus  the  power  may  be  ex- 
ercised in  the  very  case  which  gentlemen  wish  to  pre- 
vent. There  are  some  gentlemen  here  who,  judging 
from  the  tenor  of  their  remarks,  desire  to  prevent  any 
embodiment  of  the  militia  that  may  hereafter  be  re- 
quired to  aid  the  oppressed  authorities  of  a  sister  State, 
in  resisting  outrage  upon  her  rights.  There  are  gentle- 
men who  would  tie  up  our  hands  for  years  to  come,  un- 
til a  Convention  can  meet  to  form  another  constitution, 
and  leave  us  in  the  meantime  at  the  mercy  of  a  consol- 
idated federal  government.  We  are  told  that  we  must 
not  only  deny  to  the  executive  the  exercise  of  such  a 
power,  but  that  we  must  impose  upon  the  legislature 
itself  such  restrictions,  that  it  will  not  be  able  to  au- 
thorize the  governor  to  embody  the  militia  for  any  pur- 
pose but  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and 
to  execute  the  laws.  Now  it  may  be  that  the  federal 
government  will  in  a  few  years  pass  laws  to  which  I 
presume  few  gentlemen  on  this  floor  will  be  disposed  to 
submit.  The  present  march  of  events  warns  us  that  it 
will  not  be  twenty  years  before  a  law  similar  to  that 
passed  in  relation  to  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  will  be  passed  by  congress,  prohibiting  the 
slave  trade  between  the  States  of  this  Union,  and  that 
it  will  not  be  forty  years,  if  that  law  be  acquiesced  in' 


250 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


before  another  law  abolishing  slavery  in  these  States. 
Do  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  the  legislature  shall  not 
have  the  power  to  authorize  the  governor  to  embody 
the  militia  to  resist  such  an  outrage  upon  our  rights  ? 
Nay,  take  the  very  case  supposed  on  this  floor  ;  a  sis- 
ter Southern  State  may,  in  consequence  of  the  violation 
of  her  rights  and  inteiests,  exercise  the  power  which 
Virginia,  or  at  all  events,  which  the  democratic  party 
of  Virginia  in  all  times  and  on  all  occasions  has  solemn- 
ly declared  that  every  State  has  a  right  to  exercise — I 
mean  the  right  of  peaceful  secession  from  this  Union  — 
and  the  federal  government  should  make  war  upon  her, 
and  should  attempt  to  march  troops  through  the  borders 
of  this  commonwealth — do  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that 
we  shall,  by  constitutional  provision,  deprive  the  legis- 
lature of  the  power  to  embody  the  militia  in  such  a 
case?  This  has  not  been  openly  said,  it  is  true,  but  I 
infer  that  such  is  the  purpose  from  the  speeches  we 
have  heard.  If  gentlemen  so  mean,  let  them  come  out 
openly,  and  we  will  meet  the  question.  Let  them  not 
do  it  by  implication,  but  let  them  declare  at  once,  that 
while  they  are  tearing  up  the  ancient  polity  of  Virginia 
from  its  very  foundations,  they  mean  also  to  surrender 
all  the  principles  which  her  people  have  ever  honored, 
and  they  will  stand  meekly  and  tamely  by,  while  the 
federal  government  tramples  under  foot  and  crushes 
by  its  military  power,  all  State  rights  and  the  rights  of 
the  South.  Let  us  have  their  position  plainly  before 
us,  so  that  it  may  be  intelligible  to  all.  Let  them  not 
do  covertly  what  they  dare  not  attempt  openly. 

I  trust  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  committee  not 
to  strike  out  the  latter  part  of  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  not  because  the  result  would 
be  really  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the  legislature  on 
this  subject,  but  because  the  motion  is  supported  by 
gentlemen  who  desire  to  curtail  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature with  a  special  view  to  the  very  case  I  have  sup- 
posed. 

Mr.  "WISE.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  gentleman  in- 
tended— 

Mr.  M.  R.  H.  GARNETT.  I  did  not  refer,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  well  understands,  to  him, 
when  I  said  that  gentlemen  should  avow  their  purpose 
in  this  matter.  I  do  not  believe  for  a  moment,  but  that 
gentleman  and  myself  will  be  standing  side  by  side. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  do  not  know  where  1  should  be  found. 
I  do  not  know  where  any  man — let  me  say  to  my  young 
friend — would  be  found,  or  where  we  are  to  expect  to 
find  men  in  crises  that  may  come  over  the  country. 
But  for  one,  I  mean  to  plant  one  foot  upon  the  Union  of 
these  States,  and  the  other  foot  upon  the  rights  of  these 
States,  and  not  to  be  moved  from  either  if  I  can  help  it. 
I  am  no  consolidationist,  I  am  no  destructive,  and  if 
the  power  of  this  government  will  'only  unite  with  me 
and  back  me  in  it,  1  will  hold  one  antagonist  with  the 
right  hand  and  the  other  with  the  left,  and  I  will  keep 
them  apart.  They  shall  not  come  to  blows  with  my 
consent.  I  will  preserve  the  peace  of  this  country  and 
the  institutions  of  this  country,  and  one  of  the  most 
holy  causes  of  my  mission  here  is  to  endeavor  to  guard 
our  State  constitution,  so  that,  by  its  own  operations,  it 
shall  be  the  guardian,  both  of  the  Union  of  the  States 
and  of  the  rights  of  the  State.  Now,  let  me  say  to  my 
friend  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,)  that  con- 
curring with  him  that  it  is  all  essential  to  defend  the 
rip-hts  of  the  State  as  well  as  the  Union  of  the  States, 
the  question  here  is,  not  whether  we  shall  deprive  the 
governor  or  the  people  of  the  State  of  Virginia  of  the 
right  of  interposing  at  any  time  that  they  may  elect  for 
the  defence  of  the  one  or  the  defence  of  the  other  ;  but 
the  question  is  here  now,  will  you  entrust  to  a  single 
man,  will  you  entrust  to  a  single  governor,  the  right  of 
electing  whether  State  rights  shall  be  defended,  in  case 
that  governor  happens  to  be,  for  the  time  being,  a  con- 
solidationist ?  I  will  not.  On  the  other  hand,  as  a 
friend  of  the  Union,  I  ask,  will  you  leave  it  to  a  sin- 
gle man  to  determine,  whether  the  Union  is  to  be  de- 
fended or  invaded,  in  case  he  be  a  disunionist  ?  I  will 
not — no.    And  in  case  there  happened  to  be  a  legisla- 


ture on  the  one  extreme  or  upon  the  other,  I  will  not 
grant  the  power  to  the  legislature,  to  invest  the  gov- 
ernor with  the  dictatorial  power  of  saying  whether  the 
militia  shall  be  called  upon,  either  to  destroy  the  rights 
of  the  State  or  to  humble  its  pride  ;  or  whether  they 
shall  be  called  upon  to  do  the  reckless  and  unholy  work 
of  prostrating  this  Union.  I  will  not  clot  he  the  one 
man  with  that  power  and  discretion,  and  I  will  not  in- 
vest the  legislature  with  that  power.  Never.  All 
that  I  can  do  at  this  time,  is  what  a  brave  man  and  a 
humane  man  can  do  in  the  dark  hour  of  danger,  when  he 
knows  not  how  to  strike,  and  when  he  knows  not  wheth- 
er the  blow  is  to  strike  friend  or  foe.  I  remember  an 
incident  that  was  related  to  me  as  having  occurred  on 
the  night  cf  the  23d  December,  1814,  immediately  be- 
fore the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  the  last  great  battle  of 
the  last  war,  when  a  foreign  army  with  the  war  cry  of 
beauty  and  booty  were  marching  upon  a  city  of  our 
country — when  a  patriot  had  the  courage,  with  fifteen 
hundred  men,  to  march  out  to  meet  an  enemy  of  five 
thousand,  his  only  cover,  his  only  defence,  the  darkness 
of  the  night — when  the  enemy  could  not  see  the  pauci- 
ty of  his  troops — and  when  the  troops  of  Carrol  and 
Coffee  were  so  involved  in  darkness  that  they  knew  not 
which  way  to  fire.  All  that  they  could  do,  as  I  was 
told  by  one  of  those  gentlemen  himself,  was  to  stand 
with  folded  arms.  The  night  was  dark  and  they  could 
•not  see,  and  it  was  not  until  a  man,  whose  name 
ought  to  have  a  monument  erected  to  it — I  mean  Gen. 
McCall  of  Florida — stepped  up  to  the  commanding 
general  and  volunteered  to  go  to  the  British  line,  or  tc 
the  line  which  they  could  not  tell  was  American  o 
British,  and  see  the  color  of  their  uniforms  by  the  flar 
of  the  fire — it  was  then  and  then  only,  by  the  self  dev. 
tion  of  a  patriot,  that  our  army  could  see  which  way 
to  fire.  I  feel  exactly  in  this  position  now.  I  am  sur- 
rounded with  darkness.  I  know  not  where  the  enemy 
is.  I  await  the  flash  of  fire-arms  before  I  decide  where 
I  am,  and  I  will  prevent  the  flash  of  a  single  fire-arm  if 
lean,  in  our  own  line,  until  I  know  how  to  distin- 
guish friend  from  foe. 

I  am  ready  to  vindicate  my  friend,  and  I  hope  I 
can  do  so  truly,  and  all  who  stand  in  his  position,  from 
the  imputation  of  desiring  to  see  an  opportunity  for  the 
flash  of  arms.  No,  it  cannot  be  in  his  bosom,  it  cannot 
be  the  desire  of  any  man,  any  being  on  earth,  to  see  the 
union  of  this  country  brought  into  conflict  with  the 
States  and  the  rights  of  the  States  of  this  country. 
Standing  where  I  do,  a  friend  of  the  Union,  and  a  friend 
of  the  rights  of  the  State— a  friend  of  the  rights  of  the 
States  and  a  friend  of  the  Union,  I  put  neither  before 
the  other — I  will  guard  both  from  whatever  menaces 
them.  And  one  of  the  best  ways  by  which  we  can 
guard  ourselves  in  the  future,  is  to  limit  the  governor 
in  the  exercise  of  his  power  to  the  only  cases  of  practi- 
cal utility — the  case  of  invasion,  which  has  its  meaning  ; 
the  case  of  insurrection — the  term  has  its  meaning  ; 
the  execution  of  the  laws — we  understand  what  it  is.  I 
will  give  no  governor  the  power  to  interpret  the  march- 
ing of  a  federal  army  this  way  or  that — to  go  to  the 
North  to  compel  Vermont,  or  to  the  South  to  compel 
South  Carolina  to  do  this  or  that,  as  attacking  the  sover- 
eignty of  Virginia,  or  of  deciding  that  whatever  invades 
the  safety  of  South  Carolina  or  Vermont,  attacks  the 
safety  of  Virginia,  and  is  therefore  an  invasion  of 
Virginia.  I  will  give  no  governor  any  such  power  of 
interpretation.  There  must  be  an  invasion  or  an  insur- 
rection, or  a  necessity  to  enforce  the  fexecution  of  the 
laws  before  I  will  agree  that  he  shall  have  power  to 
embody  the  militia  at  all. 

My  friend  from  Essex — I  hope  he  will  permit  me  so 
to  call  him,  for  I  have  a  deep  sympathy  for  him — seemed 
to  invite  the  discussion  of  this  agitating  question  of 
union  or  disunion  here.  I  was  about  to  say,  let  the  pa- 
triotic feelings,  let  the  patriotic  fervor  of  every  mem- 
ber here,  whenever  that  demon  of  discord  shall  attempt 
to  rise  in  this  hall,  say  to  it,  avaunt !  down  !  I  am  not 
going  to  discuss  that  subject.  I  am  going  to  repel  its 
discussion,  as  I  would  repel  invasion  or  suppress  in- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


251 


surreetion.  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  that  question  here. 
It  is  a  question  I  intend  to  discuss  with  nobody — may 
God  grant  that  I  shall  be  saved  from  fighting  the  ques- 
tion with  any  body.  Whenever  it  shall  be  necessary  for 
this  State  to  be  called  upon  to  act,  let  it  be  called  upon 
by  the  legislature.  Let  it  be  called  upon  by  the  coun- 
sel of  consultation.  The  legislature  is  the  deliberative 
department  of  the  government.  Whenever  this  State  is 
to  be  called  upon  to  decide  which  way  she  will  act,  and 
she  may  be  called  upon  so  to  decide,  let  us  have  the 
representatives  of  the  people  sent  up  directly  by  the  peo- 
ple themselves  to  decide  it.  I  will  leave  it  with  the  le- 
gislature, but  I  will  not  leave  it  to  one  man  to  decide  for 
us  and  against  us.  I  beg  my  friend  to  remember  that  if 
he  gives  this  discretionary  power  to  one  man — it  maybe 
that  the  one  man  may  be  opposed  to  him — it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  he  will  entertain  the  sentiment  which  he  en- 
tertains. It  may  be  one  man  of  federal  opinions,  of 
ideas  of  consolidation  that  will  crush  the  rights  and 
humble  the  pride  of  his  State.  One  uniting  in  my 
friend's  opinions  is  just  as  much  interested  in  guarding 
the  State  against  this  discretion  in  one  man,  as  one  who 
is  opposed  to  him  is  interested  in  guarding  the  peace  of 
the  State  against  such  an  unlimited  and  unguarded  dis 
cretion.  Let  not  this  little  debate  sound  the  tocsin  of 
discord  here.  Let  us  act  cooly,  calmly,  deliberately  and 
wisely,  protecting  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  State, 
and  protecting  the  great  union  of  the  States,  and  looking 
to  all  the  end3  and  rights  of  government,  both  State 
and  Federal.  Let  us  beware  of  arming  any  one  man  with 
this  power  of  lighting  a  torch  which  may  destroy  all — 
all  North,  all  South,  all  East,  all  West. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  respond- 
ing to  the  noble  and  patriotic  sentiments  which  have 
been  so  eloquently  presented  by  the  gentleman  who  has 
just  taken  his  seat,  (Mr.  Wise.) 

Like  that  gentleman,  I  am  no  consolidationist. 
Like  him  I  am  determined  to  plant  one  foot  on  the  Union 
and  the  other  upon  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  to  de- 
fend them  to  the  last.  I  have  always,  at  least  since  I 
have  been  old  enough  to  take  part  in  public  affairs,  been 
jealous  of  executive  power.  My  observation  has  satis- 
fied me  that  that  jealousy  is  well  founded,  and  I  shall, 
therefore,  in  the  organization  of  the  executive  depart- 
ment, do  all  in  my  power  to  restrict  and  limit  that  ex- 
ecutive power.  The  only  question,  it  seems  to  me,  which 
is  presented  by  the  amendment  offered  to  the  amend- 
ment is,  whether  we  shall  give  the  legislature  the  power 
of  conferring  any  other  discretion  upon  the  governor 
than  that  which  is  limited  by  the  specific  limitations  of 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha, 
(Mr.  Smith.)  Now  it  is  only  necessary  for  the  com- 
mittee to  ascertain  what  are  the  specific  cases  in  which 
discretionary  power  should  be  conferred  upon  the  gov- 
ernor, and  to  determine  whether  it  is  necessary  that  any 
other  discretion  should  be  exercised  by  him  than  those 
which  are  specified.  And  what  are  they?  Why  the 
power  to  embody  the  militia  upon  the  occurrence  of 
three  different  events.  First,  to  repel  invasion  ;  second, 
to  put  down  insurrection ;  and  third,  when  it  may  be 
necessary,  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws.  Is  it 
necessary,  is  it  proper  that  this  discretionary  power  of 
embodying  the  militia  should  be  conferred  upon  the 
governor,  in  any  other  supposable  case?  I  cannot  my- 
self imagine  any  other,  and  I  shall  therefore,  with  great 
pleasure,  vote  for  the  proposition  to  strike  out  the  latter 
clause  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha,  and  then  I  shall  cheerfully  vote  for  the 
amendment  which  I  have  understood  my  friend  from  Al- 
bemarle (Mr.  Southall)  intends  to  offer.  It  will  then 
limit  the  discretion  of  the  governor  to  the  three  cases 
specified  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha. I  am  greatly  astonished  that  my  friend  from 
Kanawha  should  have  declined  accepting  that  modifica- 
tion. I  understood  that  he  did  at  first  accept  it,  but  has 
since  withdrawn  that  acceptance.  I  am  satisfied,  from 
my  long  acquaintance  with  the  gentleman,  that  we  en- 
tertain precisely  the  same  views  in  regard  to  restricting 
or  limiting  executive  power,  and  I  appeal  to  the  gentle- 


man to  say,  whether  he  would  be  willing  to  confer  upon 
the  executive  this  power  of  embodying  the  militia,  in 
any  other  than  the  three  ca*es  specified.  I  hope,  there- 
fore, that  the  committee  will  agree  to  strike  out  the  lat- 
ter clause  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha,  and  then  adopted  it  as  amended. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  was  about  to  rise,  when  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  floor,  to 
express  the  hope  that  no  gentleman  here  will  be  found 
to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  this  agitated  question  of 
union  and  disunion.  This  is  not  the  place  for  it.  I  have 
no  desire — I  could  not  be  dragged  into  a  discussion  of 
the  kind,  because  I  do  not  believe  that  my  position  on 
that  question  requires  to  be  defended  here.  But  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  that  in  an  endeavor  to  avoid  the  one  ex- 
treme, we  are  likely  to  run  into  the  other.  Now,  I  wish 
to  avoid  both  extremes.  I  need  not  say  here  that  I  do 
not  believe  in  this  doctrine  of  peaceible  secession,  es- 
pecially that  sort  of  peaceable  secession,  which  requires 
the  exercise  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  governor, 
to  call  out  the  militia  to  enforce  it,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garstett)  has  intimated. 
Nor  am  I,  at  the  same  time  that  I  deny  the  doctrine  of 
peaceable  secession,  one  of  those  who  deny  to  the  peo- 
ple the  right  of  revolution  ;  and  it  does  appear  to  me, 
that  between  these  two  propositions,  the  one  to  restrict 
the  power  of  the  legislature,  and  the  other  to  restrict 
the  executive,  that  gentlemen  are  not  only  disposed  to 
deny  the  power  of  secession,  but  the  right  of  revolution. 
Why,  the  gentleman  himself  proposes  to  leave  it  to  the 
legislature  to  determine  when  this  power  shall  be  exer- 
cised. That  is  precisely  the  object  of  the  clause  in  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  which  he 
proposes  to  strike  out.  The  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Albemarle  goes  to  impose  a  restriction  on 
the  authority  of  the  governor,  while  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac  goes  to  impose  a  restric- 
tion on  the  legislative  authorities.  I  shall  vote  against 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  to  strike 
out  that  portion^of  the  amendment  which  will  authorize 
the  legislature  to  confer  authority  on  the  governor  at  a 
subsequent  period,  if  the  necessity  should  arise,  to  call 
out  the  militia.  Why,  I  can  very  well  imagine  a  case, 
apart  from  an  actual  invasion,  or  an  actual  insurrection, 
or  an  actual  resistance  to  the  law,  when  it  would  become 
proper  that  the  militia  of  this  State  should  not  only  be 
embodied,  in  the  language  of  the  amendment,  but  should 
be  called  out. 

A  MEMBER.    What  case? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Some  gentleman  calls  on  me  to  state 
a  case.  Let  me  suppose  an  anticipated  invasion.  Sup- 
pose a  state  of  things  should  arise, — God  grant  that  it 
never  may,  but  in  the  course  of  human  events  a  case 
possibly  may  arise — in  which  it  would  become  necessary 
and  proper  in  which  we  should  be  in  a  state  of  rebellion 
to  the  general  government.  I  do  not  anticipate  such  a 
case,  but  I  will  not  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  people  so  as 
to  prevent  the  exercise  of  their  right  of  revolution,  and 
the  right  whenever  they  may  think  proper,  through  the 
legislature,  the  deliberative  department  of  the  govern- 
ment, to  authorize  the  governor  to  embody  and  call  out 
the  militia.  Now  may  not  such  a  case  arise?  Why 
else  do  you  propose,  and  why  else  did  those  who  prece- 
ded you  in  the  formation  of  constitutional  provisions, 
propose  to  make  the  governor  commander-in-chief  of 
the  army  and  navy  of  Virginia?  You  have  no  navy,  you 
have  no  army  in  Virginia,  nor  are  you  likely  to  have 
any,  except  in  a  state  of  revolution.  I  say  I  do  not  an- 
ticipate such  a  case,  but  I  will  provide  for  it,  if  ever  it 
should  arise.  In  the  course  of  human  events,  I  say  it 
is  possible  it  may  arise.  1  shall,  therefore,  vote  for  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith) 
to  authorize  the  people  of  Virginia,  when  the  necessity 
shall  arise,  through  their  representatives  in  the  legisla- 
ture, to  authorize  the  governor  to  embody  and  to  call 
out  the  militia.  The  effect  of  the  proposition,  if  amend- 
ed as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  would 
be  to  impose  a  restriction  on  the  authority  of  the  legis- 
lative department ;  or,  in  other  words,  upon  the  power 


252 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


of  the  people  to  empower  the  legislature,  in  a  certain 
contingency  that  may  arise  hereafter,  to  authorize  the 
governor  to  call  out  the  militia.  The  propesition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Albemarle  is  to  impose  a  restriction  up- 
on the  power  of  the  governor.  Now,  if  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  shall  be  voted  down, 
and  the  power  shall  be  given  to  the  legislature  in  the 
event  of  a  certain  contingency,  then,  in  my  apprehen- 
sion, the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Albemarle 
becomes  unnecessary.  But  if  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac  shall  prevail,  and  this  author- 
ity shall  be  refused  to  the  legislature,  then  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Albemarle,  imposing  a  re- 
striction upon  the  one-man  power,  becomes  eminently 
necessary,  and  I  shall  vote  for  it.  That  is  the  position 
I  occupy.  I  shall  go  against  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac  to  take  from  the  legislature  the 
power  in  all  contingencies,  and  under  all  circumstances, 
and  for  all  time  to  come,  to  authorize  the  governor, 
when  a  necessity  may  exist,  to  call  out  the  militia. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Concurring  in  some  of  the 
views  expressed  by  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat,  I  find  myself  differing  very  widely  in  others.  I  am 
not,  as  he  seems  to  be,  in  favor  of  providing  in  this  consti- 
tution for  the  exercise  of  revolutionary  power.  I  am  in 
favor  of  providing  only  for  the  exercise  of  £overnnien- 
tal  power.  When  revolution  comes,  your  law  will  cease, 
your  constitution  be  abrogated,  and  it  will  be  necessary 
to  form  a  new  compact  of  government.  I  am  especially 
opposed  to  clothing  the  legislative  department  of  this 
government  with  revolutionary  powers.  I  do  not  know 
why  revolutionary  powers,  if  they  are  to  be  given  to 
one  branch  of  government,  might  not  as  well  be  given 
to  either  branch.  I  am  opposed  to  conferring  such 
powers  upon  one  branch,  or  upon  two  branches  of  this 
government,  or  upon  all  together.  They  belong  to  the 
people,  to  be  exercised  by  them,  when  the  occasions 
and  the  times,  in  their  judgment,  shall  make  it  neces- 
sary. I  have  no  idea  that  it  is  competent  for  the  legis- 
lature, under  the  present  constitution,  t©  put  this  State 
in  a  hostile  array  against  another  State  or  all  the  States  ; 
that  it  is  in  the  power  of  this  legislature,  under  the  ex- 
isting constitution,  to  levy  war,  save  in  the  exercise  of 
the  power  to  suppress  insurrection  and  repel  invasion. 
The  doctrine  has  been  avowed  here,  it  may  be  enter- 
tained by  a  majority  of  this  body,  I  know  not  how  it 
be,  but  whether  it  be  entertained  by  a  majority  or  con- 
fined to  a  minority,  or  but  to  two  individuals,  I  repu- 
diate it. 

•  The  CHAIR  would  remind  the  gentleman  to  confine 
himself  to  the  subject. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  mean  to  confine  myself 
strictly  to  the  question  before  the  house,  and  I  apprehend 
I  am  not  departing  from  the  strictest  line  of  argument 
The  proposition  is,  as  I  understand,  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Henrico,  to  confer  upon  the  legislature  of 
this  Commonwealth  a  right  to  levy  war  and  commit 
revolution  ?  It  does  no  possess  it  now,  and  I  will  pro- 
test with  my  vote  against  conferring  it  in  this  amended 
constitution.  We  have  been  sent  here  for  no  revolu- 
tionary purpose,  but  as  members  of  an  organized  com- 
munity, living  under  law,  we  have  been  sent  here  to 
amend  and  reform  the  existing  constitution  and  provide 
such  alterations  in  it  as  the  exigencies  of  the  times  may 
make  proper,  and  to  frame  a  constitution  for  Virginia 
as  a  member  of  this  great  confederacy  of  States.  We 
have  not  been  sent  here  to  judge  of  the  casus  belli,  or  to 
provide  for  the  exercise  of  revolutionary  powers,  or  of  any 
war  powers  calculated  to  place  our  citizens  in  array 
either  against  the  federal  government  or  against  the  gov- 
ernment of  other  States.  The  war  power  has  been 
taken  from  us,  and  by  our  own  revolutioi  ary  grant  is 
to  be  exercised  by  a  government  other  than  this.  So 
far  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  repel  an  enemy  from  with- 
out or  suppress  an  insurrection  within  our  borders,  or 
to  exercise  force  in  executing  the  law,  it  belongs  to  us. 
These  are  administrative,  legitimate  purposes ;  they 
are  lawful  and  constitutional  purposes,  and  for  these 


purposes,  I  am  willing  to  confer  the  power  upon  some 
one  or  other  of  the  departments  of  this  government. 
But  to  make  war,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the 
term,  and  to  commit  revolution  is  no  proper  function  of 
the  legislature,  for  it  belongs  to  the  people,  and  it  belongs 
to  the  people  to  be  exercised  in  masses,  if  they  choose,  or 
in  Convention  if  they  prefer  ;  and  while  I  acknowledge 
this  power  as  broadly  and  amply  as  any  gentleman  upon 
this  floor,  I  never  have  agreed,  I  never  can,  and  never 
will  agree  that  under  the  constitution  this  power  ought 
to  be  entrusted  to  any  or  all  the  branches  of  the  gov- 
ernment. I  see,  then,  no  reason  why,  in  amending  this 
constitution,  we  should  confer  a  power  on  the  legisla- 
ture which,  under  the  present  constitution  it  does  not 
lawfully  possess — I  mean  the  power  to  commit  revolu- 
tion. 1  see  no  propriety  in  investing  it  with  the  power 
to  levy  war  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
declares  that  no  State  shall  exercise  that  power  ;  when 
all  the  States  have,  by  their  voluntary  consent  and 
agreement,  confided  this  power  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment. 

Now,  sir,,  for  what  cause  ought  the  militia  to  be 
called  forth,  except  it  be  for  the  causes  indicated  in 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha.  I 
desire  gentlemen  to  tax  their  ingenuity  and  explain  to 
this  committee,  if  they  can,  one  supposable  case  in 
which  the  public  safety  can  require  the  militia  to  be 
called  out,  for  purposes  other  than  those  specified.  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  why,  as  I  understand  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henrico,  he  extends  his  suggestion  to  a 
case  which,  according  to  his  admission,  would  be  a  case 
of  revolution.  Then  there  is  no  occasion  for  it.  We 
desire  no  constitution  to  enable  us  to  revolutionize 
this  government ;  we  desire  no  constitution  to  enable 
us  to  commit  any  act  of  revolution ;  we  desire  to  re- 
strain this  spirit,  to  confine  it,  to  regulate  it,  and  to 
make  it  subject  to  law.  I  insist,  therefore,  that  no  gen- 
tleman, as  yet,  has  suggested  a  solitary  case,  other  than 
those  enumerated,  in  which  it  can  be  imagined  that 
the  public  safety  will  require  the  embodying  of  the  militia 
by  the  governor.  We  are  to  conclude  that  no  such 
case  is  likely  to  occur,  and  when  we  give  authority  to 
the  executive  power  of  this  government  to  call  out  the 
militia  and  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection  and 
execute  the  law,  we  create  all  power  over  the  military, 
useful  for  the  purposes  of  this  government,  to  be  called 
into  action  by  the  fiat  of  one  man. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  have  but  one  remark  to  make,  and 
that  is  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  stating  the  proposi- 
tion. The  gentleman  from  Fanquier  (Mr.  Scott)  said 
very  little  that  I  do  not  subscribe  to,  and  I  think  that 
on  this  question  the  whole  difference  between  us  lies  in 
the  manner  in  which  he  states  the  proposition ;  that  is 
whether  we  shall  sit  in  the  Convention  to  legislate  in 
our  constitution  the  power  of  revolution,  or  whether 
we  will  legislate  to  prevent  a  state  of  revolution  ;  that 
is,  cut  off  from  the  people  the  power  to  commit  revolu- 
tion if  the  oppressions  of  their  government  should  ever 
become  absolutely  intolerable. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  The  difference  is  not  that 
I  propose  to  cut  off  from  the  people  this  power  to  revo- 
lutionise the  government,  but  to  deprive  their  agents 
of  it. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Regarding  the  legislature  as  the  true 
exponent  of  public  sentiment,  the  position  I  took 
was,  that  I  would  not  tie  up  their  hands  under 
all  circumstances,  at  all  times,  and  under  every  emer- 
gency so  as  to  restrict  them  from  acting.  It  is  true,  as 
the  gentleman  says,  that  we  have  divested  ourselves  of 
the  power  of  making  war.  That,  I  presume,  is  foreign 
war ;  but  have  we  divested  ourselves  of  the  power  of 
self-government,  of  self-protection,  of  resisting  aggres- 
sion and  oppression  ?  That  is  the  question  ;  and  if  we 
have  not  done  so;  does  any  reaeon  now  exist  why  we 
should?  Now  I  took  especial  occasion  to  say  when  I 
was  up  before,  that  I  entertained  no  apprehension  that 
such  a  case  would  ever  arise.    I  have  no  idea  that  it  is 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


253 


likely  to  arise ;  but  who  is  there  here  among  us  so  far- 
sighted  as  to  see  all  that  may  happen  in  the  course  of 
time  ?  I  spoke  only  of  our  being  in  a  state  of  actual 
revolution.  An  actual  state  of  revolution  may  exist, 
or  may  be  brought  about,  and  if  it  exists,  says  the  gen- 
tleman, what  becomes  of  your  law,  your  constitution, 
and  government?  Why,  if  the  revolution  should  actu- 
ally exist,  in  what  respect  is  the  relation  of  governor 
changed  to  his  own  State ?  In  what  especially  are 
his  powers  altered  under  the  constitution  of  Virginia  ? 
Our  relations  to  the  federal  government  are  changed, 
but  there  stands  our  State  constitution,  by  which  he 
is  bound  in  all  respects  as  much  as  he  was  before.  God 
knows  there  is  no  man  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Vir- 
ginia, or  in  the  country,  who  is  less  disposed,  either  in 
the  Convention  or  in  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  or  else- 
where, to  act  in  a  manner  to  foment  discord  or  to  pro- 
mote revolution.  That  is  not  my  object.  That  is  not 
fche  form  in  which  the  question  of  revolution  has  been 
presented  here.  The  question  is,  shall  we  place  our- 
selves in  a  position  to  cut  ourselves  off  by  constitutional 
provision  from  all  resoit  to  revolution,  in  all  times, 
under  every  circumstance,  and  under  all  contingencies  ? 
Regarding  the  legislature  as  the  true  exponent  of  the 
political  sentiment  of  the  State,  I  can  see  no  harm  that 
is  likely  to  result  from  clothing  the  legislature  with  the 
power,  in  a  contingency  that  may  exist,  if  the  people, 
their  constituents,  should  desire  it,  to  authorize  the  gov- 
ernor to  call  out  the  militia  for  other  purposes  imagina- 
ble, than  those  of  actual  invasion,  insurrection,  or  re- 
sistance to  the  laws.  Not  to  make  war,  but  to  prepare 
for  self-protection  against  oppression.  I  can  suppose  a 
case,  as  I  said  before,  of  a  threatened  or  anticipated  in- 
vasion. Why,  suppose  the  case  to  exist  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Essex  referred  to — suppose  the  Congress, 
in  the  exercise  of  usurped  power,  were  to  undertake  to 
abolish  slavery  in, the  States — and  suppose  the  southern 
States  of  this  confederacy  were  in  convention,  convened 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  what  action  it  was  pro- 
per aud  necessary  to  take.  (I  beg  the  gentleman  to  re- 
member what  I  have  previously  said,  that  I  anticipate 
no  such  thing,  but  other  gentlemen  do  anticipate  it,  and 
are  alarmed  at  their  own  disturbed  imaginations  upon  the 
subject.)  Suppose  these  apprehensions  realized,  and  that 
the  southern  States  were  in  convention  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  what  course  of  proceeding  they  should  all 
adopt.  Well,  suppose  in  this  state  of  things  there  was 
an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  federal  government  not 
to  make  an  actual  invasion  on  the  territory  of  Virginia, 
but  to  pass  through  the  state  to  make  an  invasion  on 
some  other  State  then  in  convention  with  Virginia, 
would  that  be  a  proper  case  for  resistance  ?  Would  it 
be  a  proper  case  in  which  the  deliberative  department 
of  the  government  should  authorize  the  governor  to 
call  out  militia  ?  The  use  to  be  made  of  them  is  another 
question  to  determine.  That  is  a  question  on  which  the 
people  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  in  their  primary 
assemblies  should  determine.  But  it  would  be  pro- 
per to  call  out  the  militia  to  put  them  in  training  and 
discipline  them  so  as  to  be  prepared  for  the  emergency, 
in  the  event  that  the  people  themselves  should  deliber- 
ately determine  to  resist. 

It  does  not  follow  by  any  means,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  seems  to  apprehend,  that  the  governor, 
having  the  sanction  of  law  to  call  out  the  militia,  is  to 
be  authorized  without  further  authority  to  use  them  in 
resistance  to  the  federal  authority.  By  no  means.  But  I 
amagine  that  in  such  a  case  as  that,  if  we  could  see  in 
the  prospective  that  an  invasion  was  probable,  your  raw 
militia  would  cut  a  very  sorry  figure  before  the  regular 
treops  of  the  federal  government  disciplined  and  equip- 
ped for  war.  It  might  then  be  necessaay  to  call  out 
and  discipline  your  troops,  to  drill  them  and  put  them 
in  martial  order.  I  will  go  as  far  as  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  or  any  other  gentleman,  in  denying  to 
the  legislature  the  right,  under  any  circumstances,  to 
determine  the  question  of  war  or  peace,  union  or  dis- 
union ;  but  I  would  not  deny  their  right  to  put  themselves 


in  a  state  of  preparation  in  a  case  which  the  people 
may  determine  requires  it. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  understand  the  gentle- 
man from  Halifax  to  argue  that  with  the  change  I  have 
sustained,  and  which  is  contemplated  by  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  the  power  of  the 
governor  of  the  commonwealth  will  not  be  less  than 
what  it  would  be  if  the  report  of  the  committee  is  per- 
mitted to  stand. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  The  chances  for  the  abuse  of 
the  power  will  not  be  reduced. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man, and  I  said  when  I  was  up  before  that  it  is  im- 
possible, when  you  create  a  power  and  appoint  a*n  agent 
to  exercise  it,  to  guard  against  every  possible  abuse, 
but  we  can  guard  against  those  abuses  as  far  as  possi- 
ble. And  we  progress,  to  some  extent  at  least,  to  that 
object  when  we  limit  this  power  to  certain  cases,  and 
define  clearly  what  those  cases  are.  If  the  report  stood, 
clothing  the  executive  with  a  power  to  call  out  the 
militia  whenever,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  re- 
quires, does  not  every  man  see  that  it  would  thereby 
clothe  him  with  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  in 
every  conceivable  case  in  which  he  might  choose  to 
judge  that  the  public  safety  was  involved.  Is  there 
any  gentleman  in  this  body  in  favor  of  clothing 
the  executive  department  of  this  government  with 
the  broad  and  unlimited  power — a  power  over  the 
whole  strength  of  the  State — a  power  to  Gall  it  into 
action  whenever,  in  his  individual  judgment,  the 
safety  of  the  commonweal  h  may  require  it?  I  think 
there  are  occasions  when  the  safety  of  the  common- 
wealth will  require  the  governor,  to  call  out  the  militia. 
I  think  this  Convention  can  foresee  these  occasions, 
and  can  define  them.  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of 
this  convention,  foreseeing  the  necessities  that  may 
arise,  to  define  the  cases  in  which  the  power  shall  be 
exercised,  and  not  leave  it  to  the  broad,  unlimited  dis- 
cretion of  the  governor.  I  think  this  Convention  can 
foresee  that,  in  case  of  invasion,  it  may  be  necessary 
to  call  out  the  militia — that  it  may  be  necessary  to  call 
them  out  also  in  cases  of  insurrection,  and  in  cases  of 
opposition  to  the  execution  of  the  laws ;  and  we  do  all 
that  it  is  possible  for  human  agents  to  do  to  limit  and  re- 
strict that  power,  when,  in  the  act  of  conferring  it,  we 
require  that  it  shall  be  exercised  only  when  the  safety 
of  the  commonwealth  shall  be  endangered  by  invasion, 
by  insurrection,  or  by  resistance  to  the  law.  I  think 
there  is  a  great  and  wide  difference  between  a  grant  of 
power  in  these  restricted  terms,  and  the  grant  of  power 
contained  in  the  report  of  the  committee — a  great  dif- 
ference between  giving  this  power  to  the  governor  in 
the  enumerated  cases,  and  giving  it  to  him  in  any  and 
every  case,  according  to  his  judgment  and  discretion. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SHEFFEY,  the  committee  then 
arose. 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BYRD,  the  convention 
adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 

SATURDAY,  February  15,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Woodbridge,  of  the  Episco- 
pal church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  then  read 
and  approved. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  SUFFRAGE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  offer  a 
paper  which  at  some  future  time  \  intend  to  offer  as  a 
substitute  for  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Right 
of  Suffrage.  I  ask  that  it  now  be  read  over,  laid  on  the 
table  and  printed. 

The  proposition  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary,  as 
follows : 

Every  white  male  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth,  resi- 
dent therein,  aged  twenty-one  years  and  upwards,  who 
has  a  freehold  estate  in  land,in  the  county,  city  or  town, 
borough  or  election  district,  in  which  he  may  offer  to 


254 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


vote,  to  the  value  of  twenty-five  dollars,  and  so  ap- 
praised to  be,  if  any  assessment  thereon  be  required  by- 
law, whether  the  said  freehold  be  in  possession,  rever- 
sion or  remainder,  or  the  said  person  offering  to  vote, 
be  a  joint  tenant,  tenant  in  common  or  eoparcenor,  and 
every  such  citizen,  who  for  twelve  months  next  preceding 
has  been  an  actual  resident  within  the  county,  city, 
town,  borough  or  election  district,  where  he  may 
offer  to  vote,  and  who  has  been  assessed  with  a  part  of 
the  revenue  of  the  commonwealth  or  levies  of  the  coun- 
ty the  preceding  year,  actually  paid  the  same ;  and  no 
other  person  shall  be  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of 
the  General  Assembly,  and  such  other  officers  of  gov- 
ernment, executive,  judicial,  ministerial,  civil  or  milita- 
ry,  in  the  county,  city,  town,  borough  or  election  dis- 
trict, wherein  such  land  shall  lie  or  such  person  shall  re- 
side ;  but  no  person  whether  a  free-holder  or  otherwise, 
shall  give  more  than  one  vote  in  the  same  election :  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  the  right  of  sum-age  shall  not  be 
exercised  by  any  person  of  unsound  mind,  or  who  shall 
be  a  pauper  or  a  non-commissioned  officer,  soldier, 
seaman  or  marine  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
or  by  any  person  convicted  of  any  infamous  offence. 

The  proposition  was  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  (fee. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  The  Convention  resolved 
the  other  day  that  it  would  go  into  the  consideration  of 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Basis  of  Representa- 
tion on  Monday  next.  I  apprehend  that  some  difficul- 
ty and  embarrassment  will  result  from  the  form  in 
which  the  report  known  as  the  report  of  the  eastern 
members  of  the  committee  has  been  made.  Difficulty, 
I  apprehend,  will  grow  out  of  the  fact  that  the  report 
provides  in  detail  not  only  for  the  number  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  houses,  but  provides  for  an  apportion- 
ment of  representation  amongst  the  counties.  It  pro- 
vides also  for  bennial  sessions  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. In  whatever  manner  these  reports  shall  be  con- 
sidered, if  that  report  retains  its  present  form,  we  shall 
be  engaged  in  a  protracted  debate  in  respect  to  many 
of  those  matters  of  detail.  I  thought  it  desirable  that 
when  we  come  to  consider  this  important  question  of 
the  basis  of  representation,  we  should  consider  it  upon 
a  report  which  may  present  an  isolated  question  to  the 
body.  I  have  prepared  a  substitute  which  I  propose  to 
submit  to  the  Convention  and  ask  that  it  may  be  printed. 
This  substitute,  it  will  be  seen,  while  it  leaves  these  mat- 
ters of  detail  to  be  supplied  hereafter,  presents  an  isola- 
ted question  upon  the  proper  basis  of  representation,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  upon  a  report  presenting  that  ques- 
tion in  an  isolated  form,  the  body  can  act  more  under- 
standing^ upon  the  matter,  and  come  to  a  conclusion 
upon  a  proper  principle  to  be  engrafted  in  the  Consti- 
tution when  it  will  be  undisturbed  by  matters  of  differ- 
ence in  respect  of  detail.  I  beg  leave  to  read  the  sub- 
stitute as  I  have  prepared  it. 

1.  The  legislature  shall  be  formed  of  two  distinct 
branches,  which  together  shall  be  a  complete  legisla- 
ture, and  shall  be  called  the  General  Assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia. 

2.  One  of  these  shall  be  called  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, and  shall  consist  of    members,  to  be  chosen 

  for  and  by  the  several  counties,  cities  and  towns 

of  the  commonwealth.    The  other  shall  be  called  the 

Senate,  and   shall  consist  of    members,  for  the 

election  of  whom  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  shall 
be  divided  into  districts.  Each  county,  city  and  town, 
of  the  respective  districts  at  the  time  of  the  first  elec- 
tion of  it-  delegate  or  delegates  under  this  amended 
constitution,  shall  vote  for  one  Senator ;  and  the  sheriffs 
or  other  officers  holding  the  election  for  each  county, 
city  or  town,  within  five  days  at  furthest  after  the  last 
county,  city  or  town  election  in  the  district,  shall  meet 
at  some  convenient  place,  and  from  the  polls  so  taken 
in  their  respective  counties,  cities  and  towns,  return  as 


j  a  senator  the  person  who  shall  have  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  votes  in  the  whole  district. 

3.  To  keep  up  the  Senate  by  rotation,  the  districts 
|  shall  be  divided  into  classes  and  numbered  by  lot ;  and 

at  the  end  of   years  after  the  first  general  election 

\the    members  elected  by  the  first  division  shall  be 

j  displaced,  and  the  vacancies  thereby  occasioned  sup- 
plied from  such  class  or  division  by  a  new  election  in 
the  manner  aforesaid.  This  rotation  shall  be  applied 
to  each  division  according  to  its  number,  and  continued 
in  due  order. 

4.  Representation  in  both  legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  amongst  the  counties,  cities  and  towns,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid,  in  each  ;  deducting 
from  such  taxes,  all  taxes  paid  on  licenses  and  law.  pro- 
cess. In  making  such  apportionment,  there  shall  be 
allowed  one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the  said  in- 
habitants, and  one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the 

said  taxes  ;  and  in  like  manner  there  shall  be  allowed 

|  one  Senator  for  every  part  of  the  same  :  Provided, 

that  the  representation  of  no  city  or  town  shall  at  any 
time  exceed  delegates  and  senators  ;  but  the  sur- 
plus fractions  thereof,  whether  of  population  or  taxa- 
tion, or  of  both  combined,  shall  be  estimated  in  assigning 
represention  to  the  sections  of  the  State  in  which  they 
are  respectively  situated. 

5.  The  General  Assembly  after  the  year  ,  and  at 

intervals  thereafter  of  not  less  than  ten  years,  shall  re- 
apportion representation  in  both  legislative  bodies,  ac- 
cording to  the  principle  and  in  the  manner  herein  de- 
clared ;  but  in  every  re-apportionment,  the  amount  of 
taxes  shall  be  estimated  from  the  average  of  the  ten 
preceding  years. 

6.  The  whole  number  of  members  to  which  the  State 
may  at  any  time  be  entitled  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  United  States  shall  be  apportioned,  as 
nearly  as  maybe,  amongst  the  several  counties,  cities 
and  towns  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of 
free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths 
of  all  the  persons. 

Now,  the  Convention  will  perceive  that  according  to 
this  plan,  the  question  of  the  basis  of  representation  will 
be  presented  and  considered  by  the  body,  when  it  re- 
solves itself  into  committee  of  the  whole,  without  the 
disturbing  influence  which  will  necessarily  follow  from 
the  detail  into  which  the  present  report  goes.  I  regret 
that  I  had  not  the  opportunity  on  yesterday,  of  offering 
it,  so  that  it  might  be  in  the  possession  of  the  members 
on  Monday.  I  came  into  the  Convention  after  it  had 
resolved  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  did 
not  have  an  opportunity  during  the  day,  to  present  it. 
I  now  offer  it  and  ask  that  it  may  be  referred  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  that  it  may  be  printed  for 
the  use  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  wish  to  understand  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier,  whether  his  notice  is,  that  he  will 
move  the  paper  which  he  has  read  as  a  substitute  for 
the  proposition  designated  A,  in  the  report  of  the  basis 
committee,  or  whether  he  proposes  to  offer  it  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  whole. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Ido  not  know  that  I  shall 
move  it  at  all.  I  introduce  it  now  as  a  proposition  of- 
fered by  myself  as  an  individual.  I  submit  it  for  the 
consideration  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  who 
agree  with  me  in  respect  to  this  matter  of  the  basis  of 
representation,  and  what  will  be  my  final  course  in  re- 
ispectto  it,  lam  not  prepared  to  say. 
j  Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  understood  the  gentleman  as  giv- 
ing notice  that  he  would  at  some  period  after  the 
house  had  resolved  itself  into  committer  of  the  whole, 
move  a  paper  as  a  substitute  for  something  ;  whether  it 
|  was  for  the  entire  report  or  for  a  portion  of  it,  I  do  not 
know. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  merely  proposed  it  as 
I  the  form  in  which  the  question  would  be  better  present- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


255 


«d,  than  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  other  gen 
tlenien  have  agreed  with  me. 

The  proposition  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  order 
«d  to  be  printed. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  FULTZ,  re 
sumed  the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
(Mr.  Watts,  of  Norfolk  in  the  Chair,)  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Department. 

POWER  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  OVER  THE  MILITIA. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  motion 
to  amend  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Smith,  of  Kanawha,  to 
fill  the  blank  created  in  the  fifth  section  of  the  first  ar- 
ticle, in  striking  out  from  it  the  words  "when,  in  his 
opinion  the  puhlic  safety  shall  require,"  with  the  words 
"to  repel  invasion,  to  snppress  insurrection  and  for  such 
other  specific  purposes  only  as  may  be  authorized  by  the 
legislature,"  by  striking  out  therefrom  the  words  "and 
for  such  other  specific  purposes  only  as  may  be  author- 
ized by  the  legislature." 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  moved  an  adjournment  on  yester- 
day, not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech  this  morn- 
ing, I  had  no  such  intention  at  the  time,  nor  do  I  in- 
tend it  now.  I  thought  last  evening,  though  deeply 
impressed  by  the  arguments  of  gentlemen  on  both  sides 
of  the  question,  that  at  least  a  fuller  attendance  of  the 
committee  was  desirable  before  a  vote  was  taken  on  the 
pending  proposition.  My  opinion  is,  that  if  the  amend- 
ment, suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  to 
strike  out  the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  which  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha  offered,  prevails,  the  effect  of 
the  amendment  would  be  simply  this:  We  are 
providing  in  this  portion  of  the  constitution  for 
those  occasions  in  which  the  governor,  without  any 
other  authority  of  law,  shall  have  the  power  to 
call  into  action  the  military  force  of  the  common- 
wealth, at  his  discretion.  This  is  the  delegation  of 
power  that  we  are  conferring  upon  the  governor,  and  it 
will  require  no  further  legislation  on  the  part  of  the 
general  assembly,  to  authorize  the  employment  of  the 
military  power  by  the  governor.  We  ought,  then,  to  look 
to  those  cases  where  that  discretion,  as  a  general  thing, 
ought  to  be  exercised,  and  I  perfectly  concur  with  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  that  the  cases 
named  here  are  the  only  cases  which  this  discretion 
should  be  lodged  in  the  hands  of  any  one  man.  But  sup- 
pose the  governor  is  authorized  to  repel  invasion,suppress 
insurrections,  and  to  execute  the  laws.  In  that  case, 
the  first  general  assembly  that  meets  under  this  consti- 
tution, may  declare  that  the  marching  of  the  troops  of 
the  United  States  over  the  territory  of  Virginia,  shall 
be  deemed  an  invasion  of  the  integrity  of  our  soil. 
That  wculd  be  a  declaration  of  a  fact,  of  invasion,  in  an- 
ticipation of  the  occurrence  of  that  fact.  The  marching  of 
the  troops  of  the  United  States  across  the  territory  of 
Virginia,  in  order  to  punish  the  people  or  citizens  of  a 
down-trodden  State — as  the  gentleman  from  Essex  term- 
ed it — should  ipso  facto  be  an  invasion  of  the  territory  of 
the  commonwealth.  Well,  under  this  general  clause 
the  governor  would  be  obliged  to  call  out  the  militia,  in 
order  to  repel  such  an  invasion.  I  think,  therefore,  that 
the  gentleman  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,)  was 
mistaken  in  supposing  ^hat  if  the  legislature  was  to  be 
entrusted  with  the  power  to  act  in  this  capacity  against 
the  general  government,  this  would  prohibit  the 
governor  from  calling  out  the  militia  in  order  to 
enforce  the  mandates  of  the  general  assembly.  But 
again,  suppose  this  phrase  with  regard  to  the  exe- 
cution of  the  laws,  be  retained,  that  the  governor  shall 
call  out  the  militia  at  his  discretion,  to  execute  the  laws 
of  the  commonwealth,  in  that  case  the  legislature  will  not 
be  restricted  at  all  by  this  amendment,and  may  pass  what 
laws  it  chooses,  so  far  as  this  clause  of  the  constitution 
is  concerned ;  and  I  humbly  suggest  to  my  friend  from 
Albemarle,  (Mr.  Southall,)  that  his  word  "only"  will 
not  cure  the  defeat  at  all,  because  the  word  "only"  will 


restrain  the  legislative  power  to  no  extent  whatsoever. 
It  will  not  prevent  the  legislature  from  declaring  that 
the  marching  of  the  troops  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  over  the  territory  of  Virginia,  shall  be 
an  invasion,  nor  will  it  prevent  the  legislature  itself 
from  calling  into  actual  service  the  entire  militia  of  the 
commonwealth.  Not  at  all.  And  if  the  legislature 
should  call  the  entire  militia  of  the  commonwealth  into 
active  service,  and  organize  them,  who  becomes  ipso 
facto  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  militia  ?  Why,  the 
governor  of  the  commonwealth,  just  as  when  the  militia 
or  the  army  of  the  United  States,  are  called  into  active 
service,  the  President  beccmes  ipso  facto  the  commander- 
in-chief.  I  think  therefore,  that  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  with  the 
modification  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
for  the  present,  should  be  adopted  by  the  committee, 
and  when  we  come  to  the  legislative  department  of 
the  government,  if  we  choose  to  restrict  that  power 
which  has  been  spoken  of  here,  let  us  do  so  there. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  give  notice  of  my  intention 
at  a  proper  time  to  offer  the  following  as  an  amendment 
to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, (Mr.  Smith.)  If  the  committee  should  agree  to 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  to  strike  out  the  provision  which  he  proposes  to 
strike  out,  it  will  then,  I  understand,  be  in  order  to 
move  to  strike  out  and  insert ;  and  if  the  committee  re- 
fuse to  strike  out,  it  will  still  be  in  order  to  offer  an 
amendment. 

The  CHAIR.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Then  I  propose  to  offer  at  a  proper  time 
the  following  amendment,  "or  whenever  a  case  may 
arise  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  legislature,  the  public 
safety  shall  require  it,  and  may  authorize  it  by  law. 
When  I  submit  the  proposition  I  have  a  very  fe^P  words 
to  say  upon  it. 

Mr.  FULTZ.    I  regard  the  question  now  under  con- 
sideration as  one  of  great  importance.    It  involves,  as  I 
humbly  conceive,  a  vital  principle  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  fabric  which  we  are  about  to  erect.  I 
came  here  for  the  purpose  of  co-operating  with,  what  I 
trust  may  prove  to  be,  a  large  majority  of  this  commit- 
tee in  carrying  out  those  salutary  reforms  which  are  best 
calculated  to  promote  the  interests  of  this  old  common- 
wealth.   I  came  here  to  aid  in  placing  restrictions  upon 
public  agents,  and  to  define  and  limit  the  powers  to  be 
exercised  by  the  different  departments  of  government, 
and  if  possible,  to  get  back  a  portion  of  t!1  at  power  which, 
in  my  humble  opinion,  properly  belongs  to  the  people, 
but  which  has  been  vesied  in  the  hands  of  their  agents. 
I  do  not  see  that  I  am  making  much  progress  in  this 
work  of  reform,  when  i  consent  to  take  away  the  powers 
heretefore  exercised  by  one  depai  tment  of  the  govern- 
ment and  transfer  those  powers  to  another  department. 
I  do  not  esteem  it  reform  to  take  away  from  the  exec- 
utive department  of  the  government  a  power  which  has 
heretofore  been  lodged  there,  and  place  it,  with  increas- 
ed force,  and  additional  latitude  in  the  hands  of  the 
legislative  department.    What  was  the  proposition  re- 
ported by  your  committee  ?    It  was  to  authorise  the 
governor  to  call  out  the  militia,  when,  in  his  opinion,  the 
puolic  safety  required  it.    A  broad  delegation  of  power 
— a  power  almost  unlimited — certainly  unrestricted. 
He  is  to  exercise  this  power  according  to  his  own  opin- 
ions of  propriety.    Now,  there  is  an  objection  to  that, 
as  has  been  very  properly  urged  upon  this  floor.  There 
is  an  objection  to  delegating  to  any  public  agent,  a  pow- 
er uncontrolled  and  undefined,  and  which  he  can  exer- 
cise at  his  own  will  and  pleasure.    There  is  danger,  be- 
cause this  is  one  of  those  remnants  of  monarchy  which 
was  alluded  to  the  other  day  upon  this  floor.    If  you  del- 
egate to  a  public  agent  power,  and  do  not  fix  any  limit 
to  that  power,  do  not  restrain  him  in  its  exercise,  but 
permit  him  to  exercise  it  according  to  his  own  will  and 
pleasure,  I  should  like  to  understand  if  that  is  not  mon- 
archy in  the  full  sense  of  the  word  ?    It  must  always  be 


256 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


desirable  in  the  formation  of  a  republican  government, 
that  all  the  powers  that  are  delegated  to  agents  every- 
where, should  be  defined  and  limited. 

We  have  stricken  out  that  provision  from  the  report 
of  the  committee,  and  now  the  proposition  is  to  insert 
in  lieu  of  it,  the  governor  shall  have  power  to  call  out 
the  militia  to  suppress  insurrection,  repel  invasion,  to 
execute  the  laws,  and  in  such  other  cases  as  the  legis- 
lature may  authorize.  Now  in  reference  to  the  first 
three  specified  cases,  those  of  invasion,  insurrection, 
and  execution  of  the  laws,  there  must  exist  a  discretion 
in  this  officer.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  a  convention, 
or  any  other  body  under  the  sun,  to  prescribe  his  duties 
so  accurately  that  he  may  not  by  possibility  abuse 
them.  Discretion  must  be  vested  there,  and  if  he  abuses 
it,  the  only  remedy  is  to  impeach  him.  It  is  proposed 
to  add  to  these  three  specified  cases,  what?  A  power 
to  be  exercised  by  the  governor  ?  Not  at  all.  But  it  is 
proposed  to  vest  in  the  legislative  department,  the  en- 
tire sovereignty  of  the  people  of  this  commonwealth. 
There  is  no  limit  to  it ;  and  I  beg  gentlemen  to  look  se- 
riously this  question  in  the  face.  If  this  latter  clause  of 
this  amendment  should  be  carried,  I  wish  gentlemen  to 
tell  me  what  is  left  to  the  people?  Is  not  the  whole 
power  divested  from  them  and  vested  in  the  legislature  ? 
The  gentleman  who  moves  this  amendment,  says  his 
object  is  to  restrict  the  legislature ;  that  otherwise  the 
legislature  would  have  power  to  direct,  by  general  pro- 
visions, when  the  governor  should  call  out  the  militia, 
but  by  this  amendment,  they  should  specify  the  cases 
particularly  in  which  they  intended  the  governor  should 
have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia.  Is  that  u  re- 
striction upon  the  legislative  department  ?  Is  it  not  as 
easy  for  the  legislature  to  specify  cases,  as  to  speak  in 
general  terms  ?  Is  it  not  as  easy  for  them  to  pass  a  law 
violatit%  every  reserved  rijht  in  our  constitution,  and 
in  that  law  direct  the  governor  to  embody  the  militia  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  it  out  ?  "What  is  left  ?  Gentle- 
men gain  nothing  by  saying  that  it  is  not  probable  that 
this  law  will  be  passed  by  the  legislature.  We  do  not 
«ome  here  to  d©  our  duty  in  that  way.  We  come  here 
to  place  proper  guards,  and  if  this  latter  clause  of  the 
amendment  should  be  passed,  we  throw  all  power  into 
the  hands  of  the  legislature. 

I  was  a  little  surprised  at  the  position  occupied  by 
some  gentlemen  upon  this  subject.  I  have  listened  to 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  with  a  great 
deal  of  pleasure  and  a  great  deal  of  profit,  in  all  the  ar- 
guments that  he  has  submitted  to  this  body ;  but  I  was 
a  little  surprised— perhaps  I  have  not  taken  the  correct 
view  of  it — to  find  that  gentleman,  in  reference  to  this 
question,  advocating  an  entire  delegation  of  the  whole 
power  to  one  branch  of  the  government,  while  on  other 
occasions  he  has  fought  manfully  for  restricting  the 
power  of  public  agents  in  the  different  departments  of 
government ;  here  it  seems  that  the  gentleman  is  dis- 
posed to  part  with  all  power  and  vest  it  absolutely  in 
the  legislature.  And  what  is  worse,  the  legislature  now 
has  the  purse,  and  the  gentleman,  by  this  amendment, 
proposes  to  give  them  the  sword.  Is  this  republican  ? 
Is  this  such  a  feature  as  we  ought  to  incorporate  in  this 
■constitution  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  rights  of 
this  people  ?  It  seems  to  me  with  due  deference  to  the 
opinions  entertained  by  other  gentlemen,  that  it  cannot, 
it  ought  not  to  be  done.  If  this  amendment  is  carried,  I 
shall  endeavor  to  go  back  to  the  report  of  the  committee. 
I  prefer  it  infinitely  to  this  last  clause  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  why"  ?  Because  it  is  a  restriction  to  some  ex- 
tent. It  is  a  restriction  to  the  extent  of  the  public 
safety.  In  the  exercise  of  this  discretion,  he  must  have 
in  view  the  public  safety.  But  if  the  amendment  to 
this  proposition  prevails,  it  is  unrestricted,  and  the  whole 
power  is  given,  without  any  restriction  or  limitation 
whatever.  I  should  prefer  it  for  another  reason,  because 
it  concentrates  the  responsibility.  You  have  one  man 
responsible  to  you.  You  can  call  that  man  to  an  ac- 
count. He  cannot  shift  that  responsibility  but  must 
stand  up  to  it.    He  cannot  t^row  it  from  his  shoulders 


as  perhaps  members  of  the  legislature  might,  where  the 
responsibility  is  so  much  divided.  I  conceive  this  a 
very  important  question,  and  one  that  has  not  I  fear, 
been,  thoroughly  considered  by  the  members  of  this 
committee. 

But  there  has  been  a  new  doctrine  incidentally  called 
up  here,  a  doctrine  that  I  cannot  subscribe  to,  while 
I  entertain  the  most  respect  for  the  opinions  of  those 
gentlemen  who  have  advanced  it.  It  is  this :  That  the 
legislative  department  of  this  government  possess  all 
power,  except  that  which  is  expressly  withheld  from  it 
by  the  constitution.  This  doctrine  has  been  advanced 
here,  and  really  I  have  been  somewhat  surprised  at  it. 
Perhaps  it  is  my  fault  because  I  have  not  lully  compre- 
hended this  subject.  But  if  this  proposition  should 
be  true,  then  it  seems  to  me,  the  very  first  thing  we 
have  to  do,  is  to  amend  the  second  article  in  the  bill  of 
rights. 

That  article  declares  that  all  power  is  vested  in  and 
derived  from  the  people.  Now,  if  this  other  proposi- 
tion be  true,  that  provision  should  read  that  all  power 
is  vested  in  and  consequently  derived  from  the  govern- 
ment. Can  this  proposition  be  sustained  ?  I  hold  it  to 
be  clear  that  all  power  appertaining  to  a  free,  sovereign 
and  independent  people,  not  delegated  by  their  consti- 
tution— the  State  constitution — nor  heretofore  delegated 
to  the  federal  government  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  remains  with  the  people  to  be  exercised 
by  them  at  such  times  and  in  such  manner  as  they  may 
think  proper.  That  is  my  idea  in  reference  to  the  pow- 
ers of  government.  Suppose  we  go  to  work  here  for 
the  purpose  of  withholding  all  the  powers  from  the  dif- 
ferent departments  of  the  government.  I  would  like 
to  know  how  we  could  do  it — there  is  no  man  or  body  of 
men  that  could  define  so  minutely  all  the  powers  which 
they  intend  not  to  be  delegated  to  the  government  9 
so  as  to  prevent  mischief  resulting  from  it.  I  come 
here  clothed  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  who 
are  recognized  by  our  bill  of  rights,  as  the  source  of  all 
power.  They  have  clothed  me  with  that  power  ;  they 
have  sent  me  here  for  the  purpose  of  delegating  to  this 
government,  as  much  of  that  power  as  shall  be  neces- 
sary, in  order  that  the  remainder  of  their  rights  may  be 
amply  secured.  I  have  come  here  prepared  to  delegate 
that  power  ;  and  let  me  say  here,  that  that  power  must 
always  depend  upon  the  character  of  the  people,  for 
which  the  government  is  about  to  be  framed.  If  you 
have  a  virtuous  and  intelligent  people,  my  opinion  is, 
that  the  government  requires  less  power — that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  part  with  as  much  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people,  as  if  the  people  were  ignorant  and  vicious. 
Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  I  say  that  if  any  people 
under  the  sun  are  so  capable  of  governing  themselves,  it 
is  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  more  especially 
the  people  of  old  Virginia.  I  have  come  here  then  es- 
topped— perhaps,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  may  not  compre- 
hend that  term,  inasmuch  as  I  believe  you  are  the  only 
gentleman  so  considered  in  the  Convention,  but  my 
brother  lawyers  will  fully  comprehend  it.  [Laughter.] 
I  come  here  estopped  from  denying  that  the  people  are 
competent  to  govern  themselves.  I  consented  to  be  a 
candidate  for  a  seat  in  this  Convention,  and  I  was  sent 
here  for  the  purpose  of  framing  the  organic  law.  And 
does  it  become  me  now,  after  having  thus  recognized 
the  power  of  the  people,  and  their  competency  to  act 
for  themselves,  to  gainsay  that  proposition  ?  Can  I 
speak  anything  else  here  and  reflect  the  will  of  my  con- 
stituency ?  Then  I  come  here  clothed  with  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people.  I  am  prepared  to  delegate  a  por- 
tion of  that  sovereignty,  as  much  as  may  be  necessary, 
to  create  a  wholesome  and  well  guarded  government. 
I  want  to  know  from  those  gentlemen  who  have  advanced 
this  new  doctrine — for  it  is  new  to  me — how  that  sover- 
eignty can  be  divested  from  the  people  and  invest- 
ed in  the  government,  otherwise  than  by  express  provis- 
ions in  the  Constitution.  How  is  it  to  get  out  of  me?  I 
do  not  delegate  it  away  and  then  take  back  a  portion  of 
it.    The  Constitution  must  show  the  extent  of  the  pow- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


257 


era  delegated,  and  whatever  is  nob  expressly  delegated, 
and  is  not  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  out  the  powers 
that  are  delegated,  remains  to  be  returned  by  me  to  the 
people.  That  is  my  view  upon  this  question,  and  I 
think  it  is  the  correct  view. 

If  the  legislature  must  be  regarded  as  in  possession 
of  all  power  except  that  which  the  Constitution  express- 
ly withholds — if  that  be  the  true  mode  of  construing 
that  clause  in  the  Constitution  appertaining  to  the  leg- 
islative department,  it  must  prevail  in  reference  to  the 
judicial  and  the  executive,  aud  the  very  same  argument 
must  be  carried  out,  and  if  carried  out  what  is  the  re- 
sult ?  Why  are  we  here  ?  What  are  we  engaged  in  ? 
In  specifying  powers  that  ought  to  be  entrusted  to  the 
executive.  We  are  not  engaged  in  defining  the  powers 
we  intend  to  withhold  from  him,  not  at  all,  because  all 
is  withheld  that  is  not  expressly  delegated.  If  that 
position  is  n:>t  correct,  we  are  engaged  in  an  idle 
work,  because  if  all  power  belongs  to  the  different 
departments  of  the  government,  we  ought  to  be  en- 
gaged not  in  specifying  and  delegating  powers,  but 
in  specifying  the  powers  withheld,  because,  when- 
ever we  undertake  to  specify  that  this,  that  or  the 
other  department  shall  exercise  certain  powers,  we  are 
doing  a  useless  thing,  because  that  power  is  vested 
already,  according  to  this  new  doctrine,  and  we  should 
be  engaged  ia  restricting  it.  I  cannot  see  the  force  of 
this  argument.  I  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  it*  I 
beg  gentlemen  to  look  at  the  consequences  which  must 
necessarily  result.  I  can  well  see  how  this  idea  has 
found  its  way  into  the  minds  of  gentlemen  in  reference 
to  legislative  powers.  It  is  because  the  legislature,  for 
the  last  ten  or  twenty  years,  have  been  exercising  the 
whole  sovereignty  of  the  land,  and  every  member  of 
this  committee  must  agree  with  me,  that  if  there  is  any 
department  of  this  government  that  needs  reform,  it  is 
the  legislative  department.  It  must  be  restricted  or 
ruin  must  inevitably  overtake  us.  I  confess  that  to  re- 
strict the  legislative  department  is  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult questions  in  the  whole  category  of  reform.  I  have 
bestowed  some  reflection  on  this  subject,  and  I  have  not 
been  able  to  make  up  my  mind  how  it  can  be  fully  ac- 
complished. It  is  very  important  that  it  should  be  re- 
stricted, and  every  gentleman  must  see  that  restric- 
tion is  necessai-y.  What  is  the  proposition  ?  It  is  pro- 
posed by  the  last  clause  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  to  vest  additional 
unlimited  power  in  the  legislature.  Now  what  would  be 
the  effect  of  it  ?  Would  we  not  if  we  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment, lay  the  foundation  for  a  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  ?  We  vest  in  the  legislature 
the  power  to  define  the  specific  cases  in  which  the  gov- 
ernor shall  be  at  liberty  to  embody  the  militia.  Sup- 
pose the  legislature — and  they  have,  for  the  last  few 
years,  done  a  great  many  strange  things — should 
undertake  to  pass  a  law  which  is  violative  of  every  right 
and  every  provision  of  the  constitution,  and  in  that  law 
they  declare  that  the  governor  shall  call  out  the  militia 
for  the  purpose  of  executing  it.  Here  is  a  law  perfect- 
ly unconstitutional  passed  by  the  State  government,  un- 
constitutional in  reference  to  the  federal  government, 
and  we  say  here  in  so  many  terms,  not  only  that  the  leg- 
islature may  pass  such  a  law,  but  that  the  governor  shall 
enforce  it  by  the  bayonet.  What  then?  Suppose  there 
be  a  conflict  between  that  law  and  a  law  of  the  federal 
government.  Which  is  to  yield  ?  Is  the  governor  to 
obey  the  State  law  or  the  Federal  law  ?  It  would  put  a 
much  more  difficult  question  than  the  one  presented 
yesterday  by  the  gentleman  from  Henricc.  We  have 
imposed  this  duty  upon  the  governor  by  a  constitutional 
provision.  I  should  doubt  whether  if  a  governor  under 
such  circumstances  were  to  go  on  in  good  faith  to  exe- 
cute such  a  law,  abhorrent  as  it  might  be,  whether  he 
would  be  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  in  con- 
sequence of  our  having  authorised  this  act  by  this  clause 
in  this  amendment. 

In  reference  to  the  other  case  which  was  put  yester- 
day, there  can  be  no  doubt  ,  it  seems  to  me ,  upon  the  mind 
of  any  one.  If  there  be  a  conflict  between  the  laws  of 
21 


the  United  States  and  the  State  laws,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  governor  to  execute  the 
Federal  laws.  And  why  ?  Because  that  is  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land.  The  people  now  have  thrown  off  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  State  constitution.  We  are  perfectly  free 
here, we  are  clothed  in  sovereignty, we  have  taken  back  all 
the  powers  that  they  have  heretofore  delegated  under  the 
constitution,  but  a  portion  of  their  power  has  been  parted 
with  to  the  federal  government,  and  that  power  remains  in 
full  force,  and  it  is  as  obligatory  upon  us  as  it  is  upon  the 
people.  It  would  be  the  duty  of  the  governor,  under 
such  circumstances,  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  though  they  might  come  directly  in  conflict  with 
the  laws  of  the  State  government. 

I  have  thus  briefly  presented  my  views.  I  did  not  in- 
tend to  trouble  the  committee  so  long.  I  hope  that  the 
the  amendment  which  is  offered,  that  is,  the  motion  to 
strike  out  the  latter  clause  of  this  amendment,  will  pre- 
vail. I  think  that  when  we  have  specified,  as  my  col- 
league remarked,  the  three  cases  of  repelling  invasion, 
suppressing  insurrection,  and  the  execution  of  the  law, 
we  have  specified  the  only  three  cases  that  ought  to  be 
provided  for.  If  there  is  any  other  case  that  enters  the 
mind  of  any  gentleman  in  this  committee,  let  him  sug- 
gest it,  and  let  us  incorporate  it  with  the  other  three. 
Let  us  put  it  there,  rather  than  confer  this  power  upon 
the  legislature.  I  think  it  is  a  safe  principle  that  while 
making  this  constiution,  we  should  make  it  as  perfect  as 
we  can  by  inserting  every  proper  provision  in  it,  and 
leaving  as  little  to  the  legislature  as  possible. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  The  gentleman  who  last  addressed 
the  committee,  (Mr.  Fultz,)  and  several  others,  in  the 
course  of  this  debate,  have  demanded  to  know,  in  what 
instance,  not  included  in  the  amendment  of  the  member 
from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  it  would  be  necessary  for 
the  governor  to  have  power  to  embody  the  militia. 
That  amendment  confers  power  on  him  to  call  out  the 
m'litia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  enforce 
the  laws,  and  in  any  other  instances  in  which  the  legis- 
lature may  by  specific  laws  authorize  him  to  do  so.  If 
the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  be  stricken  out,  then 
the  governor  will  be  restricted  to  the  three  enumerated 
cases  for  embodying  the  militia,  and  tacitly,  at  least,  de- 
nied the  power  of  doing  so,  in  any  other  case,  though  the 
legislature  should  confer  that  power  on  him  ;  indeed  it 
would  seem  to  forbid  the  legislature  to  clothe  him  with, 
that  power,  except  in  the  cases  referred  to.  And  the 
argument  is,  that  such  restriction  will  do  no  harm,  as 
no  other  necessity  can  exist  for  calling  out  the  militia, 
and  if  any  such  there  be,  those  who  affirm  it  are  called 
on  to  state  it.  Now,  it  is  necessary  to  embody  the  mi- 
litia in  order  to  train  them,  though  no  further  use  may 
be  had  for  them  ;  and  yet  such  a  case  would  fall  under 
neither  of  the  three  cases  stated  in  the  amendment  of  the 
member  from  Kanawha,  if  the  latter  clause  be  left  out. 
Again,  it  is  necessary  to  embody  the  militia,  in  order  to 
comply  with  the  requisitions  of  the  federal  constitution. 
By  that  constitution  the  President  of  the  United  States 
is  virtute  officii  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  but  of  the  militia  of  the 
States,  only  when  called  into  service  in  virtue  of  an 
act  of  congress  passed  for  that  purpose,  and  as  their  offi- 
cers are  to  be  appointed,  and  they  are  to  be  trained — by 
the  laws  of  the  States  to  which  they  belong,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  comply  with  this  requirement,  if  the 
power  to  call  them  out  be  confined  to  the  three  cases 
enumerated  in  the  first  part  of  the  amendment.  For  cer- 
tainly under  it,  they  are  to  be  called  out  to  repel  invasion 
against  this  commonwealth,  to  suppress  insurrections 
occurring  within  her  limits,  and  to  execute  her  laws. 
But  suppose  an  insurrection  should  occur  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  President  under  a  law  of  the  gen- 
eral government,  should  demand  all  or  a  part  of  the  mi- 
litia to  go  into  Pennsylvania  to  suppress  it,  would  not 
the  restriction  contained  in  the  amendment  make  it  un- 
constitutional in  the  governor  to  answer  the  demand  ? 
Under  which  of  the  three  enumerated  cases  would  the 
supposed  case  fall  ?  Might  he  not  in  answer  say  to  the 
President  that  the  constitution  of  Virginia,  under  which 


258 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


he  holds  his  office,  forbids  him  to  respond  to  the  call .? 
Here  would  arise  a  conflict  between  the  two  constitu- 
tions, and  though  that  of  the  State  wou.d  have  to  yield 
to  that  of  the  general  government,  yet  it  would  be  un- 
wise, without  the  slightest  necessity  for  doing  so,  to 
plant  in  our  organic  law,  the  seeds  of  possible  difficul- 
ties. By  adopting  the  amendment  of  the  member  from 
Kanawha,  will  we  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  State  gov- 
ernment to  comply  with  all  its  duties  to  the  Federal  con- 
stitution, and  at  the  same  time  to  use  the  militia  for  ai, 
the  purposes  of  her  own  wants.  To  reject  it,  would 
leave  unprovided  for  two  very  important  cases  in  which 
the  militia  ought  to  be  embodied.  I  nm  not  here  for 
the  purpose  of  divesting  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia 
of  any  portion  of  her  sovereignty,  in  any  one  of  her  de- 
partments, nor  of  dimiMishing  or  cramping  her  means. 
And  for  maintaining  that  sovereignty — I  desire  to  place 
her  under  the  new,  where  she  stands  under  the  present 
constitution — a  perfect  government  of  herself,  bound  it 
is  true  to  certain  duties  and  entitled  to  certain  rights, 
under  the  federal  league,  which  she  had  entered  into 
with  her  sister  States — but  still  a  perfect  sovereign,  en- 
titled on  proper  occasions,  to  the  use  of  the  means  of 
defence  and  aggression,  which  belong  to  a  sovereign 
State.  The  chief  and  most  valued  of  these  means,  is 
her  own  military  power,  to  be  used  by  her  as  any  other 
sovereignty  may  do,  except  so  far  as  she  is  restrained 
by  the  federal  compact. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  the  difficulty  in 
which  gentlemen — 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  remind  the  gentle- 
man that  there  is  a  rule  of  the  Convention  which  pro- 
hibits him  from  speaking  again. 

MANY  MEMBERS.    I^eave,  Leave. 

THE  CHAIR.  That  rule  is  in  opposition  to  all  the 
purposes  of  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  ought  never 
to  have  been  adopted.    We  cannot  work  with  Jt. 

Mr,  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  was  proceeding  to  say  that  I 
thought  the  difficulty  into  which  gentlemen  involve  them- 
selves proceeds  from  not  giving  clue  attention  to  the  form 
and  matter  of  the  proposition  before  the  Convention.  The 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  thinking,  as  I  do,  that  it  is 
proper  to  confine  the  executive  to  three  enumerated 
cases,  calls  upon  other  gentlemen  to  tell  this  body,  if 
they  can,  of  one  other  occasion  when  it  would  be 
proper  for  the  executive,  of  his  mere  motion,  to  call  out 
the  militia.  In  response  to  that  call,  my  friend  from 
Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Whittle)  instances  as  such  a  case, 
the  calling  out  the  militia  for  the  purpose  of  drill. 
I  apprehend  that  my  friend  will  explore  American  Con- 
stitutions in  vain — State  or  Federal,  for  any  authority 
to  the  chief  executive  magistrate  to  call  out  the  militia 
for  such  exercises.  An  effort,  I  recollect,  was  made 
some  years  since,  to  confer  this  power  upon  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  by  an  act  of  congress.  The 
celebrated  army  bill,  so  much  discussed  over  the  wide 
extent  of  this  confederacy,  proposed  that  object.  But 
the  gentleman  thinks  the  power  ought  to  be  confided  to 
the  governor. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  I  adopt  the  opinion  expressed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Fultz,)  that  all 
power  on  this  subject  is  conferred  upon  the  governor,  in 
the  event  of  the  success  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  and  that  without  it 
the  legislative  department  of  the  government  would 
have  no  power  to  pass  any  law  calling-  out  the  militia 
either  for  the  purpose  of  drill  or  in  answer  to  a  requi- 
sition of  the  President,  acting  under  a  law  of  congress 
to  supply  him  with  sufficient  military  force  to  answer 
either  of  the  three  purposes  specified  in  the  Ccnstitution 
of  the  United  States.  I  say  that  unless  the  proposition 
is  adopted  requiring  the  legislature,  in  specified  cases, 
to  call  out  and  embody  the  militia,  that  there  would  be 
no  power  in  the  State  of  Virginia  which  could  call  them 
out,  either  for  the  purpose  of  training,  or  of  answering 
a  requisition  that  may  be  constitutionally  made  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  It  seems  to  me  that  both  the 


gentlemen  from  Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Whittle)  and  Augusta 
(Mr.  Fultz)  misapprehended  the  effect  of  the  words  which 
are  proposed  to  be  stricken  from  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith.)  Both  seem  to 
regard  it  as  designed  to  confer  power  on  the  legislative 
department.  It  is  fo;  no  such  purpose,  and  can  have  no 
such  effect.  If  it  be  proper  to  impose  limitations  upon 
the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  in  respect  to 
calling  out  the  militia,  this  is  not  the  proper  place  to 
insert  the  restrictions.  I  apprehend,  that  as  the  con- 
stitution now  stands,  and  as  I  trust  it  will  be  allowed 
to  stand,  it  is  competent  for  the  legislature  to  call  out 
the  militia  by  law  whenever,  wherever,  and  for  what- 
ever purpose  it  pleases.  And  when  the  militia  is  called 
out  for  training,  and  assembled  upon  your  muster  fields, 
it  is  in  pursuance  of  no  requisition  of  the  governor,  of 
no  call  by  him ;  but  in  pursuance  of  the  law  enacted  by 
the  1  egislature  ;  and  unless  we  insert,  when  we  come  to  the 
legislative  part  of  the  government,  some  restriction  up- 
on the  legislative  department  in  respect  to  this  matter, 
the  legislature  will  continue  to  have  under  the  amended 
constitution  as  it  does  now  under  the  existing  constitu- 
tion, a  power  to  call  forth  the  militia  whenever  and  for 
whatever  purpose  it  chooses.  It  may  abuse  this  power, 
but,  as  I  said  on  yesterday,  it  is  impossible  to  institute  a 
government  without  creating  power  and  conferring  dis- 
cretion upon  the  agents  who  are  to  exercise  it ;  and  I 
shall  not,  for  one,  be  deterred  from  continuing  this 
power  in  the  legislature  from  apprehension  of  its  abuse. 
It  is  impossible  for  us  to  conceive  what  emergencies  may 
arise,  what  occasion  there  may  be,  for  calling  forth  the 
militia.  And  since  it  is  impossible  to  foresee  this,  I 
think  it  would  be  unwise  in  this  convention  to  insert  in 
the  constitution  any  clause  placing  a  res.riction  upon 
the  legislative  department  in  this  regard ;  but  in  respect 
to  the  executive  department,  I  entertain  a  different 
opinion.  The  danger  of  abuse  there  is  more  imminent 
than  in  the  case  of  the  legislature.  And  while  I  agree 
that  it  is  proper ;  nay,  while  I  admit  that  it  is  necessa- 
ry for  the  purposes  of  good  government  to  confide  this 
power  to  the  governor,  I  will  confide  it  to  him  only  in 
the  enumerated  cases,  and  confine  him  in  his  action  to 
these  only.  Why,  then,  should  we  retain  in  the  amend- 
ment the  words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  ?  They  cre- 
ate no  limitation  upon  executive  power.  They  throw 
no  additional  power  worth  talking  about  upon  the  gov- 
ernor. Strike  them  out,  and  the  constitution  will  stand, 
that  for  purposes  of  repelling  invasion,  suppressing  insur- 
rection, and  executing  the  law,  the  governor  may  call 
out  the  militia.  For  any  other  purpose  in  the  world 
the  legislature  may  do  it.  When  called  out  by  the  legis- 
lature, if  the  constitution  stands  as  it  is,  and  as  this  re- 
port proposes  to  allow  it  to  stand,  the  governor  will 
command  it. 

But  I  submit  to  the  committee  whether  we  have  not 
done  all  that  is  proper  to  do  when  we  provide  a  power 
to  be  exercised  by  the  governor  to  call  out  the  militia 
in  the  enumerated  cases,  leaving  it  to  the  legislature  to 
call  it  out  at  any  time  and  for  any  purpose  that  in  its 
discretion  it  may  think  fit. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech,  but 
to  refer  to  one  of  the  positions  taken  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Whittle,)  that  occasions  might 
arise  when  the  government  of  the  United  States  might 
call  for  an  embodying  of  the  militia,  and  that  the  gov- 
ernor would  have  no  power  to  do  so.  Looking  into  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  perceive  that  con- 
gress shall  have  power  "  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  in- 
surrection, and  repel  invasions,  to  provide  for  organi- 
sing, arming,  and  discipling  the  militia,  and  for  gov- 
erning such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States, 
respectively,  the  appointment  of  the  offices,  and  the  au- 
thority of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discip- 
line prescribed  by  congress." 

I  suppose  that  this  provision  of  the  constitution  meets 
the  gentleman's  case.    It  executes  itself.    There  is  no 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


259 


necessity  for  calling  forth  by  the  governor,  for  it  says 
congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for  calling  forth 
the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  &c.  I 
read  it  solely  in  reference  to  the  objection  that  the 
gentleman  makes  that  one  of  the  cases  not  enumera- 
ted here  might  be,  that  the  militia  of  the  State  should 
be  embodied  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment. Now,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  this  clause 
of  the  constitution  gives  to  congress  full  power  over 
that  subject,  and  there  never  could  be  any  difficulty 
in  calling  upon  the  executive  of  the  State  to  embody 
the  militia. 

Mr.  MON"OURE.  I  agree  entirely  with  the  object  of 
my  friend  from  the  county  of  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  in 
having  a  power  lodged  somewhere,  to  sail  out  or  to  em- 
body the  militia  whenever  the  public  safety  may  require 
it.  I  agree  with  my  friend  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr. 
Whittle,)  in  wishing  so  to  frame  this  constitution  as 
that  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  shall  have  the  pow- 
er of  an  absolute  sovereign.  I  am  for  giving  to  her  her 
whole  strength,  and  her  whole  power,  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  government.  I  am  for  framing  her  constitution 
as  if  she  were  not  a  member  of  this  confederacy,  except 
so  far  as  to  make  that  constitution  conform  to  the  pow- 
ers of  this  confederacy,  which,  to  the  extent  to  which 
they  go,  are  paramount  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
this  State.  The  constitution  of  Virginia  was  framed 
before  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  con- 
stitution of  1776  gave  to  the  government  of  Virginia 
all  the  powers  of  an  absolute  sovereignty.  The  con- 
stitution of  1829  gave  to  the  government  of  Virginia 
all  the  powers  of  an  absolute  sovereign — powers  which 
shall  permit  her  and  enable  her  to  carry  on  the  import- 
ant purposes  and  objects  of  the  State,  whether  she 
be  in  or  out  of  this  confederacy.  I  also  agree  with 
those  who  think  that  the'  constitution  as  it  now  is  upon 
the  subject  under  consideration,  is  in  the  best  form  in 
which  it  can  be  placed.  I  was  one  of  those  who  voted 
against  striking  out,  and  at  a  proper  time  I  may  present 
to  this  committee,  or  to  the  convention,  my  views  upon 
that  subject.  The  Convention  has  determined  to  strike 
out,  and  the  question  is,  what  are  we  to  insert  ?  We 
are  to  take  care  in  filling  that  blank  that  we  shall  not 
cripple  or  circumscribe  the  powers  of  this  government. 
I  entirely  sympathize  with  the  object  of  those  who  have 
avowed  that  sentiment,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
powers  of  this  government  will  be  crippled,  or  will  be 
restricted,  by  striking  out  what  is  proposed  from  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment.  I  believe  that  the  gov- 
ernment will  be  left  in  her  unimpaired  sovereignty.  By 
the  vote  which  has  been  taken,  the  committee  have  de- 
cided that  it  is  unwise  and  unsafe  to  entrust  this  whole 
discretion  to  the  executive ;  that  public  safety,  in  his 
opinion,  is  not  a  sufficient  safeguard  against  the  abuses  of 
that  power,  and  the  question  now  is,  what  power  shall  be 
given  to  the  executive,  without  any  legislative  act.  The 
amendment  proposes  to  give  him  the  power  "to  repel 
invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  law."  This  power  he  will  have  without 
a  legislative  act — the  power  to  embody  the  militia  for 
that  purpose.  Where  is  the  necessity  of  going  further, 
and  giving  to  the  governor  the  power  to  embody  the 
militia  in  any  other  specific  case  which  the  legislature 
may  grant.  That  will  be  imposing  a  restriction  upon 
the  leg;sLative  department,  which  I  am  unwilling  to  im- 
pose upon  it.  I  am  willing  to  leave  to  that  department 
the  power  to  authorize  the  governor  to  embody  the  mi- 
litia for  a  general  or  a  specific  purpose,  according  to  the 
wisdom  of  that  department,  leaving  that  matter  entire- 
ly at  the  discretion  of  the  legislature,  and  that  discre- 
tion covers  the  whole  case  contemplated  by  my  friend 
from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith.)  :t  goes  further  ;  it  covers 
every  exigency  which  may  arise.  It  may  be  important 
for  the  welfare  and  safety  of  the  government,  that  the 
legislature  should  give  a  general  power  to  the  governor 
to  embody  the  militia,  by  an  act  which  may  be  altered 
or  repealed  at  legislative  pleasure.  In  time  of  war  the 
State  of  Virginia  may  have,  consistently  with  the  con- 


stitution of  the  United  States,  troops  and  navies  under 
her  command.  In  time  of  war  the  State  of  Virginia 
may  send  her  troops  and  her  navy  into  other  States,  and 
it  may  be  wise  and  proper,  the  public  safety  may  require, 
that  the  legislature  that  we  propose  shall  sit  biennially, 
shall  clothe  the  executive  with  power  to  embody  the 
militia  whenever  the  public  safety  may  require  it.  In 
the  very  language  of  this  constitution  now  existing,  the 
legislature  may,  by  legislative  act,  to  exist  so  long  as 
the  legislature  requires  its  existence,  give  the  governor 
power  to  embody  the  militia  whenever,  in  his  opinion, 
the  public  safety  require  it.  I  think  that  the  amend- 
ment goes  far  enough  in  prescribing  executive  duties,  in 
authorizing  the  governor  to  embody  the  militia  to  repel 
invasion — and  by  that  I  comprehend  threatened  as  well 
as  actual  invasion — to  suppress  insurrection,  either  real 
or  apprehended,  and  to  execute  the  laws.  He  is  re- 
quired, by  the  first  part  of  the  report,  to  execute  the 
laws,  and  in  all  human  probability,  he  would  have  the 
power,  necessarily,  to  embody  the  militia  for  the  pur- 
pose of  executing  the  laws,  as  an  incidental  power. 
Then  leave  the  legislative  department,  at  large,  to  give 
power  in  such  other  cases  as  may  present  themselves. 
I  shall,  therefore,  vote  against  the  amendment,  while 
I  sympathize  with  the  views  entertained  by  the  mover 
of  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  rise  for  the  purpose  of  go- 
ing at  length  into  this  subject,  nor  should  I  have  risen 
at  all  on  this  occasion,  but  for  some  remarks  which 
the  gentleman  before  me  has  submitted.  The  gentle- 
man says  that  under  the  constitutions  of  1776  and  of 
1830,  the  government  of  Virginia  was  absolute  in  sov- 
ereignty. • 

Mr.  MONCURE.  Except  so  fir  as  they  were  restrict- 
ed by  the  constitution  of  the  United  Stales. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  never  have  so  understood  it,  and  I 
totally  dissent  from  the  sentiment  that  the  government 
of  the  State  of  Virginia,  from  and  after  the  year  1776, 
was  a  limited,  sovereign.  The  sovereignty  of  the  State 
of  Virginia,  I  have  ever  conceived,  resided  in  the  people, 
and  not  in  the  government,  and  I  am  yet  to  be  informed 
that  there  is  any  government  upon  this  continent  that 
is  sovereign. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  to 
explain  ?  He  certainly  misunderstands  me  if  he  supposes 
I  said  that  the  government  was  absolute  and  unrestrict- 
ed. I  meant  nothing  but  to  say  that  the  Commonwealth 
was  a  sovereign,  whether  that  sovereignty  resided  in  the 
people,  or  in  the  government;  but  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  may  reside  in  either,  it  is  absolute  except  so  far 
as  restrained  by  the  federal  government. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  happy,  indeed,  that  the  gentle- 
man has  made  the  explanation,  but  as  my  Lord  Coke 
said,  I  wish  this  Convention  to  note  the  distinction  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  government  from  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people.  I  deny  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  is  sovereign.  1,  deny  that  the  government  of  Vir- 
ginia is,  or  has  ever  been  sovereign.  And  I,  for  one 
humble  member  of  this  Convention,  mean  to  contend  to 
the  last  that  she  shall  not  be  sovereign  in  her  three  de- 
partments of  government.  She  shall  not,  so  far  as  my 
humble  efforts  will  go,  ever  reach  that  sovereignty 
which  is  supposed  to  reside  in  a  king,  lords,  and  com- 
mons. The  government  of  Great  Britain  is  a  sovereign 
government,  according  to  her  constitution.  Whatever 
that  government  does  is  constitutional.  They  may 
change  the  succession  of  the  crown  ;  they  may  do,  in  a 
word,  whatsoever  their  will  may  dictate.  It  is  not  so 
in  regard  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia.  It  is  not 
so  in  regard  to  the  system  of  republican  governments 
which  the  people  of  America  have  adopted.  There  the 
principle  is,  that  every  government  is  limited  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  those  powers  conferred,  and  such  powers  as 
are  not  conferred,  are  reserved  to  the  people. 

While  I  am  up  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  commit- 
tee to  express  my  dissent  to  another  opinion  advanced 
by  one  gentleman  on  yesterday.  I  allude  to  the  opin- 
ions advanced  by  my  honorable  colleague  from  the  coun- 


260 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ty  of  Henrico,  (Mr.  Boxxs,)  who,  in  reference  to  this  ex- 
citing subject  of  federal  politics,  said  of  the  doctrine  of 
secession,  that  it  was  revolution.  If  that  honorable 
gentleman  means  bj  the  term  revolution  only  that  it 
produces  a  change,  I  concede  that  he  is  right,  but.  if  the 
gentleman  means  that  the  doctrine  of  State  rights,  which 
authorizes  the  sovereign  people  acting  in  their  primary 
capacity,  to  resume  the  rights  that  have  been  conferred 
upon  the  federal  government — peaceably  to  resume 
those  rights  which  have  been  conferred — if  that  is  the 
idea  of  the  gentleman,  and  that  such  resumption  of 
rights  will  be  revolution,  according  to  the  ordinary  ac- 
ceptation of  the  term,  then  I  differ  altogether  with  the 
honorable  gentleman.  If  the  idea  be  avowed  publicly 
that  by  a  resumption  of  these  State  rights  which  have 
been  conferred  upon  the  federal  government  it  author- 
izes that  federal  government  to  make  war  upon  a  State 
and  reduce  it  back  to  its  connection  with  the  Union,  I 
deny,  for  one,  that  any  such  power  resides  in  the  fede- 
ral government,  and  I  deny  that  it  is  revolution.  I  deny 
that  there  exists  any  right  on  the  part  of  the  federal 
government  to  make  war  upon  a  seceding  State  ;  and 
before  this,  however,  is  settled,  I  apprehend,  in  regard 
to  the  fighting  arm  of  government,  before  it  is  conclu- 
ded in  this  Convention,  gentlemen  will  develop  their 
limited  principles.  It  will  be  found  that  however  men 
may  have  originally  alienated  from  the  principles  in 
which  they  were  originally  induced,  like  the  catholic, 
when  the  occasion  requires  it,  they  will  die  catholic 
still.  If  I  have  labored  under  a  mistaken  idea  and  have 
acted  with  a  party  for  years  and  years  whose  tendency 
is  to  amalgamation  of  States  ;  whose  object  has  been  to 
consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the  people  and,  all  the 
States  in  this  Union,  then  I  am  willing  to  admit  public- 
ly my  error  and  retrace  my  steps.  I  fear  more  this  cen- 
tripetal power  than  the  centrifugal.  And  if  an  erring 
sister  State  shall  go  off  from  the  Union,  there  are  great 
natural  causes  that  could  be  traced  through  the  princi- 
ples of  natural  history  which  will  ere  long  bring  her 
back.  They  are  the  principles  of  cohesion — the  princi- 
ples of  attraction.  It  is  known  that  under  these  princi- 
ples small  bodies  will  adhere  to  large.  But  once  fuse 
down  the  lines  which  separate  the  people  of  these 
States — once  bring  them  into  one  amalgamated  body, 
and  where  or  how  will  you  separate  them,  and  what 
power  can  govern  them  but  a  despotism  ?  Nothing  but 
a  strong  military  arm  can  govern  a  country  of  such  ex- 
tent as  ours,  fused  into  one  homogeneous  body.  I  go 
then  for  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  rights  of  the 
people.  I  go  against  all  sovereignty  of  government, 
and  I  am  exceedingly  happy  that  I  misunderstood  my 
friend  from  Stafford.  I  believe  somewhat  in  regions  of 
country.  I  confess  that  I  believe  in  a  raee-horse  region, 
but  I  have  been  exceedingly  disappointed  while  labor- 
ing under  the  error  that  I  was,  and  I  am  very  happy  to 
err  in  the  sentiments  which  my  friend  on  my  right  has 
corrected  me  in.  The  power  of  the  sword  and  the 
purse — the  power  to  draw  out  and  embody  this  militia, 
may  be  exercised  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  federal 
government  in  suppressing  what  may  be  regarded  by 
some  gentlemen  as  revolution.  And  I  take  occasion 
here  publicly  to  avow  it  as  my  opinion,  that  however 
misguided  a  State  may  be  which  becomes  tired  of  the 
confederacy,  that  however  much  she  may  err,  yet  that 
when  it  shall  be  attempted  by  this  federal  government, 
with  the  arm  of  power,  to  force  her  back  to  obedience 
to  the  government  of  which  she  is  tired,  it  will  require 
no  proclamation  by  your  government  to  embody  the 
militia.  In  my  judgment,  it  will  require  no  legislative 
authority  to  call  out  and  embody  the  militia.  I  believe 
the  people  of  the  United  States  on  the  southern  side  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  will  never,  upon  this  question,  see 
armies  of  men  marching  for  the  purpose  of  slaughter- 
ing their  brethren,  however  misguided  these  brethren 
may  be,  but  that  there  are  men,  even  off  the  muster 
list,  who  will  enrol  themselves  to  prevent  this  thing 
from  being  done.  These  are  my  sentiments,  and  these 
are  the  sentiments  which  I  have  imbibed  in  my  reading 


in  the  reports  of  the  debates  of  the  Convention  that 
adopted  the  federal  constitution,  and  ratified  it  here  in 
Virginia.  I  believe  that  the  constitution,  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  our  forefathers,  upon  this  subject,  is 
wise.  I  believe  that  this  executive  power  must  in  the 
nature  of  things  be  strong,  and  I,  for  one,  am  prepared 
to  give  to  it  much  strength.  I  hardly  care  how  strong 
you  make  the  executive  arm,  provided  you  return  the 
incumbent  back  to  the  people.  It  should  be  strong 
enough  to  do  good,  strong  enough  to  protect  the  people, 
their  constitution,  and  their  rights,  and  it  would  be  an 
impotent  power  for  harm,  with  the  plan  of  rotation  in 
office,  of  bringing  the  incumbent  back  to  a  dead  level 
with  the  people. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  Not  having  exhausted  my  privilege 
under  the  rule,  I  beg  leave  to  detain  the  committee  for 
a  very  few  moments.  There  are  two  objects  either  em- 
braced in  this  amendment  or  avowed  in  this  debate,  and 
one  is  to  restrain  the  power  of  the  governor,  the  other 
to  restrain  the  power  of  the  legislature.  Now,  the  first 
is,  in  my  judgment,  attainable.  The  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  does, 
to  a  great  extent,  attain  this  particular  object.  In  the 
plan  as  reported  by  the  committee,  the  governor  would 
have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  of  the  Common- 
wealth at  any  time  when  in  his  judgment,  the  public 
safety  required  it.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  proposes  to  specify  the  cases  in  which 
the  governor  shall  call  them  out,  and  the  difference  be- 
tween the  two  is  this :  Your  object  is  to  impose  re- 
straints upon  every  department  of  the  government,  to 
hold  them  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  their  power. 
And  suppose  that  the  constitution  stood  as  reported  by 
the  committee,  and  the  governor  should  abuse  his  power 
in  embodying  the  militia  of  this  commonwealth,  and  he 
were  impeached  for  it,  would  it'  not  be  a  complete  bar 
to  the  prosecution  to  plead  that  the  public  safety  re- 
quired him  to  embody  the  militia  ?  The  burden  of  pro- 
ving the  corrupt  motive  would  be  thrown  on  the  State, 
and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  conviction  would  be  impos- 
sible. What  is  the  difference  ?  By  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  you  deny  to  him  the 
power  to  call  out  the  militia  except  to  repel  invasion, 
suppress  insurrection,  or  execute  the  law.  But  suppose 
he  does  call  out  the  militia,  this  clause  being  in  the  con- 
stitution, and  he  is  impeached  for  an  abuse  of  power. 
In  that  case  he  is  bound  to  plead  and  to  prove  the  fact 
of  the  invasion  before  he  can  escape  the  consequences 
of  his  abuse  of  power,  and  so  in  regard  to  all  the  oth- 
ers. I  shall,  therefore,  vote  for  the  amendment  to  that 
extent,  and  vote  for  it  with  pleasure. 

The  other  object,  viz:  the  restraint  of  the  legislative 
power,  in  my  judgment,  is  not  attainable,  at  least  to  any 
great  extent ;  and  if  attainable,  I  doubt  whether  it  should 
not  be  done  by  an  amendment  applicable  to  that  par- 
ticular department  of  the  government.  As  I  understand 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  espe- 
cially the  latter  part  of  it,  it  is  a  restraint,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  upon  legislative  power.  For  example,  it  ties  up 
the  hands  of  the  legislature  from  conferring  upon  the 
governor  the  very  power  which  we  have  just  stricken 
out  of  the  committee's  report,  viz :  the  power  to  call 
out  and  embody  the  militia,  whenever,  in  his  opinion, 

-  the  public  safety  may  require  it.    "Without  that  clause 
the  legislature  might  do  that — with  that  clause  they 

i  cannot  do  that,  because,  if  I  understand  it,  they  are 
i  bound  to  specify  in  the  act,  the  cases  in  which  he  shall 
!  exercise  the  power.  To  that  extent  then  it  is  a  limita- 
:  tion  upon  executive  power,  and  therefore  I  shall  vote 
s  against  the  motion  to  strike  it  out.  But  it  is  a  limita- 
F  tion  to  that  extent  and  to  that  only,  and  it  will  be  pos- 
!  sible,  even  with  that,  for  the  legislature,  by  special  acts, 

-  to  confer  this  power  upon  the  governor  in  every  case 
i  that  the  imagination  of  man  can  possibly  conceive.  The 
•  only  object  then  is  to  prevent  them,  by  any  general  la-w, 
j  from  devolving  upon  the  governor  the  power  of  embody- 
1  ing  the  militia  whenever  in  his  judgment  it  may  be  ne- 
j  cessary.    It  goes  no  further,  and  by  special  act  of  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


261 


legislature,  they  may  do  that  which  may  be  deprecated 
by  every  member  of  this  body.  Well  now,  it  is  in  vain 
to  deny  it.  No  man  could  have  listened  to  this  debate 
without  seeing  that  an  apprehension  is  entertained  here 
by  members  of  this  body,  that  the  members  of  the 
general  assembly  of  Virginia,  to  whom  we  propose  to 
delegate  the  legislative  power  of  this  people  so  long  as 
there  are  members  of  the  assembly,  can  in  effect  so  ex- 
ercise the  power  in  this  particular  instance  as  to  change 
the  relation  which  the  State  of  Virginia  bears  to  the 
Federal  Union.  It  is  in  vain  to  deny  that  that  appre- 
hension is  felt  and  has  been  expressed.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  now,  whether  this  apprehension  is  ill  or  well 
founded,  but  I  shall,  if  nobody  else  does  it,  devote  my 
mind  zealously  and  earnestly  to  the  consideration  of 
some  provision  to  be  inserted  into  this  constitution,  not 
in  the  executive  but  in  the  legislative  department,  by 
which  the  gentlemen  whom  we  elect  every  year  or  every 
two  years,  to  come  here  to  pass  the  ordinary  acts  of 
legislation,  shall  not,  without  the  consent  of  the  sover- 
eign people,  their  masters,  expressed  in  Convention, 
solemnly  assembled  an  pursuance  of  the  law  of  the  land, 
which  law  shall  notify  the  people  of  the  objects  for 
which  this  Convention  assembles,  change  the  relation 
which  this  sustains  to  the  federal  Union.  I  do  not  think 
this  is  the  proper  place  for  it.  Gentlemen  have  said 
here,  that  they  are  for  preserving  all  the  rights  and  all 
the  sovereignty  of  this  Commonwealth.  I  understood 
my  friend  from  the  county  of  Stafford  (Mr.  Moncure) 
perfectly  well,  I  understood  what  he  meant  just  as  well 
as  I  did  after  he  made  his  explanation — I  understood 
him  exactly  as  he  explained  it  himself.  That  question 
is  beyond  our  jurisdiction.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  The  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  in  the  year  1788, 
decided  for  themselves  what  portion  of  their  sovereignty 
they  would  part  with,  and  the  terms  upon  which  they 
would  part  with  it.  They  have  reserved  to  themselves 
all  the  rest,  and  we  cannot  deprive  them  of  it  by  any 
action  of  ours.  Our  business  here  is  to  make  a  form  of 
government  for  the  State  of  A^irginia  that  shall  best 
promote  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  and  the  people  of  Virginia  as  members  of  this 
federal  Union. 

I  trust  that  I  have  not  wandered  from  the  real  point 
before  the  committee.  It  was  not  my  purpose  to  do  so. 
I  repeat  that  I  shall  vote  against  the  motion  to  strike 
•out  the  latter  part  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha,  because,  in  my  judgment,  as  far  as  it  goes, 
it  is  a  restraint  upon  legislative  power. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  may  have  attached  a  degree  of  im- 
portance to  this  question  which  it  does  not  deserve,  but 
I  hope  that  the  committee  do  not  regard  me  as  indulg- 
ing in  mere  declamation,  when  I  say  in  sincerity,  that  I 
regard  this  question  as  second  in  importance  to  no  other 
that  can  be  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  commit- 
tee. I  regard  it  as  a  question  of  infinitely  greater  im- 
portance than  the  basis  of  representation.  I  put  no 
question  in  comparison  with  the  safety  of  the  people. 
Jb'rom  the  foundation  of  this  government,  from  1776  to 
1829,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  confer  the  power  upon 
the  governor  and  his  executive  council,  to  call  out  and 
embody  the  militia  whenever  in  their  opinion  the  public 
safety  might  require  it;  and  from  1829  to  the  present 
period  of  1851,  that  power  has  been  conferred  upon  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  with  or  without  the  advice  of  his 
executive  council.  In  the  constitution  of  1776  he  was 
required  to  do  it  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  his 
council ;  under  the  constitution  of  1829  he  may  take  the 
advice  of  his  council,  but  may  reject  and  repudiate  it  if 
he  thinks  proper.  He  is  under  no  obligations  to  regard 
that  advice ;  and  thus  in  point  of  fact,  the  power  is  en- 
tirely with  him,  and  he  alone  can  exercise  it  at  his  dis- 
cretion. We  have  reason  to  believe,  from  the  opinions 
entertained  by  some  gentlemen  in  this  Convention,  that 
this  is  a  dangerous  power  to  be  entrusted  to  the  chief 
executive  alone,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  restricted ;  and 
accordingly  this  committee  has  already  struck  out  the 
feature  which  was  reported  by  the  committee,  to  vest 


in  the  governor  alone  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia 
whenever  in  his  opinion  the  public  safety  required  it. 
And  the  proposition  is  to  insert,  what  ?  The  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  proposes  to  specify 
the  particular  cases  in  which  this  one  man  power  may 
be  exercised.  Why  do  you  grant  him  power  to  call  out 
the  militia  to  suppress  insurrection,  repel  invasion,  and 
execute  the  laws  ?  Because  the  public  safety  may  re- 
quire that  it  should  be  done  promptly,  and  before  the 
action  of  the  legislature  can  be  had  on  the  subject,  or 
perhaps  before  a  Convention  can  be  called.  But  the  first 
question  that  arises  is,  is  there  any  imaginable  case  like- 
ly to  occur,  when  the  public  safety  may  require  that  the 
militia  shall  be  embodied,  other  than  the  cases  specified 
in  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha— to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection  and  en- 
force the  execution  of  the  laws  ?  If  a  case  can  be  sup- 
posed, if  a  case  is  likely  to  arise,  I  imagine  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  this  Convention  to  provide  for  or  against  that 
case.  You  have  but  to  imagine  that  you  have  a  chief 
executive  officer  of  the  United  States,  a  military  despot, 
and  where,  as  I  said  on  yesterday,  is  the  gentleman 
possessed  of  the  foresight,  the  gift  of  looking  into  futuri- 
ty, to  ascertain  and  determine  now,  what  may  happen 
during  the  existence  of  the  constitution  that  you  are 
about  to  make  for  the  people  of  Virginia?  Shall  you 
look  to  the  possibility  of  revolution  ?  The  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  says  no.  I  say  yes.  I  look  to  every 
possible  contingency  that  can  arise.  I  go  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Stafford,  (Mr.  Moncure,)  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  rights  and  safety  of  the  people  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Virginia,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  un- 
der all  circumstances  and  under  any  contingency  that 
may  arise.  Now  all  seem  to  admit  that  they  will  lodge 
somewhere  in  the  constitution  of  the  State,  the  authority 
to  call  out  the  militia  in  these  specified  cases.  The 
gentleman  from  Kanawha  proposes  to  confer  additional 
power  upon  the  legislature,  and  specify  these  additional 
cases.  The  simple  question  then,  that  is  presented  to 
our  consideration,  appears  to  me  to  be  this :  shall  the 
power  of  calling  out  the  militia  when  the  public  safety 
requires  it,  other  than  in  cases  of  invasion,  insurrection, 
and  enforcement  of  the  execution  of  the  laws,  be  entire- 
ly abrogated ;  or  shall  it  be  lodged  somewhere  else  ? 
Now  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  if  I  understood  him 
correctly,  asked  the  question,  why  invest  the  legisla- 
ture with  this  unlimited  power  ? 

Mr.  SCOT     of  Fauquier.    No  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  certainly  understood  the  gentleman 
so,  if  he  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  in  the  course  of  my 
remarks,  when  I  gave  utterance  to  some  sentiment  of  that 
kind,  it  was  in  reference  to  what  was  said  by  other  gentle- 
men, probably  by  the  gentleman  who  is  now  occupying 
the  floor,  when  he  stated  that  one  of  the  cases  which  re- 
quired the  calling  out  of  the  militia,  was  to  commit  revo- 
lution. I  said  I  thought  there  could  be  no  revolution  or 
any  occasion  to  call  out  the  militia,  and  that  I  would  not 
invest  the  legislature  with  the  power  to  commit  revolu- 
tion. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Nor  am  I  disposed  to  confer  on  the  le- 
gislature the  power  to  perpetrate  revolution.  That  is  a 
question  not  belonging  to  the  legislature  or  the  gover- 
nor either,  but  to  the  people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  ; 
but  I  will  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  legislature,  in  cer- 
tain contingencies,  to  provide  for  a  revolution  which  the 
people  may  possibly,  at  a  future  day,  determine  upon. 
How  is  this  to  be  consummated?  If  I  was  mistaken  in 
the  remark  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  was  not 
mistaken  in  the  argument  and  language  of  other  gentle- 
men. It  was  a  dangerous  power  to  be  vested  in  the  le- 
gislature. Now  how,  I  ask,  is  it  to  be  considered  as  a 
dangerous  power  to  be  invested  in  the  legislature,  when 
we  have  entrusted  it  from  the  foundation  of  the  govern- 
ment into  the  hands  of  a  single  individual  ? 

And  what  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Kauawha,  and  what  do  I  propose  to  substitute  for  it  ? 
Why,  instead  of  giving  this  general,  unrestricted  power 


262 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


to  one  man  in  the  Commonwealth,  who  may  abuse  the 
power;  not  to  transfer  it  to  the  legislature  and  give 
them  exclusive  control  of  it;  but  to  divide  it  between 
the  two  departments  of  the  government,  and  also  to 
limit  and  restrict  the  authority  of  the  legislature  still 
further  than  gentlemen  suppose,  because  I  propose  to 
confine  the  action  of  the  legislature  to  certain  cases.  My 
purpose  is  to  defeat  the  object  avowed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Stafford  this  morning,  of  authorizing  the  legis- 
lature to  pass  any  general  law  conferring  general  pow- 
ers upon  the  governor.  If  we  mean  to  confer  the  pow- 
er entirely  upon  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, it  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  insert  these  enumer- 
ated cases  and  restrictions  on  the  power  in  regard  to  the 
governor  himself.  They  can  give  him  the  power  ;  they 
have  your  constitutional  authority  to  give  him  the  pow- 
er to  suppress  insurrection  or  to  repel  invasion,  but  I 
mean  to  restrict  him  in  that  power.  Well  now,  it  is 
with  no  little  degree  of  hesitation  that  I  undertake  to 
express  an  opinion  on  a  legal  constitutional  question, 
differing  with  the  able  and  distinguished  gentlemen 
from  Stafford  and  Fauquier,  in  regard  to  the  power  of 
the  legislature.  I  hold  the  opinion,  that  it  never  should 
be  the  purpose  of  any  statesman  in  forming  the  organic 
law  of  the  country,  to  vest  the  same  power  in  two  dis- 
tinct branches  or  departments  of  the  government  at  the 
same  time.  It  never  was  the  purpose,  and  it  never 
ought  to  be  the  purpose,  to  confer  this  power  to  the 
same  extent  on  the  executive  and  legislative  depart- 
ments of  the  government,  because  they  may  thus  be 
brought  into  conflict.  In  the  distribution  of  power,  the 
question  arises  what  will  you  do  with  the  military 
power?  If  you  confer  it  on  the  legislature,  you  neces- 
sarily withhold  it  from  the  executive,  and  in  like  man- 
ner, if  you  confer  it  upon  the  executive,  you  necessarih 
withhold  it  from  the  legislature.  Why,  if  you  vest  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  both  in  the  executive  discretion 
and  in  the  discretion  of  the  legislative  department  of 
the  government,  what  might  be  the  result  ?  Suppose 
the  case  of  the  federal  troops  marching  through 
Virginia,  to  invade  the  territory  of  a  neighboring 
State.  Suppose  the  legislature  should  regard  it  as 
an  invasion  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  they  were  to 
call  out  the  militia  in  order  to  repel  it,  what  would  be 
the  language  of  your  governor,  if  he  happened  to  enter- 
tain a  different  opinion  ?  Why,  he  would  say  to  the  le- 
gislature, you  have  exerted  an  authority,  you  have  ex- 
ercised a  discretion,  which  in  the  wisdom  of  the  fram- 
ers  of  the  constitution  was  taken  from  you,  and  which 
was  confided  to  my  individual  discretion.  I  am  to  be 
the  judge ;  I  am  to  be  the  sole  judge  ;  I  am  to  be  the 
responsible  individual  to  call  out  the  militia,  whenever 
in  my  opinion,  there  is  an  invasion  upon  this  territory, 
and  I  do  not  regard  the  marching  of  the  United  States 
troops  through  it  as  an  invasion.  Suppose,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  governor  should  happen  to  regard  it  as  an  in- 
vasion, and  the  legislature  do  not,  then  you  have  to  re- 
sort to  the  legislative  power  for  payment  of  the  troops  ; 
he  cannot  make  an  appropriation,  and  there  is  a  clog 
upon  his  action.  Now,  we  propose  to  divide  the  re 
sponsibility  in  every  other  case  that  may  arise.  Take 
for  instance  the  case  I  have  supposed,  that  you  have  a 
military  despot  at  the  head  of  your  federal  government, 
who  is  suspected,  and  justly  suspected,  of  entertaining 
very  wicked  designs,  and  of  covering  up  his  wicked  de- 
signs with  what  may,  at  the  moment,  appear  to  be  very 
innocent  acts.  He  may  quarter  his  troops  upon  you, 
and  may  design  to  subvert  the  liberties  of  the  country, 
and  may  have  even  made  an  invasion  upon  another  and 
adjoining  territory.  He  may  have  made  an  actual  in- 
vasion on  Maryland  or  Forth  Carolina.  The  militia  of 
all  the  other  States  in  the  Union  may  be  called  into  re- 
quisition, and  may  be  in  the  field,  and  the  question 
arises  shall  the  militia  of  Virginia  be  called  out,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  making  war,  as  gentlemen  seem  to  ap- 
prehend ;  and  in  this  I  think  they  fall  into  a  great  error, 
in  assuming  that  because  the  militia  are  equipped  and 
called  out,  it  necessarily  tends  to  a.  dissolution  of  the 


Union,  civil  war,  or  secession.  But  it  may  become  ne- 
cessary that  they  should  be  called  out  for  the  purpose 
of  being  organized,  armed  and  drilled.  Then  the  ques- 
tion will  arise,  where  is  the  power  of  the  governor  to- 
call  them  out  for  this  purpose  ?  The  governor  will  say, 
I  have  no  power ;  and  why  ?  Because  the  cases  are 
particularly  enumerated  and  specified  in  which  I  am  at 
liberty  to  call  out  the  militia.  This  is  not  an  invasion 
of  the  territory  of  Virginia.  An  invasion  of  Maryland 
or  North  Carolina  is  not  an  invasion  of  the  territory  of 
Virginia  ;  it  is  not  an  insurrection  in  Virginia  ;  it  is  not 
a  case  of  resistance  to  the  laws  of  Virginia.  Now,  what 
do  we  propose  to  do  ?  We  propose  that  whenever  a  case 
may  arise  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  legislature  the  pub- 
lic safety  may  require  it,  he  may  be  authorized  by  law  5 
that  is  to  say,  (if  the  clause  be  taken  in  connection  with, 
the  preceding  sentences,)  that  he  shall  have  power  to 
call  out  the  militia  for  the  purposes  of  suppressing  in- 
surrection, repelling  invasion,  and  enforcing  the  laws,  or 
whenever  a  case  may  arise  when  in  the  opinion  of  the 
legislature  the  public  safety  shall  require  it,  they  shall 
authorize  him  by  law.  Now,  is  not  this  a  power  that 
must  be  lodged  somewhere?  Is  not  the  public  safety  to 
be  provided  for  under  all  circumstances?  Why,  before  I 
would  vote  for  striking  out  the  amendment  giving  the 
legislature  the  power  in  specified  cases,  I  would  be 
strongly  tempted  to  adopt  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Stafford,  to  strike  out  the  enumerated  cases 
and  leave  the  whole  discretion  with  the  executive. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Fultz)  expressed 
some  surprise  at  the  course  I  have  pursued,  as  he  had 
listened  with  great  attention  and  profit  to  what  I  said 
on  other  questions  before  the  Convention,  that  I  should 
now  be  disposed  to  surrender  the  sword  as  well  as  the 
purse-strings.  Pray  to  whom  do  I  propose  to  surrender 
the  purse-strings  and  the  sword  of  this  State  ?  What 
portion  of  my  remarks  or  of  my  proposition  has  been  ob- 
noxious to  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman  that  I  was 
in  favor  of  surrendering  the  sword  and  the  purse- 
strings?  To  whom  have  I  proposed  to  surrender  the 
purse-strings  of  the  country  ?  Have  I  submitted  any 
proposition  to  take  the  control  of  the  purse-strings  from 
the  legislature  and  confer  it  on  the  governor  ? 

Mr.  FULTZ.  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say  on 
yesterday,  that  the  amendment  submitted  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha,  with  this  latter  clause  retained  in 
it,  would  be  giving  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  speci- 
fy other  cases  in  which  the  governor  would  be  at  liberty 
to  call  out  the  militia.  I  argued,  if  the  gentleman  heard 
my  argument,  that  that  clause  vested  an  unlimited  pow- 
er in  the  legislature ;  that  they  now  had  the  ;  urse- 
strings,  and  by  that  amendment  they  would  get  the 
sword. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Why,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
power  over  the  purse  strings  and  the  sword  must  be 
vested  somewhere.  What  human  institution  is  there, 
that  can  be  imagined,  that  is  not  liable  to  be  abused. 
The  power  may  be  abused.  We  have  no  power  over 
the  purse-strings  and  sword  here.  Our  responsibility 
and  our  duties  terminate  in  a  very  short  time.  Who  is 
it  that  must  necessarily  exercise  power  over  the 
purse-strings  and  sword  ?  It  is  to  be  delegated  some- 
where, and  who  is  so  fit  to  exercise  that  power  as  the 
legislature  of  the  commonwealth,  except  in  the  specified 
cases  which  I  have  already  proposed  to  take  from  the 
legislature  and  confer  on  the  executive  department.  I 
take  it  for  granted  that  it  is  only  done  on  account  of  the 
promptness,  haste  and  dispatch  necessary  in  order  to 
execute  the  laws,  to  suppress  insurrection  and  repel  in- 
vasion, without  waiting  for  the  action  of  the  legislature. 
So,  if  I  propose  to  give  the  sword  and  purse-strings  to 
the  governor — if  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  gentlem  m — 
I  propose  also  to  control  his  power  by  specifying  the 
particular  case  in  which  he  may  be  authorized  to  act, 
and  further  to  limit  and  restrict  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature in  regard  to  all  the  cases  in  which  they  shall  act. 
Is  that  the  power  of  the  purse  and  the  sword  at  which 
the  gentleman  is  alarmed  ?    Why,  I  take  it  for  granted 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


263 


that  the  power  is  much  safer  under  the  proposit  ion  which 
we  now  propose,  than  it  ever  has  been  yet,  for  the  rea- 
son that  to  exercise  it  we  require  the  co-operation  of 
the  three  branches  of  government,  the  senate,  the  house 
and  the  sanction  of  the  governor.    Each  one  will  oper- 
ate as  a  check  upon  the  other,  and  is  it  reasonable  to  ap- 
prehend— as  my  friend  from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  has 
expressed  his  apprehension — that  a  state  of  things  is  at 
likely  to  exist  in  this  country  in  which  the  co-operation 
of  the  house  of  delegates,  the  senate  and  the  governor, 
is'likely  to  be  obtained  in  any  hasty  action  involving 
the  public  safety  ?    In  respect  to  what  has  passed  in 
the  legislature  of  Virginia,  and  in  regard  to  their  reso- 
lutions of  resistance  at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity, that  was  only  a  paper  war,  thoughnot  entirely 
harmless,  yet  it  created  no  great  alarm  and  less  blood- 
shed.   The  legislature  of  Virginia  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  adopting  resolutions  and  engaging  in  paper  war- 
fare ever  since  I  recollect  any  thing  about  the  legisla- 
ture of  Virginia.    It  is  a  very  different  question  when 
they  come  to  bring  down  to  practical  operation  these 
'.resolves,  and  call  out  the  militia  and  disturb  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  their  constituents.    I  have  no  apprehension 
that  such  a  case  will  arise,  but  I  say  if  it  should  arise  ; 
if  in  the  apprehension  of  the  two  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature and  the  governor  of  the  commonwealth,  that  case 
shall  have  arisen  when  the  public  safety  will  require 
that  the  militia  should  be  called  out,  I  am  willing  to 
trust  them  with  the  power.    There  may  be  an  abuse  of 
power,  but  as  I  before  said,  all  human  institutions  are 
liable  to  be  abused.    All  human  power  is  liable  to  be 
abused,  but  you  must  repose  confidence  somewhere,  and 
you  must  take  the  chances  of  abuse.    It  is  better  to  do 
that  than  to  lodge  the  power  to  protect  the  public  safe- 
ty nowhere.    Gentlemen  seem  to  think,  however,  that 
whenever  that  case  shall  arise,  there  will  be  no  occasion 
for  legislative  action,  that  the  people  will  rise  up  en 
masse  to  protect  themselves,  their  own  houses  and  fire- 
sides.   Well,  very  true,  perhaps  they  may;  but  if  they 
will  do  it  in  the  cases  you  specify,  are  the  people  more 
likely  to  arise  en  masse,  and  resist  the  laws  of  your 
federal  government,  or  in  resisting  a  border  State  in 
making  aggressions  on  your  territory,  are  they  at  all 
more  likely  to  rise  en  masse  to  accomplish  that  object, 
than  they  would  be  to  suppress  insurrection  or  to  repel 
invasion?    Not  at  all.    What  they  would  do  in  the  one 
case,  they  would  do  in  the  other.    But  then  a  question 
arises,  suppose  they  should  do  it.    Is  it  better  to  have 
it  done  by  law,  or  without  law;  by  the  authority  and 
sanction  of  law,  or  against  the  authority  and  sanction 
of  law  ?    Is  it  better  that  you  shall  have  your  mob 
companies  and  mob  armies,  armed  with  shot  guns, 
pitch-forks,  pick-axes,  shovels,  and  whatever  else  they 
may  take  up;  or  to  have  them  regularly  armed  by  the 
authority  of  the  State,  regularly  enrolled  and  regularly 
equipped,  and  with  a  head  to  command  them?  Why, 
who  is  to  take  command  of  this  mob  army  thus  to  rise 
up  in  this  extreme  haste,  to  repel  danger?    The  gover- 
nor of  Virginia  certainly  would  not  be  the  commander- 
in-chief.    Why  is  the  governor  of  Virginia  selected  by 
the  constitution  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  State?    Why,  because  he  has  been  selected 
by  the  people  of  the  commonwealth  for  his  virtues,  his 
energy  and  his  patriotism,  and  thus  it  is  supposed  he 
would  be  enabled  to  command  the  confidence  of  the 
community.    Now,  is  it  better  that  a  man  thus  selected 
by  the  people,  should  take  command  of  this  army  reg- 
ularly organized,  according  to  law,  or  that  you  should 
leave  it  all  to  the  mob?    Now,  I  prefer  law,  to  leaving 
it  to  any  contingency.    If  I  were  willing  to  leave  this 
contingency  to  such  a  result,  I  would  certainly  be  will- 
ing to  leave  the  contingency  of  suppressing-  insurrec- 
tion, repelling  invasion  or  executing  the  laws.  The 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott) — I  think  I  did 
not  misunderstand  him — said,  that  he  was  not  to  be 
driven  from  his  purpose  to  vest  this  power  in  the  legis- 
lature, from  an  apprehension  of  its  abuse.    Well,  if  I 
did  not  misunderstand  the  gentleman,  and  he  says  I  did 


not,  I  pray  to  know  the  difference  between  us.  I  am 
not  to  be  deterred  from  bestowing  this  power  some- 
where, from  an  apprehension  of  its  abuse,  if  the  power 
is  necessary  to  exist;  nor  will  I  be  driven  from  the  pro- 
priety of£my  position,  in  guarding,  at  all  times,  the  pub- 
lic safety,  because  the  same  position  has  been  urged  by 
gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to  me  on  other  questions. 
It  is  no  consideration  with  me,  that  the  gentleman  from 
Essex,  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,)— with  whom  I  differ 
in  toto  ccelo  on  many  other  positions — has  advocated 
this  proposition.  Does  it  become  us  as  wise  men,  as 
statesmen,  sent  here  to  prepare  a  constitution,  to  pro- 
vide for  the  public  safety  under  all  circumstances;  to  be 
driven  from  the  propriety  of  our  positions,  because 
they  may  be  advocated  by  those  whose  opinions  on  oth- 
er subjects  are  somewhat  peculiar  and  extreme  ?  I 
could  not  for  the  life  of  me  perceive  in  what  we  differed 
when  the  gentleman  made  the  remark,  that  he  would 
not  be  deterred  from  an  apprehension  of  an  abuse  of 
this  power  from  conferring  it  on  the  legislature.  I  pro- 
pose to  restrict  them  in  all  cases,  to  the  emergency 
when  it  shall  arise,  to  check  a  too  general  exercise  of 
the  power,  while  other  gentlemen  seem  to  be  for  leav- 
ing the  unrestricted  power  with  the  legislature,  to  pass 
a  general  law  on  the  subject.  Aye,  at  its  very  first 
session  under  the  constitution  we  are  framing,  to  pass 
a  law,  giving  indefinite,  unlimited  power  and  discretion 
to  the  governor,  to  call  out  the  militia  whenever,  in  his 
judgment,  it  is  necessary;  which  supercedes  the  neces- 
sity for  the  restrictions  we  have  already  imposed. 
Well,  the  other  gentleman  from  Fauquier.  I  mean  the 
gentleman  who  read  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  (Mr.  Chilton,)  undertook  to  show,  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  conferring  this  power  upon  any  of  the 
departments  of  this  government  because,  by  the  federal 
constitution,  congress  is  already  vested  with  the  pow- 
er? Because  congress  has  the  power  to  call  out  the 
militia  !  is  that  the  only  reason  why  the  gentleman  is 
afraid  to  trust  the  constituted  authorities  of  our  own 
State  with  the  power  over  our  own  militia  ?  Why  that 
would  be  an  additional  reason  with  me,  to  confer  this 
power  on  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  State. 

I  have  rapidly  run  over  this  subject,  expressing  my 
general  views,  as  to  the  propriety  and  importance  of 
that  provision.  I  repeat  again,  that  I  look  to  the  pub- 
lic safety,  under  all  circumstances,  as  a  question  that 
is  not  to  be  brought  into  comparison  with  any  other;  I 
regard  it  as  second  to  none  in  importance  that  can  be 
brought  to  the  consideration  of  this  Convention;  and  to 
adopt  the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier, 
(Mr.  Scott,)  yesterday,  if  I  stand  here  alone,  I  never 
will  agree  to  surrender  the  right  in  some  one  or  more 
departments  of  this  government,  to  embody  the  militia, 
whenever  these  departments  may  deem  the  public  safe- 
ty to  require  it.  So  far  from  being  a  dangerous  power 
which  would  be  an  innovation  upon  our  institutions,  it 
would  be  a  novelty  to  strike  it  out.  It  will  be  dangerous 
not  to  put  it  somewhere,  put  it  where  you  will;  but  put 
it  somewhere  you  must.  If  gentlemen  can  designate 
any  other  safer  place  where  it  can  be  lodged,  let  them 
propose  it,  and  I  will  vote  for  it,  but  it  must  be  some- 
where, or  in  my  judgment  we  fail,  and  wofully  fail,  in 
the  discharge  of  the  duty  that  we  have  been  sent  here 
to  perform,  in  guarding  and  protecting  the  public  safe- 
ty at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances. 

Mr.  WISE.  As  I  offered  the  amendment  to  strike 
out  those  words,  I  desire  in  a  very  brief  and  didactic 
way  to  explain  my  understanding  of  that  amendment, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  answer  the  argument,  and  I 
hope,  satisfy  the  reason  of  the  gentleman  from  Henri- 
co, (Mr.  Botts.)  We  are  now  on  the  question  of  limi- 
ting the  power  which  we  will  commit  to  the  executive  ; 
we  have  naught  to  do  with  the  question  of  organizing 
the  legislative  department.  The  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha (Mr.  Smith)  proposes  to  limit  the  executive 
power,  on  this  subject  of  calling  out  and  embodying  the 
militia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection  and  en- 
force the  execution  of  the  laws;  and  this  amendment 
goes  further,  and  proposes  '*  and  for  such  other  specific 


264 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


purposes  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature." 
Now,  if  this  power  be  committed  to  the  executive,  to 
call  out  the  militia,  if  by  expressing  the  powers  of  the 
executive,  we  exclude  any  powers  from  the  legislature, 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  would  be 
all  right;  but  by  saying  to  the  governor  that  he  shall 
call  out  the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrec- 
tion, and  enforce  the  execution  of  the  law,  do  we  de- 
prive the  legislature  of  this  necessary  governmental 
power  of  providing  for  the  public  safety  ?  No.  Let 
me  ask  the  gentleman  from  Henrico — suppose  you  had 
just  instituted  a  government,  and  said  that  its  deliberative 
body  should  consist  of  two  houses,  which  should  constitute 
the  legislative  power,  and  that  you  had  constituted  an 
executive  to  wield  executive  power;  to  which  depart- 
ment of  the  government  would  the  power  belong  to 
provide  for  the  public  safety?  Why,  I  presume  there 
is  no  difference  between  him  and  me  in  the  position 
that  it  would  be  a  power  belonging  to  the  legislative  de- 
partment. Well,  then  follows  logically,  the  question, 
if  you  grant  to  the  executive  department  simply  the 
power,  permissive,  not  exclusive,  but  absolutely  per- 
missive, so  far  as  it  goes,  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  in- 
surrection, and  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,  do 
you  still  exclude  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  pro- 
vide for  the  common  safety  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  question  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  Always. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  ask  him  wherefore  the  ne- 
cessity of  enumerating  these  particular  powers  in  re- 
gard to  the  executive,  if  the  power  is  still  lodged  in  the 
legislative  department  to  exercise  it  ad  libitum. 

Mr.  WISE.  For  the  plainest  reason  in  the  world, 
that  the  legislature,  when  there  may  be  occasion  to  re- 
pel invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  enforce 
the  execution  of  the  law,  may  not  be  in  session,  and  if 
in  session  may  not  be  able  to  act  with  sufficient  promp- 
titude. But  you  say  that  although  this  legislative  pow- 
er to  provide  for  the  common  safety  still  exists,  yet  as 
exigencies  may  arise,  to  wit :  the  necessity  of  repel- 
ling invasion,  of  suppressing  insurrection,  of  enforcing 
the  execution  of  the  law,  in  which  this  power  may 
not  be  so  well  exercised  by  the  legislature,  that 
you  will  permit  the  governor  in  these  enumerated 
cases  to  have  an  executive  power  to  this  extent,  no 
more.  Even  in  these  cases,  after  we  have  made  the 
grant  to  the  governor  to  call  out  the  militia  in  these 
cases,  were  he  to  fail  to  do  so  when  they  ought  to  be 
called  out,  the  legislature  will  still  have  the  power  to 
order  the  governor  to  call  them  out.  The  gentleman 
then  is  answered.  And  I  concur  with  the  gentleman 
from  Stafford,  (Mr.  Moncube,)  in  the  very  strong  ground 
he  took  here  to-day,  and  which  was  taken  also  by  the 
gentleman  who  sits  before  me,  that  if  this  limitation  on 
executive  authority  would  deprive  the  sovereign  State 
of  Virginia  of  the  least  sovereign  attribute,  either  on 
the  right  hand  or  the  left  of  power,  I  would  certainly 
go  for  imposing  no  limitation  whatever.  But  the  pro- 
position here  is  simply  to  limit  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  the  government,  and  is  not  a  proposition  to 
take  away  any  of  the  powers  of  the  government  at  all. 
All  that  you  do  not  permit  the  governor  to  exercise, 
you  leave  to  the  legislative  department,  and  that  neces- 
sity answers  the  whole  argument  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico.  The  expression  of  the  power  to 
the  governor  does  not  exclude  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  it  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  grant  to  the 
legislature  the  power  by  adding  to  this  amendment 
the  words  "  and  such  other  specific  powers  as  may  be 
authorized  by  the  legislature.  "  The  legislature  has 
the  power  already,  and  the  object  is  the  limitation  of 
the  power  of  the  executive. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  regret  to  interrupt  the  gentleman, 
but  as  I  do  not  propose  to  speak  again  on  this  subject, 
I  desire  to  submit  another  question  to  him.  Suppose 
the  Legislature  of  Virginia  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  constitution,  were  to  declare  that  the 


governor  should  have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia 
whenever  in  his  discretion  the  public  safety  should  re- 
quire it,  or  whenever  he  thought  proper  to  do  so,  would 
it  not  be  in  violation  and  in  conflict  with  those  proposed 
specified  cases  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  That  question  is  as  easily  answered  as 
the  others.  We  establish  specific  limitations  of  the 
power  as  we  suppose  of  the  executive,  and  if  the  legis- 
lature attempt  to  substitute  their  action  for  a  provision 
of  the  constitution,  they  pass  an  unconstitutional  law — 
that  is  all.  Without  this  latter  clause  they  can  pass  a 
law  providing  for  the  public  safety,  and  providing  like- 
wise authority  to  the  executive  to  execute  and  enforee 
the  laws.  Do  you  not  perceive  it  is  tautologous  ?  I 
call  the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  reading  of  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha. 
He  has  the  power  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insur- 
rection, and  you  propose  to  give  him  power  to  enforce 
the  execution  of  the  law.  Is  it  not  tautologous  then  to 
say  in  addition,  and  for  such  other  specific  purposes  as 
may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature  ?  If  he  is  to  en- 
force a  law,  who  is  to  pass  it  ?  The  legislature,  do  you 
not  perceive  ?  Does  not  my  friend  perceive  that  the 
words  that  the  governor  shall  enforce  the  execution  of 
the  law  is  precisely  the  same  thing?  It  covers  the 
whole  ground,  and  why  add  then  and  for  such  other 
specific  purposes  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legisla- 
ture ?  He  has  only  been  contending  in  his  whole  argu- 
ment for  tautology  in  the  constitution. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  beg  pardon  for  again  interrupting 
the  gentleman.  I  desire  to  know  what  would  be  the 
law  of  Virginia  which  would  authorize  the  governor 
under  the  provision  to  call  out  the  militia  to  repel  an 
invasion,  suppress  an  insurrection,  or  to  execute  the 
laws,  to  act  in  the  case  I  supposed  of  a  military  despot 
at  the  head  of  the  federal  government  who  was  march- 
ing his  troops  upon  a  neighboring  State  ?  How  would 
he  enforce  the  law&  of  the  commonwealth  in  that  case  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  The  first  clause  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  will.  A  mili- 
tary despot,  as  he  supposed,  is  marching  towards  the 
State  of  Virginia — recollect  this  committee  refused  to 
insert  the  word  actual  invasion  upon  the  suggestion  in 
part  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  himself,  and  thus 
declared  that  we  were  not  to  wait  for  the  helium  fla- 
grante, that  we  were  not  to  wait  for  the  actual  invasion 
and  insurrection,  but  were  to  allow  the  governor  to  ex- 
ercise his  discretion  in  cases  of  threatened  invasion  and 
insurrection.  Suppose  that  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
is  apprised  by  the  governor  that  the  danger  is  approach- 
ing, that  the  houses  of  our  neighbors  are  already  in 
flames,  that  the  war  is  raging  in  North  Carolina  and  in 
Maryland,  and  that  the  turn  of  Virginia  may  come 
next ;  they  will  declare  that  the  public  safety  is  in  dan- 
ger, and  they  will  declare  by  law  that  the  governor 
shall  take  steps  to  defend  the  public  safety.  We  pro- 
pose here  to  give  the  governor  power  to  act  at  once  to 
repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  and  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  law.  Is  not  that  enough  for  the  gov- 
ernor ?  If  the  legislature  passes  a  law  proclaiming  the 
public  safety  in  danger,  and  provides  in  that  law  that 
steps  shall  be  taken  to  defend  the  public  safety,  does  it 
not  devolve  on  the  governor  the  duty  of  executing  and 
enforcing  that  law  ?  What  efficiency  will  be  added  to 
the  amendment,  then,  by  retaining  the  words  "  and  for 
such  specific  purposes  only  as  the  legislature  shall  re- 
quire ? "  Take  the  case  put  by  the  gentleman  himself, 
that  the  legislature  might  require  the  governor  to  act 
in  defence  of  the  public  safety,  and  that  the  governor 
might  refuse  to  act  because  there  was  no  invasion  of,  or 
insurrection  in  Virginia,  in  his  opinion.  What  would 
be  the  reply  of  the  legislature  to  the  governor  in  that 
very  case  ?  They  would  tell  him,  sir,  you  are  to  enforce 
the  requirements  and  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  you 
are  held  accountable  if  you  fail  to  obey  the  law  and  to 
execute  the  law,  as  you  are  ordered  by  the  legislature, 
within  the  limitations  of  the  constitution.    You  are  as 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


257 


ers  delegated,  and  whatever  is  not  expressly  delegated, 
and  is  not  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  out  the  powers 
that  are  delegated,  remains  to  be  returned  by  me  to  the 
people.  That  is  my  view  upon  this  question,  and  I 
think  it  is  the  correct  view. 

If  the  legislature  must  be  regarded  as  in  possession 
of  all  power  except  that  which  the  Constitution  express- 
ly withholds — if  that  be  the  true  mode  of  construing 
that  clause  in  the  Constitution  appertaining  to  the  leg- 
islative department,  it  must  prevail  in  reference  to  the 
judicial  and  the  executive,  and  the  very  same  argument 
must  ba  carried  out,  and  if  carried  out  what  is  the  re- 
sult \  Why  are  we  here  ?  What  are  we  engaged  in  ? 
In  specifying  powers  that  ought  to  be  entrusted  to  the 
executive.  "We  are  not  engaged  in  defining  the  powers 
we  intend  to  withhold  from  him,  not  at  all,  because  all 
is  withheld  that  is  not  expressly  delegated.  If  that 
position  is  not  correct,  we  are  engaged  in  an  idle 
work,  because  if  all  power  belongs  to  the  different 
departments  of  the  government,  we  ought  to  be  en- 
gaged not  in  specifying  and  delegating  powers,  but 
in  specifying  the  powers  withheld,  because,  when- 
ever we  undertake  to  specify  that  this,  that  or  the 
other  department  shall  exercise  certain  powers,  we  are 
doing  a  useless  thing,  because  that  power  is  vested 
already,  according  to  this  new  doctrine,  and  we  should 
be  engaged  ia  restricting  it.  I  cannot  see  the  force  of 
this  argument.  I  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  it.  I 
beg  gentlemen  to  look  at  the  consequences  which  must 
necessarily  result.  I  can  well  see  how  this  idea  has 
found  its  way  into  the  minds  of  gentlemen  in  reference 
to  legislative  powers.  It  is  because  the  legislature,  for 
the  last  ten  or  twenty  years,  have  been  exercising  the 
whole  sovereignty  of  the  land,  and  every  member  of 
this  committee  must  agree  with  me,  that  if  there  is  any 
department  of  this  government  that  needs  reform,  it  is 
the  legislative  department.  It  must  be  restricted  or 
ruin  must  inevitably  overtake  us.  I  confess  that  to  re- 
strict the  legislative  department  is  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
-cult  questions  in  the  whole  category  of  reform.  I  have 
bestowed  some  reflection  on  this  subject,  and  I  have  not 
been  able  to  make  up  my  mind  how  it  can  be  fully  ac- 
complished. It  is  very  important  that  it  should  be  re- 
stricted, and  every  gentleman  must  see  that  restric- 
tion is  necessary.  What  is  the  proposition  ?  It  is  pro- 
posed by  the  last  clause  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  to  vest  additional 
unlimited  power  in  the  legislature.  Now  what  would  be 
the  effect  of  it  ?  Would  we  not  if  we  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment, lay  the  foundation  for  a  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  ?  We  vest  in  the  legislature 
the  power  to  define  the  specific  cases  in  which  the  gov- 
ernor shall  be  at  liberty  to  embody  the  militia.  Sup- 
pose the  legislature — and  they  have,  for  the  last  few 
years,  done  a  great  many  strange  things — should 
undertake  to  pass  a  law  which  is  violative  of  every  right 
and  every  provision  of  the  constitution,  and  in  that  law 
they  declare  that  the  governor  shall  call  out  the  militia 
for  the  purpose  of  executing  it.  Here  is  a  law  perfect- 
ly unconstitutional  passed  by  the  State  government,  un- 
constitutional in  reference  to  the  federal  government, 
and  we  say  here  in  so  many  terms,  not  only  that  the  leg- 
islature may  pass  such  a  law,  but  that  the  governor  shall 
enforce  it  by  the  bayonet.  What  then?  Suppose  there 
be  a  conflict  between  that  law  and  a  law  of  the  federal 
government.  Which  is  to  yield?  Is  the  governor  to 
obey  the  State  law  or  the  Federal  law?  It  would  put  a 
much  more  difficult  question  than  the  one  presented 
yesterday  by  the  gentleman  from  Henricr.  We  have 
imposed  this  duty  upon  the  governor  by  a  constitutional 
provision.  I  should  doubt  whether  if  a  governor  under 
such  circumstances  were  to  go  on  in  good  faith  to  exe- 
cute such  a  law,  abhorrent  as  it  might  be,  whether  he 
would  be  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  in  con- 
sequence of  our  having  authorised  this  act  by  this  clause 
in  this  amendment. 

In  reference  to  the  other  case  which  was  put  yester- 
day, there  can  be  no  doubt,  it  seems  to  me,  upon  the  mind 
of  any  one.  If  there  be  a  conflict  between  the  laws  of 
21 


[the  United  States  and  the  State  laws,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  governor  to  execute  the 
;  Federal  laws.  And  why  ?  Because  that  is  the  supreme  law 
j  of  the  land.  The  people  now  have  thrown  off  the  obliga- 
I  tions  of  the  State  constitution.  We  are  perfectly  free 
J  here. we  are  clothed  in  sovereignty, we  have  taken  back  all 
j  the  powers  that  they  have  heretofore  delegated  under  the 
constitution,  but  a  portion  of  their  power  has  been  parted 
|  with  to  the  federal  government,  and  that  power  remains  in 
full  force,  and  it  is  as  obligatory  upon  us  as  it  is  upon  the 
j  people.  It  wonld  be  the  duty  of  the  governor,  under 
;such  circumstances,  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United 
I  States,  though  they  might  come  directly  in  conflict  with 
the  lawTs  of  the  State  government. 

I  have  thus  briefly  presented  my  views.  I  did  not  in- 
tend to  trouble  the  committee  so  long.  I  hope  that  the 
the  amendment  which  is  offered,  that  is,  the  motion  to 
'strike  ©ut  the  latter  clause  of  this  amendment,  will  pre- 
vail. I  think  that  when  we  have  specified,  as  my  col- 
I  league  remarked,  the  three  cases  of  repelling  invasion, 
'suppressing  insurrection,  and  the  execution  of  the  law, 
|  we  have  specified  the  only  three  cases  that  ought  to  be 
j  provided  for.  If  there  is  any  other  case  that  enters  the 
'mind  of  any  gentleman  in  this  committee,  let  him  sug- 
gest it,  and  let  us  incorporate  it  with  the  other  three. 
I  Let  us  put  it  there,  rather  than  confer  this  power  upon 
j  the  legislature.  I  think  it  is  a  safe  principle  that  while 
(making  this  constiution,  we  should  make  it  as  perfect  as 
we  can  by  inserting  every  proper  provision  in  it,  and 
leaving  as  little  to  the  legislature  as  possible. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  The  gentleman  who  last  addressed 
the  committee,  (Mr.  Fultz,)  and  several  others,  in  the 
course  of  this  debate,  have  demanded  to  know,  in  what 
instance,  not  included  in  the  amendment  of  the  member 
from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  it  would  be  necessary  for 
the  governor  to  have  power  to  embody  the  militia. 
That  amendment  confers  power  on  him  to  call  out  the 
militia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  enforce 
the  laws,  and  in  any  other  instances  in  which  the  legis- 
lature may  by  specific  laws  authorize  him  to  do  so.  If 
the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  be  stricken  out,  then 
the  governor  will  be  restricted  to  the  three  enumerated 
cases  for  embodying  the  militia,  and  tacitly,  at  least,  de- 
nied the  power  of  doing  so,  in  any  other  case,  though  the 
legislature  should  confer  that  power  on  him ;  indeed  it 
would  seem  to  forbid  the  legislature  to  clothe  him  with 
that  power,  except  in  the  cases  referred  to.  And  the 
argument  is,  that  such  restriction  will  do  no  harm,  as 
no  other  necessity  can  exist  for  calling  out  the  militia, 
and  if  any  such  there  be,  those  who  affirm  it  are  called 
on  to  state  it.  Now,  it  is  necessary  to  embody  the  mi- 
litia in  order  to  train  them,  though  no  further  use  may 
be  had  for  them  ;  and  yet  such  a  case  would  fall  under 
neither  of  the  three  cases  stated  in  the  amendment  of  the 
member  from  Kanawha,  if  the  latter  clause  be  left  out. 
Again,  it  is  necessary  to  embody  the  militia,  in  order  to 
comply  with  the  requisitions  of  the  federal  constitution. 
By  that  constitution  the  President  of  the  United  States 
is  virtute  officii  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  but  of  the  militia  of  the 
States,  only  when  called  into  service  in  virtue  of  an 
act  of  congress  passed  for  that  purpose,  and  as  their  offi- 
cers are  to  be  appointed,  and  they  are  to  be  trained — by 
the  laws  of  the  States  to  which  they  belong,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  comply  with  this  requirement,  if  the 
power  to  call  them  out  be  confined  to  the  three  cases 
enumerated  in  the  first  Dart  of  the  amendment.  For  cer- 
tainly under  it,  they  are  tc  be  called  out  to  repel  invasion 
against  this  common  wealth,  to  suppress  insurrections 
occurring  within  her  limits,  and  to  execute  her  laws. 
But  suppose  an  insurrection  should  occur  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  President  under  a  law  of  the  gen- 
eral government,  should  demand  all  or  a  part  of  the  mi- 
litia to  go  into  Pennsylvania  to  suppress  it,  would  not 
the  restriction  contained  in  the  amendment  make  it  un- 
constitutional in  the  governor  to  answer  the  demand  ? 
Under  which  of  the  three  enumerated  cases  would  the 
supposed  case  fall  ?  Might  he  not  in  answer  say  to  the 
President  that  the  constitution  of  Virginia,  under  which 


258 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


he  holds  his  office,  forbids  him  to  respond  to  the  call  ? 
Here  would  arise  a  conflict  between  the  two  constitu- 
tions, and  though  that  of  the  State  would  have  to  yield 
to  that  of  the  general  government,  yet  it  would  be  un- 
wise, without  the  slightest  necessity  for  duing  so,  to 
plant  in  our  organic  law,  the  seeds  of  possible  difficul- 
ties. By  adopting  the  amendment  of  the  member  from 
Kanawha,  will  we  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  State  gov- 
ernment to  comply  with  all  its  duties  to  the  Federal  con- 
stitution, and  at  the  same  time  to  use  the  militia  for  aij 
the  purposes  of  her  own  wants.  To  reject  it,  would 
leave  unprovided  for  two  very  important  cases  in  which 
the  militia  ought  to  be  embodied.  Iam  not  here  for 
the  purpose  of  divesting  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia 
of  any  portion  of  her  sovereignty,  in  any  one  of  her  de- 
partments, nor  of  diminishing  or  cramping  her  means. 
And  for  maintaining  that  sovereignty — I  desire  to  place 
her  under  the  new,  where  she  stands  under  the  present 
constitution — a  perfect  government  of  herself,  bound  it 
is  true  to  certain  duties  and  entitled  to  certain  rights, 
under  the  federal  league,  which  she  had  entered  into 
with  her  sister  States — but  still  a  perfect  sovereign,  en- 
titled on  proper  occasions,  to  the  use  of  the  means  of 
defence  and  aggression,  which  belong  to  a  sovereign 
State.  The  chief  and  most  valued  of  these  means,  is 
her  own  military  power,  to  be  used  by  her  as  any  other 
sovereignty  may  do,  except  so  far  as  she  is  restrained 
by  the  federal  compact. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  the  difficulty  in 
which  gentlemen — 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  would  remind  the  gentle- 
man that  there  is  a  rule  of  the  Convention  which  pro- 
hibits him  from  speaking  again. 

MANY  MEMBERS.    Leave,  Leave. 

THE  CHAIR.  That  rule  is  in  opposition  to  all  the 
purposes  of  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and  ought  never 
to  have  been  adopted.    We  cannot  work  with  it. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  was  proceeding  to  say  that  I 
Ihought  the  difficulty  into  which  gentlemen  involve  them- 
selves proceeds  from  not  giving  due  attention  to  the  form 
and  matter  of  the  proposition  before  the  Convention.  The 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  thinking,  as  I  do,  that  it  is 
proper  to  confine  the  executive  to  three  enumerated 
cases,  calls  upon  other  gentlemen  to  tell  this  body,  if 
they  .can,  of  one  other  occasion  when  it  would  be 
proper  for  the  executive,  of  his  mere  motion,  to  call  out 
the  militia.  In  response  to  that  call,  my  friend  from 
Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Whittle)  instances  as  such  a  case, 
the  calling  out  the  militia  for  the  purpose  of  drill. 
I  apprehend  that  my  friend  will  explore  American  Con- 
stitutions in  vain — State  or  Federal,  for  any  aithority 
to  the  chief  executive  magistrate  to  call  out  the  militia 
for  such  exercises.  An  effort,  I  recollect,  was  made 
some  years  since,  to  confer  this  power  upon  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  by  an  act  of  congress.  The 
celebrated  army  bill,  so  much  discussed  over  the  wide 
extent  of  this  confederacy,  proposed  that  object.  But 
the  gentleman  thinks  the  power  ought  to  be  confided  to 
the  governor. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  I  adopt  the  opinion  expressed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Fultz,)  that  all 
power  on  this  subject  is  conferred  upon  the  governor,  in 
the  event  of  the  success  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  and  that  without  it 
the  legislative  department  of  the  government  would 
have  no  power  to  pass  any  law  calling-  out  the  militia 
either  for  the  purpose  of  drill  or  in  answer  to  a  requi- 
sition of  the  President,  acting  under  a  law  of  congress 
to  supply  him  with  sufficient  military  force  to  answer 
either  of  the  three  purposes  specified  in  the  Constitution 
of  th©  United  States.  I  say  that  unless  the  proposition 
is  adopted  requiring  the  legislatures  in  specif  ed  cases, 
to  call  out  and  embody  the  militia,  that  there  would  be 
no  power  in  the  State  of  Virginia  which  could  call  them 
out,  either  for  the  purpose  of  training,  or  of  an1  wering 
a  requisition  that  may  be  constitutionally  made  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.   It  seems  to  me  that  both  the 


gentlemen  from  Pittsylvania  (Mr.  Whittle)  and  Augusta 
(Mr.  Fultz)  misapprehended  the  effect  of  the  words  which 
are  proposed  to  be  stricken  from  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith.)  Both  seem  to 
regard  it  as  designed  to  confer  power  on  the  legislative 
department.  It  is  fo,  no  such  purpose,  and  can  have  no 
such  effect.  If  it  be  proper  to  impose  limitations  upon 
the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  in  respect  to 
calling  out  the  militia,  this  is  not  the  proper  place  to 
insert  the  restrictions.  I  apprehend,  that  as  the  con- 
stitution now  stands,  and  as  I  trust  it  will  be  allowed 
to  stand,  it  is  competent  for  the  legislature  to  call  out 
the  militia  by  law  whenever,  wherever,  and  for  what- 
ever purpose  it  pleases.  And  when  the  militia  is  called 
out  for  training,  and  assembled  upon  your  muster  fields, 
it  is  in  pursuance  of  no  requisition  of  the  governor,  of 
no  call  by  him ;  but  in  pursuance  of  the  law  enacted  by 
the  legislature  ;  and  unless  we  insert,  when  we  come  to  the 
legislative  part  of  the  government,  some  restriction  up- 
on the  legislative  department  in  respect  to  this  matter, 
the  legislature  will  continue  to  have  under  the  amended 
constitution  as  it  does  now  under  the  existing  constitu- 
tion, a  power  to  call  forth  the  militia  whenever  and  for 
whatever  purpose  it  chooses.  It  may  abuse  this  power, 
but,  as  I  said  on  yesterday,  it  is  impossible  to  institute  a 
government  without  creating  power  and  conferring  dis- 
cretion upon  the  agents  who  are  to  exercise  it ;  and  I 
shall  not,  for  one,  be  deterred  from  continuing  this 
power  in  the  legislature  from  apprehension  of  its  abuse. 
It  is  impossible  for  us  to  conceive  what  emergencies  may 
arise,  what  occasion  there  may  be,  for  calling  forth  the 
militia.  And  since  it  is  impossible  to  foresee  this,  I 
think  it  would  be  unwise  in  this  convention  to  insert  in 
the  constitution  any  clause  placing  a  res;riction  upon 
the  legislative  department  in  this  regard ;  but  in  respect 
to  the  executive  department,  I  entertain  a  different 
opinion.  The  danger  of  abuse  there  is  more  imminent 
than  in  the  case  of  the  legislature.  And  while  I  agree 
that  it  is  proper  ;  nay,  while  I  admit  that  it  is  necessa- 
ry for  the  purposes  of  good  government  to  confide  this 
power  to  the  governor,  I  will  confide  it  to  him  only  in 
the  enumerated  cases,  and  confine  him  in  his  action  to 
these  only.  Why,  then,  should  we  retain  in  the  amend- 
ment the  words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  ?  They  cre- 
ate no  limitation  upon  executive  power.  They  throw 
no  additional  power  worth  talking  about  upon  the  gov- 
ernor. Strike  them  out,  and  the  constitution  will  stand, 
that  for  purposes  of  repelling  invasion,  suppressing  insur- 
rection, and  executing  the  law,  the  governor  may  call 
out  the  militia.  For  any  other  purpose  in  the  world 
the  legislature  may  do  it.  When  called  out  by  the  legis- 
lature, if  the  constitution  stands  as  it  is,  and  as  this  re- 
port proposes  to  allow  it  to  stand,  the  governor  will 
command  it. 

But  I  submit  to  the  committee  whether  we  have  not 
done  all  that  is  proper  to  do  when  we  provide  a  power 
to  be  exercised  by  the  governor  to  call  out  the  militia 
in  the  enumerated  cases,  leaving  it  to  the  legislature  to 
call  it  out  at  any  time  and  for  any  purpose  that  in  its 
discretion  it  may  think  fit. 

Mr.  CHILTON".  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech,  but 
to  refer  to  one  of  the  positions  taken  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr.  Whittle,)  that  occasions  might 
arise  when  the  government  of  the  United  States  might 
call  for  an  embodying  of  the  militia,  and  that  the  gov- 
ernor would  have  no  power  to  do  so.  Looking  into  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  perceive  that  con- 
gress shall  have  power  "  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  in- 
surrection, and  repel  invasions,  to  provide  for  organi- 
sing, arming,  and  discipling  the  militia,  and  for  gov- 
erning such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States, 
respectively,  the  appointment  of  the  offices,  and  the  au- 
thority of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discip- 
line prescribed  by  congress." 

I  suppose  that  this  provision  of  the  constitution  meets 
the  gentleman's  case.    It  executes  itself.    There  is  no 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


259 


necessity  for  calling  forth  by  the  governor,  for  it  says 
congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for  calling  forth 
the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  &c.  I 
read  it  sohly  in  reference  to  the  objection  that  the 
gentleman  makes  that  one  of  the  cases  not  enumera- 
ted here  might  be,  that  the  militia  of  the  State  should 
be  embodied  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment. Now,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  this  clause 
of  the  constitution  gives  to  congress  full  power  over 
that  subject,  ani  there  never  could  be  any  difficulty 
in  calling  upon  the  executive  of  the  State  to  embody 
the  militia, 

Mr.  MONCURE.  I  agree  entirely  with  the  object  of 
my  friend  from  the  county  of  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith,)  in 
having  a  power  lodged  somewhere,  to  call  out  or  to  em- 
body the  militia  whenever  the  public  safety  may  require 
it.  I  agree  with  my  friend  from  Pittsylvania,  (Mr. 
Whittle,)  in  wishing  so  to  frame  this  constitution  as 
that  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  shall  have  the  pow- 
er of  an  absolute  sovereign.  I  am  for  giving  to  her  her 
whole  strength,  and  her  whole  power,  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  government.  I  am  for  framing  her  constitution 
as  if  she  were  not  a  member  of  this  confederacy,  except 
so  far  as  to  make  that  constitution  conform  to  the  pow- 
ers of  this  confederacy,  which,  to  the  extent  to  which 
they  go,  are  paramount  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
this  State.  The  constitution  of  Virginia  was  framed 
before  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  con- 
stitution of  1776  gave  to  the  government  of  Virginia 
all  the  powers  of  an  absolute  sovereignty.  The  con- 
stitution of  1829  gave  to  the  government  of  Virginia 
all  the  powers  of  an  absolute  sovereign — powers  which 
shall  permit  her  and  enable  her  to  carry  on  the  import- 
ant purposes  and  objects  of  the  State,  whether  she 
be  in  or  out  of  this  confederacy.  I  also  agree  with 
those  who  think  that  the  constitution  as  it  now  is  upon 
the  subject  under  consideration,  is  in  the  best  form  in 
which  it  can  be  placed.  I  was  one  of  those  who  voted 
against  striking  out,  and  at  a  proper  time  I  may  present 
to  this  committee,  or  to  the  convention,  my  views  upon 
that  subject.  The  Convention  has  determined  to  strike 
out,  and  the  question  is,  what  are  we  to  insert  ?  We 
are  to  take  care  in  filling  that  blank  that  we  shall  not 
cripple  or  circumscribe  the  powers  of  this  government. 
I  entirely  sympathize  with  the  object  of  those  who  have 
avowed  that  sentiment,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
powers  of  this  government  will  be  crippled,  or  will  be 
restricted,  by  striking  out  what  is  proposed  from  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment.  I  believe  that  the  gov- 
ernment will  be  left  in  her  unimpaired  sovereignty.  By 
the  vote  which  has  been  taken,  the  committee  have  de- 
cided that  it  is  unwise  and  unsafe  to  entrust  this  whole 
discretion  to  the  executive ;  that  public  safety,  in  his 
opinion,  is  not  a  sufficient  safeguard  against  the  abuses  of 
that  power,  and  the  question  now  is,  what  power  shall  be 
given  to  the  executive,  without  any  legislative  act.  The 
amendment  proposes  to  give  him  the  power  "  to  repel 
invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  law."  This  power  he  will  have  without 
a  legislative  act — the  power  to  embody  the  militia  for 
that  purpose.  Where  is  the  necessity  of  going  further, 
and  giving  to  the  governor  the  power  to  embody  the 
militia  in  any  other  specific  case  which  the  legislature 
may  grant.  That  will  be  imposing  a  restriction  upon 
the  leg  sLative  department,  which  I  am  unwilling  to  im- 
pose upon  it.  I  am  willing  to  leave  to  that  department 
the  power  to  authorize  the  governor  to  embody  the  mi- 
litia for  a  general  or  a  specific  purpose,  according  to  the 
wisdom  of  that  department,  leaving  that  matter  entire- 
ly at  the  discretion  of  the  legislature,  and  that  discre- 
tion covers  the  whole  case  contemplated  by  my  friend 
from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Smith.)  d  goes  further  ;  it  covers 
every  exigency  which  may  arise.  It  may  be  important 
for  the  welfare  and  safety  of  the  government  that  the 
legislature  should  give  a  general  power  to  the  governor 
to  embody  the  militia,  by  an  act  which  may  be  altered 
or  repealed  at  legislative  pleasure.  In  time  of  war  the 
State  of  Virginia  may  have,  consistently  with  the  con- 


stitution of  the  United  States,  troops  and  navies  under 
her  command.  In  time  of  war  the  State  of  Virginia 
may  send  her  troops  and  her  navy  into  other  States,  and 
it  may  be  wise  and  proper,  the  public  safety  may  require, 
that  the  legislature  that  we  propose  shall  sit  biennially, 
shall  clothe  the  executive  with  power  to  embody  the 
militia  whenever  the  public  safety  may  require  it.  In 
the  very  language  of  this  constitution  now  existing,  the 
legislature  may,  by  legislative  act,  to  exist  so  long  as 
the  legislature  requires  its  existence,  give  the  governor 
power  to  embody  the  militia  whenever,  in  his  opinion, 
the  public  safety  require  it.  I  think  that  the  amend- 
ment goes  far  enough  in  prescribing  executive  duties,  in 
authorizing  the  governor  to  embody  the  militia  to  repel 
invasion — and  by  that  I  comprehend  threatened  as  well 
as  actual  invasion — to  suppress  insurrection,  either  real 
or  apprehended,  and  to  execute  the  laws.  He  is  re- 
quired, by  the  first  part  of  the  report,  to  execute  the 
laws,  and  in  all  human  probability,  he  would  have  the 
power,  necessarily,  to  embody  the  militia  for  the  pur- 
pose of  executing  the  laws,  as  an  incidental  power. 
Then  leave  the  legislative  department,  at  large,  to  give 
power  in  such  other  cases  as  may  present  themselves. 
I  shall,  therefore,  vote  against  the  amendment,  while 
I  sympathize  with  the  views  entertained  by  the  mover 
of  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  rise  for  the  purpose  of  go- 
ing at  length  into  this  subject,  nor  should  I  have  risen 
at  all  on  this  occasion,  but  for  some  remarks  which 
the  gentleman  before  me  has  submitted.  The  gentle- 
man says  that  under  the  constitutions  of  1776  and  of 
1830,  the  government  of  Virginia  was  absolute  in  sov- 
ereignty." 

Mr.  MONCURE.  Except  so  far  as  they  were  restrict- 
ed by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  never  have  so  understood  it,  and  I 
totally  dissent  from  the  sentiment  that  the  government 
of  the  State  of  Virginia,  from  and  after  the  year  1776, 
was  a  limited  sovereign.  The  sovereignty  of  the  State 
of  Virginia,  I  have  ever  conceived,  resided  in  the  people, 
and  not  in  the  government,  and  I  am  yet  to  be  informed 
that  there  is  any  government  upon  this  continent  that 
is  sovereign. 

Mr.  MONCURE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  to 
explain  ?  He  certainly  misunderstands  me  if  he  supposes 
I  said  that  the  government  was  absolute  and  unrestrict- 
ed. I  meant  nothing  but  to  say  that  the  Commonwealth 
was  a  sovereign,  whether  that  sovereignty  resided  in  the 
people,  or  in  the  government;  but  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  may  reside  in  either,  it  is  absolute  except  so  far 
as  restrained  by  the  federal  government. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  happy,  indeed,  that  the  gentle- 
man has  made  the  explanation,  but  as  my  Lord  Coke 
said,  I  wish  this  Convention  to  note  the  distinction  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  government  from  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people.  I  deny  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  is  sovereign.  deny  that  the  government  of  Vir- 
ginia is,  or  has  ever  been  sovereign.  And  I,  for  one 
humble  member  of  this  Convention,  mean  to  contend  to 
the  last  that  she  shall  not  be  sovereign  in  her  three  de- 
partments of  government.  Sne  shall  not,  so  far  as  my 
humble  efforts  will  go,  ever  reach  that  sovereignty 
which  is  supposed  to  reside  in  a  king,  lords,  and  com- 
mons. The  government  of  Great  Britain  is  a  sovereign 
government,  according  to  her  constitution.  Whatever 
that  government  does  is  constitutional.  They  may 
change  the  succession  of  the  crown  ;  they  may  do,  in  a 
word,  whatsoever  their  will  may  dictate.  It  is  net  so 
in  regard  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia.  It  is  not 
so  in  regard  to  the  system  of  republican  goven  ments 
which  the  people  of  America  have  adopted.  There  the 
principle  is,  that  every  government  is  limited  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  those  powers  conferred,  and  such  powers  as 
are  not  conferred,  are  reserved  to  the  people. 

While  I  am  up  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  commit- 
tee to  express  my  dissent  to  another  opinion  advanced, 
by  one  gentleman  on  yesterday.  I  allude  to  the  opin- 
ions advanced  by  my  honorable  colleague  from  the  coun- 


260 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ty  of  Henrico,  (Mr.  Botts,)  who,  in  reference  to  this  ex- 
citing subject  of  federal  politics,  said  of  the  doctrine  of 
secession,  that  it  "was  revolution.  If  that  honorable 
gentleman  means  by  the  term  revolution  only  that  it 
produces  a  change,  I  concede  that  he  is  right,  but  if  the 
gentleman  means  that  the  doctrine  of  State  rights,  which 
authorizes  the  sovereign  people  acting  in  their  primary 
capacity,  to  resume  the  rights  that  have  been  conferred 
upon  the  federal  government — peaceably  to  resume 
those  rights  which  have  been  conferred — if  that  is  the 
idea  of  the  gentleman,  and  that  such  resumption  of 
rights  will  be  revolution,  according  to  the  ordinary  ac- 
ceptation of  the  term,  then  I  differ  altogether  with  the 
honorable  gentleman.  If  the  idea  be  avowed  publicly 
that  by  a  resumption  of  these  State  rights  which  have 
been  conferred  upon  the  federal  government  it  author- 
izes that  federal  government  to  make  war  upon  a  State 
and  reduce  it  back  to  its  connection  with  the  Union,  I 
deny,  for  one,  that  any  such  power  resides  in  the  fede- 
ral government,  and  I  deny  that  it  is  revolution.  I  deny 
that  there  exists  any  right  on  the  part  of  the  federal 
government  to  make  war  upon  a  seceding  State  ;  and 
before  this,  however,  is  settled,  I  apprehend,  in  regard 
to  the  fighting  arm  of  government,  before  it  is  conclu- 
ded in  this  Convention,  gentlemen  will  develop  their 
limited  principles.  It  will  be  found  that  however  men 
inav  have  originally  alienated  from  the  principles  in 
which  they  were  originally  induced,  like  the  catholic, 
when  the  occasion  requires  it,  they  will  die  catholic 
still.  If  I  have  labored  under  a  mistaken  idea  and  have 
acted  with  a  party  for  years  and  years  whose  tendency 
i3  to  amalgamation  of  States  ;  whose  object  has  been  to 
consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the  people  and  all  the 
States  in  this  Union,  then  I  am  willing  to  admit  public- 
ly my  error  and  retrace  my  steps.  I  fear  more  this  cen- 
tripetal power  than  the  centrifugal.  And  if  an  erring 
sister  State  shall  go  off  from  the  Union,  there  are  great 
natural  causes  that  could  be  traced  through  the  princi- 
ples of  natural  history  which  will  ere  long  bring  her 
back.  They  are  the  principles  of  cohesion — the  princi- 
ples of  attraction.  It  is  known  that  under  these  princi- 
ples small  bodies  will  adhere  to  large.  But  once  fuse 
down  the  lines  which  separate  the  people  of  these 
States — once  bring  them  into  one  amalgamated  body, 
and.  where  or  how  will  you  separate  them,  and  what 
power  can  govern  them  but  a  despotism  ?  Nothing  but 
a  strong  military  arm  can  govern  a  country  of  such  ex- 
tent as  ours,  fused  into  one  homogeneous  body.  I  go 
then  for  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  rights  of  the 
people.  T  go  against  all  sovereignty  of  government, 
and  I  am  exceedingly  happy  that  I  misunderstood  my 
friend  from  Stafford.  I  believe  somewhat  in  regions  of 
country.  I  confess  that  I  believe  in  a  race-horse  region, 
but  I  have  been  exceedingly  disappointed  while  labor- 
ing under  the  error  that  I  was,  and  I  am  very  happy  to 
err  in  the  sentiments  which  my  friend  on  my  right  has 
corrected  me  in.  The  power  of  the  sword  and  the 
purse — the  power  to  draw  out  and  embody  this  militia, 
may  be  exercised  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  federal 
government  in  suppressing  what  may  be  regarded  by 
some  gentlemen  as  revolution.  And  I  take  occasion 
here  publicly  to  avow  it  as  my  opinion,  that  however 
misguided  a  State  may  be  which  becomes  tired  of  the 
confederacy,  that  however  much  she  may  err,  yet  that 
when  it  shall  be  attempted  by  this  federal  government, 
with  the  arm  of  power,  to  force  her  back  to  obedience 
to  the  government  of  which  she  is  tired,  it  will  require 
no  proclamation  by  your  government  to  embody  the 
militia.  In  my  judgment,  it  will  require  no  legislative 
authority  to  call  out  and  embody  the  militia.  I  believe 
the  people  of  the  United  States  on  the  southern  side  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  will  never,  upon  this  question,  see 
armies  of  men  marching  for  the  purpose  of  slaughter- 
ing their  brethren,  however  misguided  these  brethren 
may  be,  but  that  there  are  men,  even  off  the  muster 
list,  who  will  enrol  themselves  to  prevent  this  thing 
from  being  done.  These  are  my  sentiments,  and  these 
are  the  sentiments  which  I  have  imbibed  in  my  reading 


in  the  reports  of  the  debates  of  the  Convention  that 
adopted  the  federal  constitution,  and  ratified  it  here  in 
Virginia.  I  believe  that  the  constitution,  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  our  forefathers,  upon  this  subject,  is 
wise.  I  believe  that  this  executive  power  must  in  the 
nature  of  things  be  strong,  and  I,  for  one,  am  prepared 
to  give  to  it  much  strength.  I  hardly  care  how  strong 
you  make  the  executive  arm,  provided  you  return  the 
incumbent  back  to  the  people.  It  should  be  strong 
enough  to  do  good,  strong  enough  to  protect  the  people, 
their  constitution,  and  their  rights,  and  it  would  be  an 
impotent  power  for  harm,  with  the  plan  of  rotation  in 
office,  of  bringing  the  incumbent  back  to  a  dead  level 
with  the  people. 

Mr.  J  ANNE  Y.  Not  having  exhausted  my  privilege 
under  the  rule,  I  beg  leave  to  detain  the  committee  for 
a  very  few  moments.  There  are  two  objects  either  em- 
braced in  this  amendment  or  avowed  in  this  debate,  and 
one  is  to  restrain  the  power  of  the  governor,  the  other 
to  restrain  the  power  of  the  legislature.  Now,  the  first 
is,  in  my  judgment,  attainable.  The  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  does, 
to  a  great  extent,  attain  this  particular  object.  In  the 
plan  as  reported  by  the  committee,  the  governor  would 
have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  of  the  Common- 
wealth at  any  time  when  in  his  judgment,  the  public 
safety  required  it.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  proposes  to  specify  the  cases  in  which 
the  governor  shall  call  them  out,  and  the  difference  be- 
tween the  two  is  this :  Your  object  is  to  impose  re- 
straints upon  every  department  of  the  government,  to 
hold  them  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  their  power. 
And  suppose  that  the  constitution  stood  as  reported  by 
the  committee,  and  the  governor  should  abuse  his  power 
in  embodying  the  militia  of  this  commonwealth,  and  he 
were  impeached  for  it,  would  it  not  be  a  complete  bar 
to  the  prosecution  to  plead  that  the  public  safety  re- 
quired him  to  embody  the  militia  ?  The  burden  of  pro- 
ving the  corrupt  motive  would  be  thrown  on  the  State, 
and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  conviction  would  be  impos- 
sible. What  is  the  difference  ?  By  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  you  deny  to  him  the 
power  to  call  out  the  militia  except  to  repel  invasion, 
suppress  insurrection,  or  execute  the  law.  But  suppose 
he  does  call  out  the  militia,  this  clause  being  in  the  con- 
stitution, and  he  is  impeached  for  an  abuse  of  power. 
In  that  case  he  is  bound  to  plead  and  to  prove  the  fact 
of  the  invasion  before  he  can  escape  the  consequences 
of  his  abuse  of  power,  and  so  in  regard  to  all  the  oth- 
ers. I  shall,  therefore,  vote  for  the  amendment  to  that 
extent,  and  vote  for  it  with  pleasure. 

The  other  object,  viz :  the  restraint  of  the  legislative 
power,  in  my  judgment,  is  not  attainable,  at  least  to  any 
great  extent ;  and  if  attainable,  I  doubt  whether  it  should 
not  be  done  by  an  amendment  applicable  to  that  par- 
ticular department  of  the  government.  As  I  understand 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  espe- 
cially the  latter  part  of  it,  it  is  a  restraint,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  upon  legislative  power.  For  example,  it  ties  up 
the  hands  of  the  legislature  from  conferring  upon  the 
governor  the  very  power  which  we  have  just  stricken 
out  of  the  committee's  report,  viz :  the  power  to  call 
out  and  embody  the  militia,  whenever,  in  his  opinion, 
the  public  safety  may  require  it.  Without  that  clause 
the  legislature  might  do  that — with  that  clause  they 
cannot  do  that,  because,  if  I  understand  it,  they  are 
bound  to  specify  in  the  act,  the  cases  in  which  he  shall 
exercise  the  power.  To  that  extent  then  it  is  a  limita- 
tion upon  executive  power,  and  therefore  I  shall  vote 
against  the  motion  to  strike  it  out.  But  it  is  a  limita- 
tion to  that  extent  and  to  that  only,  and  it  will  be  pos- 
sible, even  with  that,  for  the  legislature,  by  special  acts, 
to  confer  this  power  upon  the  governor  in  every  case 
that  the  imagination  of  man  can  possibly  conceive.  The 
only  object  then  is  to  prevent  them,  by  any  general  law, 
from  devolving  upon  the  governor  the  power  of  embody- 
ing the  militia  whenever  in  his  judgment  it  may  be  ne- 
cessary.   It  goes  no  further,  and  by  special  act  of  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


261 


legislature,  they  may  do  that  which  may  be  deprecated 
by  every  member  of  this  body.  Well  now,  it  is  in  vain 
to  deny  it.  No  man  could  have  listened  to  this  debate 
without  seeing  that  an  apprehension  is  entertained  here 
by  members  of  this  body,  that  the  members  of  the 
general  assembly  of  Virginia,  to  whom  we  propose  to 
delegate  the  legislative  power  of  this  people  so  long  as 
there  are  members  of  the  assembly,  can  in  effect  so  ex- 
ercise the  power  in  this  particular  instance  as  to  change 
the  relation  which  the  State  of  Virginia  bears  to  the 
Federal  Union.  It  is  in  vain  to  deny  that  that  appre- 
hension is  felt  and  has  been  expressed.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  now,  whether  this  apprehension  is  ill  or  well 
founded,  but  I  shall,  if  nobody  else  does  it,  devote  my 
mind  zealously  and  earnestly  to  the  consideration  of 
some  provision  to  be  inserted  into  this  constitution,  not 
in  the  executive  but  in  the  legislative  department,  by 
which  the  gentlemen  whom  we  elect  every  year  or  every 
two  years,  to  come  here  to  pass  the  ordinary  acts  of 
legislation,  shall  not,  without  the  consent  of  the  sover- 
eign people,  their  masters,  expressed  in  Convention, 
solemnly  assembled  in  pursuance  of  the  law  of  the  land, 
which  law  shall  notify  the  people  of  the  objects  for 
which  this  Convention  assembles,  change  the  relation 
which  this  sustains  to  the  federal  Union.  I  do  not  think 
this  is  the  proper  place  for  it  Gentlemen  have  said 
here,  that  they  are  for  preserving  all  the  rights  and  all 
the  sovereignty  of  this  Commonwealth.  I  understood 
my  friend  from  the  county  of  Stafford  (Mr.  Moncure) 
perfectly  well,  I  understood  what  he  meant  just  as  well 
as  I  did  after  he  made  his  explanation — I  understood 
him  exactly  as  he  explained  it  himself.  That  question 
is  beyond  our  jurisdiction.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  The  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  in  the  year  1788, 
decided  for  themselves  what  portion  of  their  sovereignty 
they  would  part  with,  and  the  terms  upon  which  they 
would  part  with  it.  They  have  reserved  to  themselves 
all  the  rest,  and  we  cannot  deprive  them  of  it  by  any 
action  of  ours.  Our  business  here  is  to  make  a  form  of 
government  for  the  State  of  Virginia  that  shall  best 
promote  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  and  the  people  of  Virginia  as  members  of  this 
federal  Union. 

I  trust  that  I  have  not  wandered  from  the  real  point 
before  the  committee.  It  was  not  my  purpose  to  do  so. 
I  repeat  that  I  shall  vote  against  the  motion  to  strike 
out  the  latter  part  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha,  because,  in  my  judgment,  as  far  as  it  goes, 
it  ds  a  restraint  upon  legislative  power. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  may  have  attached  a  degree  of  im- 
portance to  this  question  which  it  does  not  deserve,  but 
I  hope  that  the  committee  do  not  regard  me  as  indulg- 
ing in  mere  declamation,  when  I  say  in  sincerity,  that  I 
regard  this  question  as  second  in  importance  to  no  other 
that  can  be  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  commit- 
tee. I  regard  it  as  a  question  of  infinitely  greater  im- 
portance than  the  basis  of  representation.  I  put  no 
question  in  comparison  with  the  safety  of  the  people. 
From  the  foundation  of  this  government,  from  1*77 6  to 
1829,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  confer  the  power  upon 
the  governor  and  his  executive  council,  to  call  out  and 
embody  the  militia  whenever  in  their  opinion  the  public 
safety  might  require  it;  and  from  1829  to  the  present 
period  of  1851,  that  power  has  been  conferred  upon  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  with  or  without  the  advice  of  his 
executive  council.  In  the  constitution  of  1776  he  was 
required  to  do  it  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  his 
council ;  under  the  constitution  of  1829  he  may  take  the 
advice  of  his  council,  but  may  reject  and  repudiate  it  if 
he  thinks  proper.  He  is  under  no  obligations  to  regard 
that  advice ;  and  thus  in  point  of  fact,  the  power  is  en- 
tirely with  him,  and  he  alone  can  exercise  it  at  his  dis- 
cretion. We  have  reason  to  believe,  from  the  opinions 
entertained  by  some  gentlemen  in  this  Convention,  that 
this  is  a  dangerous  power  to  be  entrusted  to  the  chief 
executive  alone,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  restricted ;  and 
accordingly  this  committee  has  already  struck  out  the 
feature  which  was  reported  by  the  committee,  to  vest 


in  the  governor  alone  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia 
whenever  in  his  opinion  the  public  safety  required  it. 
And  the  proposition  is  to  insert,  what  ?  The  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  proposes  to  specify 
the  particular  cases  in  which  this  one  man  power  may 
be  exercised.  Why  do  you  grant  him  power  to  call  out 
the  militia  to  suppress  insurrection,  repel  invasion,  and 
execute  the  laws  ?  Because  the  public  safety  may  re- 
quire that  it  should  be  done  promptly,  and  before  the 
action  of  the  legislature  can  be  had  on  the  subject,  or 
perhaps  before  a  Convention  can  be  called.  But  the  first 
question  that  arises  is,  is  there  any  imaginable  case  like- 
ly to  occur,  when  the  public  safety  may  require  that  the 
militia  shall  be  embodied,  other  than  the  eases  specified 
in  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha— to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection  and  en- 
force the  execution  of  the  laws  ?  If  a  case  can  be  sup- 
posed, if  a  case  is  likely  to  arise,  I  imagine  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  this  Convention  to  provide  for  or  against  that 
case.  You  have  but  to  imagine  that  you  have  a  chief 
executive  officer  of  the  United  States,  a  military  despot, 
and  where,  as  I  said  on  yesterday,  is  the  gentleman 
possessed  of  the  foresight,  the  gift  of  looking  into  futuri- 
ty, to  ascertain  and  determine  now,  what  may  happen 
during  the  existence  of  the  constitution  that  you  are 
about  to  make  for  the  people  of  Virginia?  Shall  you 
look  to  the  possibility  of  revolution  ?  The  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  says  no.  I  say  yes.  I  look  to  every 
possible  contingency  that  can  arise.  I  go  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Stafford,  (Mr.  Moncure,)  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  rights  and  safety  of  the  people  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Virginia,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  un- 
der all  circumstances  and  under  any  contingency  thai- 
may  arise.  Now  all  seem  to  admit  that  they  will  lodge 
somewhere  in  the  constitution  of  the  State,  the  authority 
to  call  out  the  militia  in  these  specified  cases.  The 
gentleman  from  Kanawha  proposes  to  confer  additional 
power  upon  the  legislature,  and  specify  these  additional 
cases.  The  simple  question  then,  that  is  presented  to 
our  consideration,  appears  to  me  to  be  this :  shall  the 
power  of  calling  out  the  militia  when  the  public  safety 
requires  it,  other  than  in  cases  of  invasion,  insurrection  T 
and  enforcement  of  the  execution  of  the  laws,  be  entire- 
ly abrogated ;  or  shall  it  be  lodged  somewhere  else  ? 
Now  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  if  I  understood  him 
correctly,  asked  the  question,  why  invest  the  legisla- 
ture with  this  unlimited  power  ? 

Mr.  SCOT  r,  of  Fauquier.    No  sir. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  certainly  understood  the  gentleman 
so,  if  he  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  think  in  the  course  of  my 
remarks,  when  I  gave  utterance  to  some  sentiment  of  that 
kind,  it  was  in  reference  to  what  was  said  by  other  gentle- 
men, probably  by  the  gentleman  who  is  now  occupying 
the  floor,  when  he  stated  that  one  of  the  cases  which  re- 
quired the  calling  out  of  the  militia,  was  to  commit  revo- 
lution. I  said  I  thought  there  could  be  no  revolution  or 
any  occasion  to  call  out  the  militia,  and  that  I  would  not 
invest  the  legislature  with  the  power  to  commit  revolu- 
tion. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Nor  am  I  disposed  to  confer  on  the  le- 
gislature the  power  to  perpetrate  revolution.  That  is  a 
question  not  belonging  to  the  legislature  or  the  gover- 
nor either,  but  to  the  people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  ; 
but  I  will  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  legislature,  in  cer- 
tain contingencies,  to  provide  for  a  revolution  which  the 
people  may  possibly,  at  a  future  day,  determine  upon. 
How  is  this  to  be  consummated  ?  If  I  was  mistaken  in 
the  remark  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  was  not 
mistaken  in  the  argument  and  language  of  other  gentle- 
men. It  was  a  dangerous  power  to  be  vested  in  the  le- 
gislature. Now  how,  I  ask,  is  it  to  be  considered  as  a 
dangerous  power  to  be  invested  in  the  legislature,  when 
we  have  entrusted  it  from  the  foundation  of  the  govern- 
ment into  the  hands  of  a  single  individual  ? 

And  what  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Kauawha,  and  what  do  I  propose  to  substitute  for  it  ? 
Why,  instead  of  giving  this  general,  unrestricted  power 


262 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


to  one  man  in  the  Commonwealth,  who  may  abuse  the 
power;  not  to  transfer  it  to  the  legislature  and  give 
them  exclusive  control  of  it;  but  to  divide  it  between 
the  two  departments  of  the  government,  and  also  to 
limit  and  restrict  the  authority  of  the  legislature  still 
further  than  gentlemen  suppose,  because  I  propose  to 
confine  the  action  of  the  legislature  to  certain  cases.  My 
purpose  is  to  defeat  the  object  avowed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Stafford  this  morning,  of  authorizing  the  legis- 
lature to  pass  any  general  law  conferring  general  pow- 
ers upon  the  governor.  If  we  mean  to  confer  the  pow- 
er entirely  upon  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, it  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  insert  these  enumer- 
ated cases  and  restrictions  on  the  power  in  regard  to  the 
governor  himself.  They  can  give  him  the  power  ;  they 
have  your  constitutional  authority  fco  give  him  the  pow- 
er to  suppress  insurrection  or  to  repel  invasion,  but  I 
mean  to  restrict  him  in  that  power.  Well  now,  it  is 
with  no  little  degree  of  hesitation  that  I  undertake  to 
express  an  opinion  on  a  legal  constitutional  question, 
differing  with  the  able  and  distinguished  gentlemen 
from  Stafford  and  Fauquier,  in  regard  to  the  power  of 
the  legislature.  I  hold  the  opinion,  that  it  never  should 
be  the  purpose  of  any  statesman  in  forming  the  organic 
law  of  the  country,  to  vest  the  same  power  in  two  dis- 
tinct branches  or  departments  of  the  government  at  the 
same  time.  It  never  was  the  purpose,  and  it  never 
ought  to  be  the  purpose,  to  confer  this  power  to  the 
same  extent  on  the  executive  and  legislative  depart- 
ments of  the  government,  because  they  may  thus  be 
brought  into  conflict.  In  the  distribution  of  power,  the 
question  arises  what  will  you  do  with  the  military 
power?  If  you  confer  it  on  the  legislature,  you  neces- 
sarily withhold  it  from  the  executive,  and  in  like  man- 
ner, if  you  confer  it  upon  the  executive,  you  necessarily 
withhold  it  from  the  legislature.  Why,  if  you  vest  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  both  in  the  executive  discretion 
and  in  the  discretion  of  the  legislative  department  of 
the  government,  what  might  be  the  result  ?  Suppose 
the  case  of  the  federal  troops  marching  through 
Virginia,  to  invade  the  territory  of  a  neighboring 
State.  Suppose  the  legislature  should  regard  it  as 
an  invasion  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  they  were  to 
call  out  the  militia  in  order  to  repel  it,  what  would  be 
the  language  of  your  governor,  if  he  happened  to  enter- 
tain a  different  opinion  ?  Why,  he  would  say  to  the  le- 
gislature, you  have  exerted  an  authority,  you  have  ex- 
ercised a  discretion,  which  in  the  wisdom  of  the  fram- 
ers  of  the  constitution  was  taken  from  you,  and  which 
was  confided  to  my  individual  discretion.  I  am  to  be 
the  judge  ;  I  am  to  be  the  sole  judge  ;  I  am  to  be  the 
responsible  individual  to  call  out  the  militia,  whenever 
in  my  opinion,  there  is  an  invasion  upon  this  territory, 
and  I  do  not  regard  the  marching  of  the  United  States 
troops  through  it  as  an  invasion.  Suppose,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  governor  should  happen  to  regard  it  as  an  in- 
vasion, and  the  legislature  do  not,  then  you  have  to  re- 
sort to  the  legislative  power  for  payment  of  the  troops  ; 
he  cannot  make  an  appropriation,  and  there  is  a  clog 
upon  his  action.  Now,  we  propose  to  divide  the  re 
sponsibility  in  every  other  case  that  may  arise.  Take 
for  instance  the  case  I  have  supposed,  that  you  have  a 
military  despot  at  the  head  of  your  federal  government, 
who  is  suspected,  and  justly  suspected,  of  entertaining 
very  wicked  designs,  and  of  covering  up  his  wicked  de- 
signs with  what  may,  at  the  moment,  appear  to  be  very 
innocent  acts.  He  may  quarter  his  troops  upon  you, 
and  may  design  to  subvert  the  liberties  of  the  country, 
and  may  have  even  made  an  invasion  upon  another  and 
adjoining  territory.  He  may  have  made  an  actual  in- 
vasion on  Maryland  or  North  Carolina.  The  militia  of 
all  the  other  States  in  the  Union  may  be  called  into  re- 
quisition, and  may  be  in  the  field,  and  the  question 
arises  shall  the  militia  of  Virginia  be  called  out,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  making  war,  as  gentlemen  seem  to  ap- 
prehend ;  and  in  this  I  think  they  fall  into  a  great  error, 
in  assuming  that  because  the  militia  are  equipped  and 
called  out,  it  necessarily  tends  to  a  dissolution  of  the 


Union,  civil  war,  or  secession.  But  it  may  become  ne- 
cessary that  they  should  be  called  out  for  the  purpose 
of  being  organized,  armed  and  drilled.  Then  the  ques- 
tion will  arise,  where  is  the  power  of  the  governor  to- 
call  them  out  for  this  purpose  ?  The  governor  will  say, 
I  have  no  power;  and  why?  Because  the  cases  are 
particularly  enumerated  and  specified  in  which  I  am  at 
liberty  to  call  out  the  militia.  This  is  not  an  invasion 
of  the  territory  of  Virginia.  An  invasion  of  Maryland 
or  North  Carolina  is  not  an  invasion  of  the  territory  of 
Virginia ;  it  is  not  an  insurrection  in  Virginia ;  it  is  not 
a  case  of  resistance  to  the  laws  of  Virginia.  Now,  what 
do  we  propose  to  do  ?  We  propose  that  whenever  a  case 
may  arise  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  legislature  the  pub- 
lic safety  may  require  it,  he  may  be  authorized  by  law; 
that  is  to  say,  (if  the  clause  be  taken  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  sentences,)  that  he  shall  have  power  to 
call  out  the  militia  for  the  purposes  of  suppressing  in- 
surrection, repelling  invasion,  and  enforcing  the  laws,  or 
whenever  a  case  may  arise  when  in  the  opinion  of  the 
legislature  the  public  safety  shall  require  it,  they  shall 
authorize  him  by  law.  Now,  is  not  this  a  power  that 
must  be  lodged  somewhere?  Is  not  the  public  safety  to 
be  provided  for  under  all  circumstances?  Why,  before  I 
would  vote  for  striking  out  the  amendment  giving  the 
legislature  the  power  in  specified  cases,  I  would  be 
strongly  tempted  to  adopt  the  proposition  of  the  gentle  - 
man  from  Stafford,  to  strike  out  the  enumerated  cases 
and  leave  the  whole  discretion  with  the  executive. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Fultz)  expressed 
some  surprise  at  the  course  I  have  pursued,  as  he  had 
listened  with  great  attention  and  profit  to  what  I  said 
on  other  questions  before  the  Convention,  that  I  should 
now  be  disposed  to  surrender  the  sword  as  well  as  the 
purse-strings.  Pray  to  whom  do  I  propose  to  surrender 
the  purse-strings  and  the  sword  of  this  State  ?  What 
portion  of  my  remarks  or  of  my  proposition  has  been  ob- 
noxious to  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman  that  I  was 
in  favor  of  surrendering  the  sword  and  the  purse- 
strings?  To  whom  have  I  proposed  to  surrender  the 
purse-strings  of  the  country?  Have  I  submitted  any 
proposition  to  take  the  control  of  the  purse-strings  from 
the  legislature  and  confer  it  on  the  governor  ? 

Mr.  FULTZ.  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say  on 
yesterday,  that  the  amendment  submitted  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha,  with  this  latter  clause  retained  in 
it,  would  be  giving  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  speci- 
fy other  cases  in  which  the  governor  would  be  at  liberty 
to  call  out  the  militia.  I  argued,  if  the  gentleman  heard 
my  argument,  that  that  clause  vested  an  unlimited  pow- 
er in  the  legislature;  that  they  now  had  the  purse- 
strings,  and  by  that  amendment  they  would  get  the 
sword. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Why,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
power  over  the  purse  strings  and  the  sword  must  be 
vested  somewhere.  What  human  institution  is  there, 
that  can  be  imagined,  that  is  not  liable  to  be  abused. 
The  power  may  be  abused.  We  have  no  power  over 
the  purse-strings  and  sword  here.  Our  responsibility 
and  our  duties  terminate  in  a  very  short  time.  Who  is 
it  that  must  necessarily  exercise  power  over  the 
purse-strings  and  sword  ?  It  is  to  be  delegated  some- 
where, and  who  is  so  fit  to  exercise  that  power  as  the 
legislature  of  the  commonwealth,  except  in  the  specified 
cases  which  I  have  already  proposed  to  take  from  the- 
legislature  and  confer  on  the  executive  department.  I 
take  it  for  granted  that  it  is  only  done  on  account  of  the 
promptness,  haste  and  dispatch  necessary  in  order  to 
execute  the  laws,  to  suppress  insurrection  and  repel  in- 
vasion, without  waiting  for  the  action  of  the  legislature. 
So,  if  I  propose  to  give  the  sword  and  purse-strings  to 
the  governor — if  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  gentleimn — 
I  propose  also  to  control  his  power  by  specifying  the 
particular  case  in  which  he  may  be  authorized  to  act, 
and  further  to  limit  and  restrict  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature in  regard  to  all  the  cases  in  which  they  shall  act. 
Is  that  the  power  of  the  purse  and  the  sword  at  which 
the  gentleman  is  alarmed  ?    Why,  I  take  it  for  granted 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


263 


that  the  power  is  much  safer  under  the  proposition  which 
we  now  propose,  than  it  ever  has  been  yet,  for  the  rea- 
son that  to  exercise  it  we  require  the  co-operation  of 
the  three  branches  of  government,  the  senate,  the  house 
and  the  sanction  of  the  governor.    Each  one  will  oper- 
ate as  a  check  upon  the  other,  and  is  it  reasonable  to  ap- 
prehend— as  my  friend  from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  has 
expressed  his  apprehension- — that  a  state  of  things  is  at 
likely  to  exist  in  this  country  in  which  the  co-operation 
of  the  house  of  delegates,  the  senate  and  the  governor, 
is'likely  to  be  obtained  in  any  hasty  action  involving 
the  public  safety  ?    In  respect  to  what  has  passed  in 
the  legislature  of  Virginia,  and  in  regard  to  their  reso- 
lutions of  resistance  at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity, that  was  only  a  paper  war,  thoughnot  entirely 
harmless,  yet  it  created  no  great  alarm  and  less  blood- 
shed.   The  legislature  of  Virginia  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  adopting  resolutions  and  engaging  in  paper  war- 
fare ever  since  1  recollect  any  thing  about  the  legisla- 
ture of  Virginia.    It  is  a  very  different  question  when 
they  come  to  bring  down  to  practical  operation  these 
resolves,  and  call  out  the  militia  and  disturb  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  their  constituents.    I  have  no  apprehension 
that  such  a  case  will  arise,  but  I  say  if  it  should  arise  ; 
if  in  the  apprehension  of  the  two  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature and  the  governor  of  the  commonwealth,  that  case 
shall  have  arisen  when  the  public  safety  will  require 
that  the  militia  should  be  called  out,  I  am  willing  to 
trust  them  with  the  power.    There  may  be  an  abuse  of 
power,  but  as  I  before  said,  all  human  institutions  are 
liable  to  be  abused.    All  human  power  is  liable  to  be 
abused,  but  you  must  repose  confidence  somewhere,  and 
you  must  take  the  chances  of  abuse.    It  is  better  to  do 
that  than  to  lodge  the  power  to  protect  the  public  safe- 
ty nowhere.    Gentlemen  seem  to  think,  however,  that 
whenever  that  case  shall  arise,  there  will  be  no  occasion 
for  legislative  action,  that  the  people  will  rise  up  en 
masse  to  protect  themselves,  their  own  houses  and  fire- 
sides.   Well,  very  true,  perhaps  they  may;  but  if  they 
will  do  it  in  the  cases  you  specify,  are  the  people  more 
likely  to  arise  en  masse,  and  resist  the  laws  of  your 
federal  government,  or  in  resisting  a  border  State  in 
making  aggressions  on  your  territory,  are  they  at  all 
more  likely  to  rise  en  masse  to  accomplish  that  object, 
than  they  would  be  to  suppress  insurrection  or  to  repel 
invasion?    Not  at  all.    What  they  would  do  in  the  one 
case,  they  would  do  in  the  other.    But  then  a  question 
arises,  suppose  they  should  do  it.    Is  it  better  to  have 
it  done  by  law,  or  without  law;  by  the  authority  and 
sanction  of  law,  or  against  the  authority  and  sanction 
of  law  ?    Is  it  better  that  you  shall  have  your  mob 
companies  and  mob  armies,  armed  with  shot  guns, 
pitch-forks,  pick-axes,  shovels,  and  whatever  else  they 
may  take  up;  or  to  have  them  regularly  armed  by  the 
authority  of  the  State,  regularly  enrolled  and  regularly 
equipped,  and  with  a  head  to  command  them?  Why, 
who  is  to  take  command  of  this  mob  army  thus  to  rise 
up  in  this  extreme  haste,  to  repel  danger?    The  gover- 
nor of  Virginia  certainly  would  not  be  the  commander- 
in-chief.    Why  is  the  governor  of  Virginia  selected  by 
the  constitution  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  State  ?    Why,  because  he  has  been  selected 
by  the  people  of  the  commonwealth  for  his  virtues,  his 
energy  and  his  patriotism,  and  thus  it  is  supposed  he 
would  be  enabled  to  command  the  confidence  of  the 
community.    Now,  is  it  better  that  a  man  thus  selected 
by  the  people,  should  take  command  of  this  army  reg- 
ularly organized  according  to  law,  or  that  you  should  ; 
leave  it  all  to  the  mob?    Now,  I  prefer  law,  to  leaving 
it  to  any  contingency.    If  I  were  willing  to  leave  this  ( 
contingency  to  such  a  result,  I  would  certainly  be  will-  \ 
ing  to  leave  the  contingency  of  suppressing  insurrec-  - 
tion,  repelling  invasion  or  executing  the  laws.    The  \ 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott) — I  think  I  did  ] 
not  misunderstand  him — said,  that  he  was  not  to  be  i 
driven  from  his  purpose  to  vest  this  power  in  the  legis-  } 
lature,  from  an  apprehension  of  its  abuse.    Well,  if  I  j 
did  not  misunderstand  the  gentleman,  and  he  says  I  did  L 


l  not,  I  pray  to  know  the  difference  between  us.    I  am 
-  not  to  be  deterred  from  bestowing  this  power  some- 
f  where,  from  an  apprehension  of  its  abuse,  if  the  power 
i  is  necessary  to  exist;  nor  will  I  be  driven  from  the  pro- 
.  priety  ofgmy  position,  in  guarding,  at  all  times,  the  pub- 
.  lie  safety,  because  the  same  position  has  been  urged  by 
;  gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to  me  on  other  questions. 
3  It  is  no  consideration  with  me,  that  the  gentleman  from 
[  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,)— with  whom  I  differ 
in  toto  coelo  on  many  other  positions — has  advocated 
I  this  proposition.    Does  it  become  us  as  wise  men,  as 
[  statesmen,  sent  here  to  prepare  a  constitution,  to  pro- 
vide for  the  public  safety  under  all  circumstances;  to  be 
driven  from  the  propriety  of  our  positions,  because 
,  they  may  be  advocated  by  those  whose  opinions  on  oth- 
er subjects  are  somewhat  peculiar  and  extreme  ?  I 
,  could  not  for  the  life  of  me  perceive  in  what  we  differed 
[  when  the  gentleman  made  the  remark,  that  he  would 
not  be  deterred  from  an  apprehension  of  an  abuse  of 
(  this  power  from  conferring  it  on  the  legislature.    I  pro- 
,  pose  to  restrict  them  in  all  cases,  to  the  emergency 
[  when  it  shall  arise,  to  check  a  too  general  exercise  of 
'  the  power,  while  other  gentlemen  seem  to  be  for  leav- 
\  ing  the  unrestricted  power  with  the  legislature,  to  pass 
;  a  general  law  on  the  subject.    Aye,  at  its  very  first 
session  under  the  constitution  we  are  framing,  to  pass 
1  a  law,  giving  indefinite,  unlimited  power  and  discretion 
!  to  the  governor,  to  call  out  the  militia  whenever,  in  his 
\  judgment,  it  is  necessary;  which  supercedes  the  neces- 
sity for  the  restrictions  we  have   already  imposed. 
!  Well,  the  other  gentleman  from  Fauquier.  I  mean  the 
1  gentleman  who  read  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  (Mr.  Chilton.,)  undertook  to  show,  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  conferring  this  power  upon  any  of  the 
departments  of  this  government  because,  by  the  federal 
1  constitution,  congress  is  already  vested  with  the  pow- 
er?   Because  congress  has  the  power  to  call  out  the 
militia  !  is  that  the  only  reason  why  the  gentleman  is 
afraid  to  trust  the  constituted  authorities  of  our  own 
State  with  the  power  over  our  own  militia  ?    Why  that 
would  be  an  additional  reason  with  me,  t©  confer  this 
power  on  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  State. 

I  have  rapidly  run  over  this  subject,  expressing  my 
general  views,  as  to  the  propriety  and  importance  of 
that  provision.  I  repeat  again,  that  I  look  to  the  pub- 
lic safety,  under  all  circumstances,  as  a  question  that 
is  not  to  be  brought  into  comparison  with  any  other;  I 
regard  it  as  second  to  none  in  importance  that  can  he 
brought  to  the  consideration  of  this  Convention;  and  to 
adopt  the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier, 
(Mr.  Scott,)  yesterday,  if  I  stand  here  alone,' I  never 
will  agree  to  surrender  the  right  in  some  one  or  more 
departments  of  this  government,  to  embody  the  militia;, 
whenever  these  departments  may  deem  the  public  Safe- 
ty to  require  it.  So  far  from  being  a  dangerous  power 
which  would  be  an  innovation  upon  our  institutions,  it 
would  be  a  novelty  to  strike  it  out.  It  will  be  dangerous; 
not  to  put  it  somewhere,  put  it  where  you  will;  but  put 
it  somewhere  you  must.  If  gentlemen  can  designate 
any  other  safer  place  where  it  can  be  lodged,  let  them 
propose  it,  and  1  will  vote  for  it,  but  it  must  be  some- 
where, or  in  my  judgment  we  fail,  and  wofully  fail,  in 
the  discharge  of  the  duty  that  we  have  been  sent  here 
to  perform,  in  guarding  and  protecting  the  public  safe- 
ty at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances. 

Mr.  WISE.  As  I  offered  the  amendment  to  strike 
out  those  words,  I  desire  in  a  very  brief  and  didactic 
way  to  explain  my  understanding  of  that  amendment, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  answer  the  argument,  and  I 
hope,  satisfy  the  reason  of  the  gentleman  from  Henri- 
co, (Mr.  Botts.)  We  are  now  on  the  question  of  limi- 
ting the  power  which  we  will  commit  to  the  executive ; 
we  have  naught  to  do  with  the  question  of  organizing 
the  legislative  department,  The  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha (Mr.  Smith)  proposes  to  limit  the  executive 
power,  on  this  subject  of  calling  out  and  embodying  the 
militia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection  and  en- 
force the  execution  of  the  laws;  and  this  amendment 
goes  further,  and  proposes  46  and  for  such  other  specific 


264 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


purposes  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature." 
Now,  if  this  power  be  committed  to  the  executive,  to 
call  out  the  militia,  if  by  expressing  the  powers  of  the 
executive,  we  exclude  any  powers  from  the  legislature, 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  would  be 
ail  right;  but  by  saying  to  the  governor  that  he  shall 
call  out  the  militia  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrec- 
tion, and  enforce  the  execution  of  the  law,  do  we  de- 
prive the  legislature  of  this  necessary  governmental 
power  of  providing  for  the  public  safety?  No.  Let 
me  ask  the  gentleman  from  Henrico — suppose  you  had 
just  instituted  a  government,  and  said  that  its  deliberative 
body  should  consist  of  two  houses,  which  should  constitute 
the  legislative  power,  and  that  you  had  constituted  an 
executive  to  wield  executive  power;  to  which  depart- 
ment of  the  government  would  the  power  belong  to 
provide  for  the  public  safety  ?  Why,  I  presume  there 
is  no  difference  between  him  and  me  in  the  position 
that  it  would  be  a  power  belonging  to  the  legislative  de- 
partment. Well,  then  follows  logically,  the  question, 
if  you  grant  to  the  executive  department  simply  the 
power,  permissive,  not  exclusive,  but  absolutely  per- 
missive, so  far  as  it  goes,  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  in- 
surrection, and  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,  do 
you  still  exclude  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  pro- 
vide for  the  common  safety  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  question  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  Always. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  ask  him  wherefore  the  ne- 
cessity of  enumerating  these  particular  powers  in  re- 
gard to  the  executive,  if  the  power  is  still  iodged  in  the 
legislative  department  to  exercise  it  ad  libitum. 

Mr.  WISE.  For  the  plainest  reason  in  the  world, 
that  the  legislature,  when  there  may  be  occasion  to  re- 
pel invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  enforce 
the  execution  of  the  law,  may  not  be  in  session,  and  if 
in  session  may  not  be  able  to  act  with  sufficient  promp- 
titude. But  you  say  that  although  this  legislative  pow- 
er to  provide  for  the  common  safety  still  exists,  yet  as 
exigencies  may  arise,  to  wit:  the  necessity  of  repel- 
ling invasion,  of  suppressing  insurrection,  of  enforcing 
the  execution  of  the  law,  in  which  this  power  may 
not  be  so  well  exercised  by  the  legislature,  that 
you.  will  permit  the  governor  in  these  enumerated 
cases  to  have  an  executive  power  to  this  extent,  no 
more.  Even  in  these  cases,  after  we  have  made  the 
grant  to  the  governor  to  call  out  the  militia  in  these 
cases,  were  he  to  fail  to  do  so  when  they  ought  to  be 
called  out,  the  legislature  will  still  have  "the  power  to 
order  the  governor  to  call  them  out.  The  gentleman 
then  is  answered.  And  I  concur  with  the  gentleman 
from  Stafford,  (Mr.  Moncure,)  in  the  very  strong  ground 
he  took  here  to-day,  and  which  was  taken  also  by  the 
gentleman  who  sits  before  me,  that  if  this  limitation  on 
executive  authority  would  deprive  the  sovereign  State 
of  Virginia  of  the  least  sovereign  attribute,  either  on 
the  right  hand  or  the  left  of  .power,  I  would  certainly 
go  for  imposing  no  limitation  whatever.  But  the  pro- 
position here  is  simply  to  limit  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  the  government,  and  is  not  a  proposition  to 
take  away  any  of  the  powers  of  the  government  at  all. 
All  that  you  do  not  permit  the  governor  to  exercise, 
you  leave  to  the  legislative  department,  and  that  neces- 
sity answers  the  whole  argument  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico.  The  expression  of  the  power  to 
the  governor  does  not  exclude  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  it  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  grant  to  the 
legislature  the  power  by  adding  to  this  amendment 
the  words  "  and  such  other  specific  powers  as  may  be 
authorized  by  the  legislature.  "  The  legislature  has 
the  power  already,  and  the  object  is  the  limitation  of 
the  power  of  the  executive. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  regret  to  interrupt  the  gentleman, 
but  as  I  do  not  propose  to  speak  again  on  this  subject, 
I  desire  to  submit  another  question  to  him.  Suppose 
the  Legislature  of  Virginia  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  constitution,  were  to  declare  that  the 


governor  should  have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia 
whenever  in  his  discretion  the  public  safety  should  re- 
quire it,  or  whenever  he  thought  proper  to  do  so,  would 
it  not  be  in  violation  and  in  conflict  with  those  proposed 
specified  cases  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  That  question  is  as  easily  answered  as 
the  others.  We  establish  specific  limitations  of  the 
power  as  we  suppose  of  the  executive,  and  if  the  legis- 
lature attempt  to  substitute  their  action  for  a  provision 
of  the  constitution,  they  pass  an  unconstitutional  law — 
that  is  all.  Without  this  latter  clause  they  can  pass  a 
law  providing  for  the  public  safety,  and  providing  like- 
wise authority  to  the  executive  to  execute  and  enforce 
the  laws.  Do  you  not  perceive  it  is  tautologous  ?  I 
call  the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  reading  of  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha. 
He  has  the  power  to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insur- 
rection, and  you  propose  to  give  him  power  to  enforce 
the  execution  of  the  law.  Is  it  not  tautologous  then  to 
say  in  addition,  and  for  such  other  specific  purposes  as 
may  be  authorized  by  the  legislature  ?  If  he  is  to  en- 
force a  law,  who  is  to  pass  it  ?  The  legislature,  do  you 
not  perceive  ?  Does  not  my  friend  perceive  that  the 
words  that  the  governor  shall  enforce  the  execution  of 
the  law  is  precisely  the  same  thing?  It  covers  the 
whole  ground,  and  why  add  then  and  for  such  other 
specific  purposes  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legisla- 
ture ?  He  has  only  been  contending  in  his  whole  argu- 
ment for  tautology  in  the  constitution. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  beg  pardon  for  again  interrupting 
the  gentleman.  I  desire  to  know  what  would  be  the 
law  of  Virginia  which  would  authorize  the  governor 
under  the  provision  to  call  out  the  militia  to  repel  an 
invasion,  suppress  an  insurrection,  or  to  execute  the 
laws,  to  act  in  the  case  I  supposed  of  a  military  despot 
at  the  head  of  the  federal  government  who  was  march- 
ing his  troops  upon  a  neighboring  State  ?  How  would 
he  enforce  the  laws  of  the  commonwealth  in  that  case  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  The  first  clause  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  will.  A  mili- 
tary despot,  as  he  supposed,  is  marching  towards  the 
State  of  Virginia— recollect  this  committee  refused  to 
insert  the  word  actual  invasion  upon  the  suggestion  in 
part  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  himself,  and  thus 
declared  that  we  were  not  to  wait  for  the  helium  fla- 
grante, that  we  were  not  to  wait  for  the  actual  invasion 
and  insurrection,  but  were  to  allow  the  governor  to  ex- 
ercise his  discretion  in  cases  of  threatened  invasion  and 
insurrection.  Suppose  that  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
is  apprised  by  the  governor  that  the  danger  is  approach- 
ing, that  the  houses  of  our  neighbors  are  already  in 
flames,  that  the  war  is  raging  in  North  Carolina  and  in 
Maryland,  and  that  the  turn  of  Virginia  may  come 
next ;  they  will  declare  that  the  public  safety  is  in  dan- 
ger, and  they  will  declare  by  law  that  the  governor 
shall  take  steps  to  defend  the  public  safety.  We  pro- 
pose here  to  give  the  governor  power  to  act  at  once  to 
repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrection,  and  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  law.  Is  not  that  enough  for  the  gov- 
ernor ?  If  the  legislature  passes  a  law  proclaiming  the 
public  safety  in  danger,  and  provides  in  that  law  that 
steps  shall  be  taken  to  defend  the  public  safety,  does  it 
not  devolve  on  the  governor  the  duty  of  executing  and 
enforcing  that  law  '{  What  efficiency  will  be  added  to 
the  amendment,  then,  by  retaining  the  words  "  and  for 
such  specific  purposes  only  as  the  legislature  shall  re- 
quire ? "  Take  the  case  put  by  the  gentleman  himself, 
that  the  legislature  might  require  the  governer  to  act 
in  defence  of  the  public  safety,  and  that  the  governor 
might  refuse  to  act  because  there  was  no  invasion  of,  or 
insurrection  in  Virginia,  in  his  opinion.  What  would 
be  the  reply  of  the  legislature  to  the  governor  in  that 
very  case  ?  They  would  tell  him,  sir,  you  are  to  enforce 
the  requirements  and  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  you 
are  held  accountable  if  you  fail  to  obey  the  law  and  to 
execute  the  law,  as  you  are  ordered  by  the  legislature, 
within  the  limitations  of  the  constitution.    You  are  as 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


265 


much  in  violation  of  your  duty  as  you  would  be  if  you 
failed  to  suppress  insurrection  or  to  repel  invasion.  I 
cannot,  therefore,  imagine  any  effect  whatever,  that 
would  result  from  this  last  clause  of  the  amendment. 
Do  not  the  words  "to  enforce  the  execution  of  the 
law"  fully  include  such  specific  purposes  as  may  be 
authorized  by  law  ?  I  can  imagine  no  effect  those  words 
would  have,  either  to  enlarge  or  to  restrict  the  powers 
of  the  legislature,  or  to  enlarge  or  restrict  the  powers 
of  the  governor,  except  that  some  governor  who  would 
stick  to  the  letter  and  not  the  spirit  of  his  duty,  might 
reply,  I  will  not  obey  your  law  because  you  have  not 
specified  your  purposes.  I  submit  to  the  sense  of  this 
Convention,  that  in  letter  and  sense  both,  by  every  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation  it  is  tautology  to  say,  "He  shall 
have  power  to  embody  the  militia,  to  repel  invasion,  to 
suppress  insurrection,  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  and  for  such  other  specific  purposes  as  may  be  au- 
thorized by  the  legislature."  It  is  positive  repetition, 
it  is  tautology,  for  all  the  cases  that  gentlemen  have  | 
supposed  are  embraced  in  the  general  provision  that  he 
shall  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws.  Now,  I  have 
to  say  that  I  am  not  willing — for  the  reasons  so  clearly 
stated  by  all  the  gentlemen  who  concur  with  me,  that 
there  ought  to  be  some  limitations  on  the  executive 
power — to  give  this  power  of  embodying  the  militia,  of 
wielding  the  red  right  arm  of  the  commonwealth,  with- 
out limitation  to  the  one  man,  to  the  executive.  There 
is  no  one  man  whose  discretion  I  would  trust  on  the 
subject. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  Shall  I  understand  the  argument 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  to  be,  that 
should  the  latter  clause  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith)  be  stricken  out, 
that  the  governor  under  the  authority  conferred  by  the 
first  member  of  the  amendment,  viz :  "  to  execute  the 
laws,"  would  be  authorized  to  embody  the  militia  to  ex- 
ecute any  law  whatever  8  Suppose  in  Vermont  there 
should  be  an  insurrection  or  invasion,  and  the  President 
should  make  a  requisition  on  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
for  a  part  of  her  militia,  shall  I  understand  the  gentle- 
man to  say  that  under  the  terms  of  the  amendment  re- 
quiring the  governor  to  embody  the  militia  "  to  execute 
the  laws,"  he  could  of  his  own  motion,  embody  them  and 
march  them  to  Vermont,  or  that  he  would  desire  him  to 
have  such  power  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  That  is  exactly  one  of  those  questions 
which  I  wish  to  leave  to  the  legislature.  The  laws  of 
the  general  government  and  the  laws  of  Virginia  to- 
gether regulate  the  manner  in  which  the  militia  shall 
be  called  forth  and  put  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  I  would  have  the  governor  obey  the  laws  of 
the  general  government  and  of  Virginia,  and  not  obey 
an  unlimited,  an  unguarded  discretion,  and  this  clause 
limits  him  sufficiently.  While  I  do  desire  that  the 
powers  of  the  one  man  shall  be  limited,  and  that  his 
discretion  shall  not  be  unlimited,  I  would  be  as  far 
as  any  gentleman  on  this  floor  from  curtailing  the 
sovereignty  of  Virginia  in  the  least.  No.  Whilst  I  do 
not  agree  with  any  gentleman  who  asserts  the  opinion 
that  mere  municipal  government  is  the  sovereign,  yet 
so  far  as  powers  are  delegated  to  it  by  the  sovereign 
it  is  the  conventional  power  of  the  people,  it  is  the  ex- 
ercise of  sovereign  power,  and  they  should  exercise  it 
to  that  extent  fully.  There  may  be  cases  when,  in  pro- 
viding for  the  public  safety — and  as  to  when  that  time 
comes  the  gentlemen  from  Fauquier  and  Henrico  may 
perhaps  find  me  to  differ  from  them — the  legislature 
of  Virginia  in  the  exercise  of  the  parental  care  over 
the  people,  of  providing  for  their  safety,  may  call  upon 
the  governor  to  organize  the  military  power.  They 
may  do  it  without  my  position,  and  I  shall  never  dis- 
sent from  that  command.  I  will  risk  my  all  to  fight 
the  battles  of  the  State  by  law.  I  shall  not  wait  for 
the  calling  of  a  Convention,  whenever  the  legislature 
of  Virginia  by  law  orders  me  to  defend  the  State.  I 
shall  not  wait  until  a  Convention  of  the  people  shall 


have  assembled  and  adopted  a  constitution  authorizing 
any  such  power.  The  constitution  already  formed,  has 
granted  governmental  power,  and  one  of  the  most  sa- 
cred powers  of  government  is  the  power  of  defending 
the  safety  of  the  people.  That  is  the  duty  of  the  le- 
gislature. All  that  I  ask  is  that  it  shall  not  be  the  du 
ty  of  the  governor  to  call  upon  me  to  defend  this  State 
at  his  discretion,  for  he  may  call  on  me  to-day  to  defend 
consolidation,  and  to-morrow  to  defend  nullification.  I 
do  not  desire  to  be  in  the  power  either  of  the  latitudi 
narian  or  of  the  straight-jacket  doctrines  of  any  one 
man.  I  desire  that  this  power  to  call  on  the  people  to 
defend  the  public  safety  be  vested  in  the  legislature, 
and  there  is  where  it  can  be  safely  and  wisely  invested. 
I  will  trust  the  governor  in  cases  of  emergency  to  repel 
invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  would  make  it 
his  duty  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws  ;  and  to 
say  that  he  shall  also  call  out  the  militia  for  such  other 
specific  purposes  as  may  be  authorized  by  law,  is  but 
j  adding  phrase  to  phrase,  and  saying  again  that  he  shall 
execute  the  laws. 

I  agree  then  with  the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  that 
whenever  a  President  shall  abuse  his  powers,  or  all  the 
federal  government  combined  shall  abuse  its  powers, 
and  shall  pass  acts  which  are  palpably  in  violation  of 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  grossly  and 
onerously  oppressive  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
the  State  of  Virginia,  by  her  legislature,  shall  have  the 
power  to  call  fey  law,  upon  her  governor — and  the  pow- 
er shall  be  exercised  by  him  in  no  other  way  than  by 
law — to  defend  the  people  or  to  defend  the  constitu- 
tion. 

But  this  is  a  digression.  I  cannot  under  any  circum- 
stances whatever  be  drawn  into  the  debate  that  has 
arisen  on  the  one  hand,  as  to  where  this  power  resides — 
whether  we  should  be  driven  to  a  Convention  of  the 
people,  or  whether  the  legislature  has  sufficient  power — 
or  on  the  other  hand  to  discuss  whether  secession  be  a 
revolutionary  on  a  reserved  right.  I  will  not  discuss 
those  questions.  The  sole  question  here  is,  shall  you 
impose  these  limitations  on  the  executive  discretion. 
All  the  discretion  that  I  would  trust  him  with  is  express- 
ed by  the  words  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrec- 
tion and  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws.  If  the 
grant  of  this  power  to  the  executive,  this  mere  permis- 
sive power,  to  call  out  the  militia,  in  this  case,  excluded 
the  power  of  the  legislature,  I  should  willingly  go  with 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico.  But  it  does  not.  It 
does  not  exclude  the  power  of  the  legislature,  but  on 
the  contrary,  it  grants  power  to  the  legislature,  in  the 
terms  "  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,"  and  when- 
ever they  call  on  him  to  execute  the  laws  he  will  be 
obliged  to  do  it,  and  this  will  include  all  the  cases  sup- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico.  I  hope  there- 
fore that  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  will  consent  to 
strike  out  the  last  clause  of  his  amendment,  for  it  is 
really  nothing  but  a  proposition  to  make  your  constitu- 
tion tautologous. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  I  rise  to  vindicate  the 
amendment  against  the  criticism  of  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac.  He  aliedges  that  the  latter  clause  of  the 
amendment  is  tautologous,  as  all  that  is  provided  for  by 
it  exists  in  that  other  clause  of  the  amendment  which 
relates  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  It  is  not  tautolo- 
gous in  language.  The  words  are,  "  for  such  other  spe- 
cific purposes  only  as  may  be  authorized  by  the  legis- 
lature." The  words  "  such  other  "  expressly  exclude 
the  previously  enumerated  cases.  But  it  is  contended 
that  if  the  power  is  not  given  to  the  governor  it  is 
vested  in  the  legislature,  and  if  they  enact  a  law  it 
comes  within  the  meaning  of  the  third  clause  of  the 
amendment,  to  execute  the  laws."  Strike  out  the 
latter  clause,  and  it  is  true  the  legislature  is  vested 
with  the  residue  of  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia, 
which  is  not  granted  to  the  governor,  and  that  when 
they  act  it  must  be  by  a  law  or  joint  resolution.  If  the 
law  or  resolution  direct  the  governor  to  perform  any 


266 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


.  act  under  the  law,  and  to  do  it,  it  may  be  necsesary  to 
appeal  to  the  militia,  he  would  have  the  power  under 
the  third  clause  of  the  amendment,  and  the  clause  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out  would  be  wholly  unnecessary. 
But  suppose  the  legislature  should  pass  a  law  in  gen- 
eral terms,  that  all  the  residuary  power  vested  in  them, 
relating  to  the  calling  out  of  the  militia,  which  is  an  ex- 
ecutive power,  should  be  transferred  to  the  executive, 
and  that  the  governor  may  resort  to  it  when,  in  his  opin- 
ion, the  public  safety  shall  require  it.  To  execute  such  a 
law  as  this,  military  lorce  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Its 
purpose  is  to  transfer  executive  power  to  the  governor, 
and  the  law  is  executed  by  its  passage.  So  soon  as  it 
becomes  a  law  the  transfer  of  the  power,  which  is  the 
object  of  the  law,  is  effected.  The  amendment,  if  the 
latter  clause  is  stricken  out,  would  authorize  the  gov- 
ernor, on  his  own  mere  motion,  to  call  out  the  militia 
to  repel  invasion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  ex- 
ecute the  laws.  This  would  be  only  a  portion  of  the 
power  given  to  the  executive  by  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, but  the  legislature,  by  transferring  to  him  the 
residue  of  that  power,  if  there  be  any,  the  power  of 
the  executive  would  be  substantially  the  same  as  that 
given  to  him  by  the  report  of  the  committee.  The  lat- 
ter clause  of  the  amendment  proposed  to  be  stricken 
out,  is  designed  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of  such 
an  unlimited  discretionary  power  being  transferred  by 
the  legislature  to  the  executive  branch.  It  is  a  direct 
check  upon  the  governor,  and  an  indirect  check  upon 
the  legislature.  The  governor  is  prohibited  by  the  lat- 
ter clause  of  the  amendment,  from  executing  any  general 
power  which  the  legislature  might  transfer  to  him ; 
and  the  legislature  would  be  restrained  from  granting 
general  powers,  which  the  governor  could  not  execute. 
When  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  is  be- 
fore us,  we  should  make  it  conform  to  the  executive 
branch,  by  inhibiting  them  from  granting  general  pow- 
ers on  this  subject  to  the  executive  or  other  agent, 
and  thus  give  symmetry  to  the  constitution.  If  the  lat- 
ter clause  is  stricken  out,  the  legislature  may  give  to 
the  governor  all  the  objectionable  discretionary  power, 
found  in  the  report  of  the  committee.  If  it  is  not  strick- 
en out,  the  governor  could  not  receive  from  the  legis- 
lature such  discretionary  power,  nor  would  the  legisla- 
ture attempt  to  do  the  idle  thing,  to  grant  power  which 
the  agent  could  not  execute.  The  legislature  would  be 
compelled  to  assume  the  resposibility  of  granting  a 
specific  power,  for  which  their  constituents  would  call 
them  to  account.  The  power  granted  by  the  report  of 
the  committee,  confides  an  unlimited  discretion  to  the 
governor,  which  I  wish  to  be  given  to  the  legislature, 
and  in  such  form  as  to  prevent  that  body  from  transfer- 
ring it  back  to  the  governor.  If  it  does  not  effect  that 
purpose,  I  do  not  desire  its  adoption. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  differ  very  widely  from  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha  in  the  construction  which  he 
puts  upon  his  own  language,  and  I  hope  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  submit  a  few  remarks  in  reply  to  those  which 
have  just  fallen  from  that  gentleman.  I  believe  that 
the  gentleman  and  myself  have  the  same  great  object 
in  view :  that  is,  to  restrict  executive  power  in  this 
respect  to  as  narrow  limits  as  the  public  safety  will  per- 
mit. I  understand  that  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha 
opposes  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Acco- 
mac,  on  the  ground  that  it  will  enlarge  the  executive 
power.  As  I  differ  with  the  gentleman  in  respect  to 
the  effect  of  this  amendment,  I  beg  leave  to  offer  a  few 
remarks  upon  that  subject,  and  that  only.  I  believe 
if  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  be 
adopted  in  toto,  that  is  retaining  the  latter  clause, 
the  power  of  the  governor  will  be  very  considerably 
enlarged  instead  of  restricted  as  he  desires ;  because  it 
authorizes  the  legislature  to  confer  power  upon  the 
governor  in  cases  not  embraced  by  those  specified  in 
the  amendment.  If  that  is  not  the  effect,  then  there  is 
no  meaning  in  the  amendment,  and  it  is  altogether  un- 
necessary.   I  am  opposed  to  giving  the  legislature 


power  to  enlarge  the  authority  of  the  executive  on  this 
subject.  As  I  remarked  yesterday,  I  cannot  conceive  of 
any  case  in  which  the  governor  should  be  authorized 
to  exercise  this  great  power  of  calling  out  the  militia 
except  in  the  three  cases  specified,  and  I  am  for  limiting 
the  executive  discretion  to  these  three  cases.  I  call  upon 
gentlemen  to  state  any  other  case.  I  have  heard  none 
stated  that  can  satisfy  me.  The  gentleman  from  Hen- 
rico (Mr.  Botts)  has  stated  a  case,  it  is  true,  of  the 
federal  government  attempting  to  invade  a  sister  State 
and  marching  its  troops  through  Virginia  to  enforce 
a  law  of  congress  providing  for  the  emancipation  of 
slaves,  but  even  in  such  an  extreme  case,  the  govern- 
or might  convene  the  legislature  and  they  could  confer 
upon  him  power  for  the  purpose.  They  have  power 
to  pass  any  law  upon  the  subject,  and  it  will  be  the 
duty  of  the  governor  to  convene  them  in  such  a  case. 
I  am  opposed  to  that  part  of  the  gentleman's  amend- 
ment now  sought  to  be  stricken  ought,  for  the  plain 
reason  that  it  confers  on  the  legislature  the  power  to 
pass  a  law  on  this  subject  bv  which  the  governor,  as 
in  the  specified  cases,  may  be  authorized  to  embody  the 
militia  without  assembling  the  legislature  for  that  pur- 
pose. If  any  other  case  should  occur,  when  it  would 
be  proper  to  caH  out  the  militia,  I  had  much  rather  that 
the  legislature  should  be  convened,  and  that  it  should 
be  the  duty  of  the  governor  to  submit  the  subject  to 
them,  and  act  only  when  specially  authorized  by  them 
to  embody  the  militia.  It  was  clearly  shown  on  yes- 
terday, that  if  you  invest  the  governor  alone  with 
this  power  in  any  other  case,  he  might  consider  it  his 
duty  to  resist  the  passage  of  the  United  States  troops 
through  the  territory  of  Virginia,  and  might  embody 
the  militia  for  that  purpose.  I  am  not  willing  to  give 
the  governor  power  to  sever  at  will,  the  union  which 
exists  between  the  States  of  this  confederacy.  I  would 
rather  that  the  question  should  always  be  first  submit- 
ted to  the  people  through  their  legislature,  and  when- 
ever the  legislature  of  Virginia  shall  act  upon  that  sub- 
ject, I  hope  I  shall  be  prepared  to  act  with  it;  hut  I 
would  not  submit  the  power  to  the  governor  alone.  I 
advocate  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Acc6- 
mac,  because  I  am  unwilling  to  authorize  the  legislature, 
by  this  constitutional  provision,  to  enlarge  the  powers 
of  the  governor  by  investing  him  with  the  power  in 
any  case,  not  included  in  the  three  cases  specified  in 
the  amendment ;  and  I  hope  that  all  who  agree  with  me 
in  desiring  not  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  governor 
beyond  these  three  cases,  will  vote  for  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac. 

Mr.  RIVES.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  real  point  at 
issue  has  been  founded  upon  this :  that  the  governor 
shall  have  power  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  insurrec- 
tion, and  execute  the  laws.  That  I  understand  to  be  it, 
because  the  laws  passed  by  the  legislative  department 
of  the  government,  as  I  understand  it,  embrace  all  the 
laws.  The  amendment  adds  that  he  shall  also  have  pow- 
er to  call  out  the  militia  to  enforce  such  other  acts  as 
shall  be  specified  by  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government.  Well  now,  I  ask,  does  not  this  latter 
clause  of  the  amendment  proposed'to  be  stricken  out, 
from  the  very  fact  of  its  requiring  that  the  governor 
shall  use  the  power  for  such  purposes  as  may  be  specified 
by  the  legislature,  and  obey  the  law  by  calling  out  the 
militia  to  carry  it  into  effect,  pre-suppose  legislative 
action  ?  If  it  does,  and  legislative  action  is  taken  upon 
it,  does  it  not  make  it  a  law  ?  Specify  a  particular 
case,  if  you  please,  in  which  the  governor  shall  not  act, 
yet,  let  that  particular  case  come  under  legislative  ac- 
tion, and  be  passed  upon  by  the  legislature,  and  it  then 
becomes  a  law.  Is  it  not  a  clear  case  then  that  you 
have  provided  for  its  enforcement,  in  providing  that  the 
governor  shall  execute  the  laws  ?  After'you  have  done 
so,  is  the  governor  left  without  power  to  act  unless  you 
insert  this  amendment  ?  Not  at  all.  I  have  said  strike 
out  that  portion  of  the  amendment  which  is  proposed  to 
be  stricken  out  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  and  if 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION.  267 


it  be  a  law,  it  plainly  comes  under  the  head  of  the 
clause  "he  shall  have  power  to  call  out  the  militia  to 
enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws."  Either  it  does  that, 
or  a  specific  act  of  the  legislature  is  not  a  law.  If  there 
is  a  difference  between  a  law  that  is  clearly  provided 
for  now,  and  specific  action  in  a  particular  case,  then 
we  have  the  law  suspended  until  some  specific  case 
shall  arise  hereafter.  "Well,  suppose  a  case  does 
arise  when  the  executive  cannot  exercise  this  power 
until  the  legislative  department  of  the  government  take 
action.  Now,  it  would  be  folly  to  say,  that  some  case 
hereafter  might  arise,  when,  although  the  legislature 
had  passed  a  law,  yet  because  they  had  not  specifically 
provided  for  its  enforcement,  therefore  it  was  not  a 
law.  Grant  that  the  action  of  the  legislature  when 
carried  through  both  houses,  as  required  by  the  consti- 
tution, makes  a  law  of  the  land,  then  the  executive  of 
the  commonwealth,  in  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
is  bound  to  carry  it  out,  or  the  words  execute  the  laws 
mean  nothing — one  or  the  other.  I  rose  for  the  simple 
purpose  of  trying  to  present  the  question  in  such  a 
shape  as  to  enable  this  committee  to  see  in  what  state 
the  question  stands.  Clearly,  there  must  be  something 
to  show  me  that  a  specific  act  of  the  legislature  in  a 
particular  case  is  not  a  law,  and  when  you  show  me 
that,  then  I  can  see  some  necessity  in  that  clause  of  the 
amendment.  I  have  heard  of  a  joint  resolution  passing 
both  houses,  in  which  I  think  the  governor  would  be  as 
much  bound  to  act  as  in  a  law,  for  I  believe  it  has  been 
construed  as  a  law.  It  does  seem  to  me,  that  after 
voting  to  strike  out  that  portion  of  the  amendment  of 
the  gentlemaa  from  Kanawha,  as  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Accomac,  we  have  provided  for  every  case 
that  can  occur.  Grant  him  all  power  to  repel  invasion, 
suppress  insurrection  and  enforce  the  laws,  andin  cases 
other  than  that  grant,  the  only  question,  it  seems  to  me, 
is,  would  the  matter  go  before  the  legislature,  and 
would  the  action  of  the  legislature  thereupon  be  a  law  ? 
If  it  would  be  a  law,  then  it  is  his  duty  to  enforce  it. 
I  beg  my  friends  not  to  bring  into  this  discussion  here 
the  subject  of  federal  relations,  for  the  reason,  that  if 
Virginia  is  to  take  »  stand  on  that  question  now  or 
hereafter,  I  hope  it  will  be  such  a  stand  as  will  resist 
all  assaults,  either  from  the  North  or  the  South.  I  hope 
they  will  pause  before  they  enter  upon  this  discussion, 
bocause  I  fear  that  if  we  once  get  into  that  field  we 
shall  never  get  out  of  it.  I  shall  vote  for  striking  out 
this  clause  of  the  amendment,  and  I  hope  it  will  be 
clearly  seen  that  the  great  object  of  the  committee  is 
to  have  the  laws  enforced  as  passed  by  the  legislature. 

Mr.  BOCOOK.  I  regret,  very  much  regret,  that  the 
committee  on  yesterday  struck  out  the  words  from  the 
report  which  they  did,  and  I  apprehend,  that  if  that 
vote  could  be  taken  over  again,  there  are  members 
enough  of  this  committee  who  see  the  propriety  of  re- 
taining those  words,  to  reverse  that  decision.  The 
words  struck  out  are  the  same  contained  in  the  existing 
Constitution,  and  I  cannot  believe  that  a  majority  of  the 
committee  can  see  in  the  present  aspect  of  affairs 
around  us,  in  this  confederacy,  any  reason  for  lowering 
the  organization  of  Virginia  as  a  sovereign  State, 
any  reason  why  the  organized  power  of  her  sovereign- 
ty should  be  more  restricted  than  in  times  gone  by. 
Yet  such,  I  regret  to  see,  is  the  desire  here,  as  mani- 
fested by  the  general  current  of  debate.  Do  gentle- 
men understand  the  position  they  are  taking  ?  I  am 
sure,  at  any  rate,  whatever  may  be  the  case  with  other 
members,  that  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott) 
understands  his  position,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Convention  will  agree  with  him  in  that  posi- 
tion. We  are  organizing  a  government  here,  and  for  what 
purpose  ?  Not  only  for  the  government  and  regulation  of 
the  people  of  the  commonwealth,  but  to  represent  that 
people  before  the  world  as  a  sovereign  and  independ- 
ent State.  I  understand  then  well  enough  what  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  means.    He  desires  the  pow- 


er of  the  governor  to  be  limited.  He  wishes  it  to  be 
effectual  in  its  operation  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
laws  on  the  people  of  Virginia ;  but,  while  he  admits 
that  the  people  have  the  right  of  revolution,  as 
against  the  federal  government,  he  does  not  wish  there 
should  be  any  constitutional  provision  whatever  as  to  any 
department  of  the  State  government  under  which  they 
could  ever  exercise  that  right.  No,  he  desires  that 
if  they  attempt  the  exercise  of  that  revolutionary 
right ^  they  shall  do  it  as  a  mob,  without  regular 
organization.  He  knows  that  rebellion,  if  unsuccess- 
ful, is  treason;  he  knows  that  a  mob  rebellion  is 
always  unsuccessful,  and  he  knows  also,  if  his  views 
be  carried  out,  that  the  people  will  be  allowed 
no  other  resort  for  a  redress  of  grievances  than  rebel- 
lion, and  that  a  mob  rebellion,  which  will  end  in  trea- 
son. I  will  agree  to  no  suGh  proposition,  and  I  will 
vote  for  none  such  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Virginia.  I  will  organize  this  government,  so 
far  as  my  vote  goes,  not  only  go  as  to  execute  the  laws 
of  Virginia  on  the  people  of  Virginia,  but  to  invest  the 
people  of  Virginia  as  a  sovereignty,  with  all  the  rights 
and  attributes  of  sovereignty.  The  gentleman  from 
Accomac  has  just  said  that  this  phrase  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  laws,  covers  everything  intended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  but  although  I  listened 
to  his  argument,  that  it  was  tautologous  to  add  the 
words  which  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  proposes 
to  add,  I  still  think  I  can  see  a  difference.  The 
governor  is  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the 
laws — upon  whom?  Upon  the  people  of  Virginia. 
Who  are  bound  by  fihe  laws  of  Virginia  ?  The  peo- 
ple of  Virginia,  and  upon  them  alone  are  your  laws  to 
be  enforced.  My  friend  from  Accomac  would  enable 
the  governor  to  raise  the  red  right  arm  of  war,  as  he 
expresses  it,  against  the  people  of  Virginia,  and 
against  no  body  else. 

Mr.  "WISE.  I  should  like  to  know  upon  what  au- 
thority the  gentleman  quotes  me  as  advancing  such  a 
sentiment. 

Mr.  BO  COCK..  The  gentleman  is  for  giving  to  the 
governor  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  only  to  en- 
force the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  this  can  be  done 
on  the  people  of  Virginia  alone. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  said  that  I  would  have  no  tautology 
on  the  subject.  Now,  the  execution  of  the  laws  do  not 
apply  only  to  the  citizens  of  Virginia.  In  the  case  of 
invasion  we  can  execute  the  law  on  the  invader,  though 
he  be  as  foreign  to  us  as  the  Chinese,  and  we  can  exe- 
cute it  on  things  as  well  as  on  persons.  But  the  sole 
question  here  is,  not  whether  the  government  of  Vir- 
ginia shall  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  revolution,  but 
whether  the  powers  of  revolution  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  governor  or  by  the  legislature.  I  say  I  will  not 
again  ever  entrust  a  governor  of  Virginia  with  a  power 
of  revolution  ;  but  I  am  willing  to  trust  the  legislature 
with  the  power  of  calling  on  the  citizens  to  defend  the 
State. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  understand  that  very  well ;  but  so 
far  as  this  execution  of  the  law  goes,  I  ask,  upon  whom 
are  the  laws  to  be  executed,  and  against  whom  is  this  red 
right  arm  of  war  to  be  bared  ? 

Mr.  WISE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask 
him  in  reply,  would  he  have  a  governor  to  have  the 
power  of  executing  any  other  authority  than  that 
which  is  authorized  by  law  ?    That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  tell  the  gentleman  what  I  would 
have,  and  that  I  set  out  with  and  mean  to  conclude 
with.  I  would  have  the  sovereign  power  of  Virginia  so 
organized  that  they  can  bare  the  red  arm  of 
war  against  others  than  the  citizens  of  Virginia. 
I  would  not  provide  in  this  Constitution  that, 
no  matter  what  may  occur,  the  governor  shall  have  no 
authority  to  embody  even  a  company  of  militia,  except 
in  case  of  invasion  or  insurrection,  until  he  can  send  all 
over  the  broad  limits  of  this  Commonwealth  and  call  to- 
gether the  legislature  of  the  State.    I  apprehend  that 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


there  might  be  occasions  which  are  neither  invasions  nor 
insurrections,  on  which  it  -would  be  right  that  the 
militia  should  be  embodied.  If  this  be  true,  if  such  oc- 
casions can  exist,  where,  if  the  views  of  the  gentleman 
should  be  carried  out,  would  be  the  authority  in  Vir- 
ginia to  embody  even  a  single  company  of  militia  ? 
The  views  expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Henrico, 
I  concur  with,  in  the  main,  and  return  my  thanks  to 
him  for  his  expression  of  them,  but  I  differ  from  him  in 
the  idea  that  this  power  must  necessarily  be  given  to 
the  legislature.  I  will  give  it  to  the  governor  and  to 
the  legislature.  I  will  give  it  to  the  governor  to  exer- 
cise, when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  may  require, 
because  that  public  safety  may  require  him  to  act  be- 
fore the  legislature  could  be  got  together.  I  would  give 
it  to  the  legislature  also,  because  I  believe  that  they 
would  be  the  best  judges  of  what  the  public  safety 
would  require,  when  they  were  in  session.  In  this 
way,  I  would  secure  a  certain  and  efficient  exercise  of 
the  power  under  all  emergencies  when  it  would  be  ne- 
cessary. We  have  been  told  that  when  we  grant  this 
power  to  the  governor  to  repel  invasion,  suppress  in- 
surrection, and  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,  that 
we  are  investing  him  with  as  much  poorer  as  the  federal 
constitution  has  invested  in  the  President,  and  that  the 
language  used  here  on  this  subject,  is  used  in  that  in- 
strument in  reference  to  the  same  subject.  But  gentle- 
men should  remember  that  the  state  of  things  in  re- 
gard to  each  is  very  different.  The  federal  constitution 
makes  the  President  the  commander-in  chief  of  the  ar- 
my and  navy,  both  of  which  are  always  in  existence 
and  at  the  will  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
He  orders  that  army  where  he  pleases.  He  has  no  ne- 
cessity for  calling  out  the  militia,  and  therefore,  he 
cannot  do  it  without  a  law  of  congress.  Where  is 
the  army  and  navy  of  Virginia  ?  Her  only  army 
is  the  militia.  To-morrow  the  news  may  be  received 
that  the  property,  if  not  the  lives  of  the  people,  is  in 
jeopardy,  and  shall  you  require  the  governor  to  send 
all  over  the  State,  and  convene  the  legislature,  and 
wait  until  they  have  passed  a  law  before  he  can  embody 
even  a  company  of  militia  ?  I  deny  the  propriety  of  any 
such  arrangement. 

I  take  the  difference  between  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha  and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  to  be  this: 
The  gentleman  from  Kanawha  looks  to  the  phrase,  "  to 
enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws,"  as  referring  to  an  ex- 
ecution of  the  laws  of  the  State  upon  the  people  of  the 
State,  but  he  desires  further,  that  the  governor  may 
have  the  power  to  call  out  the  militia  whenever  the 
legislature  _  shall  grant  him  the  power,  for  any 
other  specific  purpose.  There  is  a  difference  be- 
tween executing  a  law  and  acting  in  obedience  to 
a  law.  Acting  in  obedience  to  the  law  is  executing  it 
in  one  sense,  but  in  this  instance  the  meaning  of  execu- 
ting the  laws  of  the  State,  is  their  enforcement  upon 
unwilling  citizens.  Therefore,  when  you  restrict  the 
governor  to  the  execution  of  the  laws  in  this  sense,  you 
are  restricting  him  to  their  enforcement  only  upon  the 
citizens  of  Virginia  and  those  within  the  limits  of  the 
State.  It  is  against  them  only,  that  the  militia  is  to  ;be 
called  out  and  exerted  under  the  power  to  enforce  the 
execution  of  the  laws.  But  the  gentleman  from  Kana- 
wha, by  his  amendment,  leaves  to  the  legislature  the  pow- 
er to  authorize,  in  a  specific  case,  the  militia  to  be  em- 
bodied, by  the  governor,  whether  it  be  to  enforce  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law,  or,  for  example,  to  resist  the  execution 
of  an  unlawful  act  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WISE.  "Would  the  gentleman  be  disposed  to 
leave  it  simply  to  the  discretion  of  the  governor  to 
judge  whether  an  act  of  congress  be  unconstitutional  or 
not,  and  to  call  out  the  militia  accordingly  ?  I  am  for 
leaving  that  question  to  the  legislature.  Would  he  leave 
it  to  the  governor  ? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  would  leave  the  governor,  as  the 
representative  of  the  people  of  the  State,  the  power  to 
take  care  of  the  safety  of  the  people  of  the  State — even 


if,  in  so  doing,  he  was  required  to  embody  a  company 
of  militia — until  the  legislature  could  meet.  Thatisall 
I  mean.  I  would  go  as  far  as  any  gentleman  in  confining 
this  power  to  the  legislature,  if  the  legislature  were 
always  in  existence  like  the  governor.  I  would  rather 
trust  it  to  them  than  to  the  governor  ;  but  my  desire  is 
to  lodge  this  power  of  taking  instant  action  for  the  safe- 
ty of  the  State  somewhere  in  the  organization  of  the 
government. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  do  not  think  that  the  gentleman's  an- 
swer is  a  categorical  one  to  my  question.  Would  he 
give  the  governor  the  power  to  decide  that  a  law  was 
unconstitutional,  and  also  to  decide  that  the  emergency 
was  so  pressing  and  imminent  as  to  require  him  not  to 
wait  for  the  legislature,  but  actually  in  his  own  discre- 
tion to  repel  the  execution  of  the  law  of  the  United 
States,  in  his  judgment  unconstitutional  ?  Would  the 
gentleman  leave  that  power  to  the  governor  ? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  for  giving  the  power  to  act 
promptly,  when  such  a  case,  involving  the  public  safe- 
ty, shall  arise,  to  some  department  of  the  State  gov- 
ernment, and  if  the  legislature  cannot  be  here,  I 
would  give  it  to  the  governor. 

Mr.  WISE.    There  is  the  difference  between  us. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  for  giving  to  the  governor  the 
same  power,  on  this  subject,  that  he  has  always  had 
heretofore.  I  am  not  for  limiting  the  power  of  the 
State  to  act  promptly  in  these  particular  emergencies. 
I  do  not  believe  that  in  such  a  case  the  governor  would 
ever  act  rashly.  It  would  have  to  be  an  exceedingly 
plain  case — one  that  would  justify  his  action,  not  onlj 
in  his  own  eyes,  but  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  to  who* 
he  is  accountable.  A  case  might  occur  in  which  th 
voice  of  the  people,  with  one  accord,  might  demand  a< 
tion,  and  shall  all  action  be  deferred  until  the  action  o.. 
the  legislature  be  had,  which  may  result  in  a  delay  of 
a  month  or  more  ?  I  go  for  giving  the  governor,  as  well 
as  the  legislature,  the  power  to  embody  the  militia, 
when,  in  his  opinion,  the  public  safety  shall  require  it, 
and  I  do  not  believe  that  it  will  lead  to  anything  wrong. 
I  go  for  the  highest  sovereign  organization  of  the  State. 
I  go  for  arming  the  governor,  not  alone  against  the  good 
people  of  the  State  for  executing  on  them  the  laws  of 
the  State,  but  against  all  who  are  not  the  good  people  of 
the  State,  who  may  seek  to  endanger  the  safety  of  the 
commonwealth. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  did  not  propose  to  occupy 
the  attention  of  this  committee  in  the  further  discussion 
of  the  proposition  before  it.  But  as  I  have  been  referred  to 
in  a  manner  that  this  body  has  witnessed,  by  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  I  trust  that  I  may  be 
pardoned  if  I  again  thrust  myself  upon  their  indulgence. 
I  listened,  with  sentiments  of  the  most  profound  aston- 
ishment, to  the  remarks  of  that  gentleman.  He  said 
that  I  understood  my  position.  I  trust  I  do.  He  said 
that  he  understood  it  too.  In  that  I  think  he  was  mis- 
taken. He  says,  that  while  I  agree  that  the  power  to 
commit  an  act  of  revolution  resides  in  the  sovereign 
people  of  this  commonwealth,  I  was  for  so  organizing 
this  government,  as  to  leave  the  act  of  revolution  to  a 
mob — an  unorganized  mob.  In  what  I  have  said  here, 
or  in  what  I  have  said  elsewhere,  I  think  the  gentleman 
will  find  no  warrant  whatever  for  the  opinion  and  the 
desire  which  he  has  ascribed  to  me. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  Let  me  mention  to  what  I  did  refer. 
The  gentleman  has  said  that  he  was  not  disposed  to  put  it 
into  the  power  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia  to  commit 
an  act  of  revolution.  I  understood  him  by  that  to  mean 
that  he  does  not  wish  to  organize  the  State  so  that  its 
authorities — its  constitutional  authorities — can  commit 
an  act  of  revolution.    Am  I  mistaken  in  that  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier  In  understanding  me  to  that 
effect  he  understood  me  right.  Yet  it  does  not  follow  that 
I  would  leavethis  act  to  be  committed  by  an  unorganized 
mob.  Not  at  all.  He  understood  me  right  when  he  un- 
derstood me  to  say  that  I  would  not  provide,  in  the  or- 
ganization of  this  government,  authority  in  any  one  of 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


269 


its  departments,  to  commit  an  act  of  revolution.  I  think 
that  great  act  belongs  to  the  sovereign  people,  and  is  to 
be  exercised  by  them  when  the  emergency  shall  arise, 
by  agents  other  than  those  who  may  be  appointed  to 
conduct  the  government  of  this  Commonwealth.  The 
gentleman  differs,  I  know,  from  me  in  this  respect.  I 
believe  that  the  opinion  entertained  by  that  gentleman, 
and  participated  in  by  others  in  this  State,  is  an  opinion 
confined  to  the  limits  of  Virginia.  Everywhere  else 
where  this  doctrine  has  been  discussed,  it  has  been  con- 
ceded to  belong  to  the  people  in  convention,  it  being  re- 
garded as  an  act  without  the  scope  of  the  authority  of 
the  government  agents  to  commit  revolution.  "When 
the  day  comes  when  it  shall  be  proper  for  Virginia  to 
revolutionize  this  government,  to  overturn  the  exist- 
ing state  of  things,  to  draw  the  sword,  to  levy  war,  the 
day  will  come  when  it  will  be  proper  to  submit  that 
question — that  grave  question — to  the  people  in  conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  know  that  the  gentleman  is  pointing 
out  what  may  appear  to  be  a  distinction,  and  I  will  in- 
terrupt him  merely  to  make  an  inquiry. 

The  gentleman  says  he  differs  from  my  under- 
standing of  his  remarks  in  this  :  He  does  not  mean 
to  say  that  he  would  have  a  mob  revolution.  When  I 
used  the  word  mob,  I  simply  meant  a  revolution  with- 
out authority  of  law — the  people  acting  without  legal 
authority.  He  says  it  would  have  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people  in  solemn  convention.  Well,  when  the  peo- 
ple in  convention  have  agreed  to  act,  are  they  to  have 
no  laws,  no  acts  of  assembly,  no  acts  of  their  governor 
to  carry  out  their  will  ?  He  desires  the  legislature  or- 
ganized so  that  they  cannot  commit  an  act  of  revolution 
against  the  government  of  the  United  States.  Suppose 
a  convention  of  the  people  of  Virginia  meets  and  de- 
termines to  commit  an  act  of  revolution  ;  according  to 
his  argument,  they  must  first  form  a  new  constitution, 
and  grant  new  powers  of  a  revolutionary  character  to 
the  legislature,  otherwise  the  legislature  is  as  much  tied 
after  that  Convention  has  made  the  decision,  as  they 
were  before,  and  can  pass  no  law  for  carrying  out  the 
decision  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Unquestionably,  when  the 
casus  belli  happens,  when  the  revolution  comes,  it  must 
sweep  away  the  existing  organizations.  New  powers  must 
be  conferred  upon  your  executive  and  your  legislature  be- 
cause unless  these  new  powers  are  conferred,  unless  these 
changes  are  made,  our  social  condition  must  remain  the 
same  ;  and  remaining  the  same,  it  must  conti  nue  upon 
us  all  existing  obligations.  The  gentleman  thinks  that 
the  legislative  power  of  this  government  have  authority 
to  commit  revolution — t  o  change  the  peaceful  relation 
of  this  State  with  our  associated  States — to  abrogate 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  far  as  this 
community  is  concerned,  and  put  the  people  without  its 
pale  and  without  its  protection,  and  there  is  the  differ- 
ence between  us.  I  read  in  the  constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  that  the  members  of  the  several  State  legis- 
latures, and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound 
by  oath  to  support  the  constitution.  With  that  oath 
upon  their  lips,  is  it  possible  that  a  member  of  the  leg- 
islature, the  executive  or  any  judicial  officer  of  any 
State  can  set  on  foot  resistance  to  the  constitution — a 
constitution  which,  in  their  official  capacity,  they  have 
sworn  to  support. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question, 
not  wishing,  however,  to  produce  any  confusion,  what- 
ever the  opinions  of  the  gentleman  may  be  in  relation  to 
this  right  of  perpetrating  revolution — into  which  I  have 
not  gone  and  do  not  mean  to  go  on  this  occasion — I  do 
not,  surely  understand  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  as  saying  that  the  municipal  government 
of  Virginia,  an  organized  legislature  and  executive,  have 
not  the  power  by  law,  to  call  upon  their  citizens  to  arm 
themselves,  and  actually  to  wage  war  to  repel  an  inva- 
sion, suppress  an  insurrection,  and  enforce  the  execu- 


tion of  the  laws.  I  do  not  understand  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  as  going  to  that  extent,  but  as  agreeing 
that  the  legislature  may  order,  by  law,  the  governor  to 
call  out  the  militia  for  the  legitimate  and  lawful  purpo- 
ses of  government.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  because  of 
the  position  that  may  be  assumed  hereafter,  when  we 
come  to  the  legislative  department.  I  see  no  necessity 
of  discussing  this  constitutional  right  when  we  are  up- 
on a  mere  governmental  right  to  enforce  the  execution 
of  the  laws,  repel  invasion,  and  suppress  insurrection. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  certainly  never  denied,  nor 
do  I  mean  to  be  understood  as  denying,  any  of  the  princi- 
ples involved  in  the  inquiry  of  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac,  (Mr.  Wise.)  I  am  only  repelling  this  monstrous 
heresy. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  only  desired  the  gentleman  to  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  the  power  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  be  allowed 
to  make  himself  understood. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  If  I  am  indulged  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  shall  endeavor  to  make  myself  understood.  I  have 
been  arguing  against  the  monstrous  heresy,  broached  here 
by  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox,  (Mr.  BococK,)which 
claims  for  the  organized  authorities  of  this  State  gov- 
ernment the  right,  without  the  intervention  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  with  the  oath  upon  their  lips  to  support  the 
federal  constitution,  to  take  measures  to  break  thac 
constitution  down.  I  am  not  arguing  against  the  right 
of  the  people  to  commit  revolution,  to  withdraw  them- 
selves from  this  government,  if,  in  their  judgment,  they 
think  proper  to  do  so,  or  to  exercise  any  power,  howso- 
ever broad,  that  belongs  to  their  sovereignty.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Appomattox  (Mr.  Bocock)  not  only  claims 
this  power  for  an  ordinary  legislature,  sworn  to  sup- 
port the  constitution,  but  he  is  now  claiming  it  for  the 
executive  branch  of  this  government,  and  finds  great 
fault  with  the  action  of  the  committee,  yesterday,  in 
striking  out  from  this  report  that  part  of  it  which 
proposed  to  confer  upon  the  executive  the  wide  discre- 
tion that  has  been  so  much  debated.  And  when  the 
question  was  put  to  him  directly  by  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  so  far  had  he  become  in- 
volved in  the  course  of  his  argument,  that  the  alter- 
nate was  presented  to  him  of  retreating  from  his  posi- 
tion, and  confessing  his  error,  or  persisting  in  it.  And 
rather  than  retreat,  he  boldly  claimed  that  he  should 
give  the  power  to  the  executive  to  judge — when  the 
occasion  of  war  shall  come — to  judge  of  the  necessity 
for  resistance,  and  to  prescribe,  himself,  its  mode  and 
measure ;  and  this  upon  the  plea  of  the  public  safety. 

Sir,  he  must  be  fresh  from  the  reading  of  antiquity. 
He  has  studied,  doubtless,  the  history  of  the  rise  and 
progress  of  the  Roman  States.  He  will  find  an  exam- 
ple there  for  this  purpose,  or,  coming  down  to  more 
modern  times,  he  will  find  example  in  the  revolutionary 
history  of  revolutionary  France.  He  will  find  it  no- 
where else.  And,  upon  the  plea  of  public  safety,  the 
gentleman  from  Appomattox  (Mr.  Bocock) — a  democrat 
of  the  straightest  sect — proclaims  here  in  this  commit- 
tee that  he  is  willing — nay,  more,  that  he  desires — to 
see  the  executive  of  this  Commonwealth  clothed  with 
the  powers  of  a  dictator — what  else  is  it? — to  judge 
when  congress  exceeds  its  powers,  and  pass  upon  the 
constitutionality  of  a  law ;  to  determine,  according  to 
his  own  discretion,  the  occasion  of  resistance,  and  then 
to  prescribe  its  mode  and  measure  ;  to  clothe  him,  in  one 
word,  with  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  power  ; 
and  that  is  his  democracy. 

And  he  knows  my  position.  Sir,  I  did  not  know  his 
before.  For  upon  my  conscience,  I  say  that  I  did  not 
believe  there  was  one  human  being  within  the  limits 
of  this  State — nay,  more,  within  the  wide  extent  of  the 
United  States — who,  at  this  day,  would  hazard  the  ut- 
terance of  such  opinions.  I  did  not  misunderstand  the 
gentleman,  my  friend  from  Accomac  was  startled,  as  I 
was,  at  his  proposition.    He  interrupted  the  gentleman, 


270 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


propounded  a  question  directly,  and  asked  for  a  categor- 
ical answer,  and  the  answer  was  given. 

Now,  I  am  not  for  a  dictator.  God  forbid  that  the 
necessity  should  ever  arise  in  this  free  commonwealth, 
for  clothing  any  man,  however  eminent  for  virtue,  intel- 
ligence and  learning  he  may  be,  with  dictatorial 
power,  which  all  history  teaches  us  in  the  end  is  sure 
to  be  perverted  to  the  destruction  of  liberty.  No  sir, 
we  come  here  with  no  such  duties  assigned  us,  clothed 
with  no  such  power.  We  come  here  to  amend  the  con- 
stitution of  Virginia — one  of  the  States  of  this  great  and 
glorious  confederacy — to  make  a  government  such  as 
will  suit  cur  social  condition,  our  condition  as  a  member 
of  this  Union,  and  to  adopt  provisions  necessary  for  the 
carrying  out,  for  the  fulfilment,  the  faithful,  honest  ful- 
filment, of  every  obligation  that  our  association  imposes 
upon  us.  We  cannot  provide,  therefore,  in  organizing 
this  State  government  for  revolution.  It  is  beyond  the 
scope  of  our  trust.  It  is  not  our  duty.  We  are  to  make  a 
constitution  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  In  that  constitution  limitations  and  restrictions 
are  imposed  upon  the  powers  of  the  States,  and  we  can- 
not, if  we  would,  impart  to  this  government  a  power 
inconsistent  with  it.  We  cannot  give  to  a  governor,  or 
to  a  governor  and  legislature  together,  a  power  to  de- 
clare war.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  says 
that  no  State  shall  declare  war.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
impart  the  power  if  we  would  ;  and  I  am  not  so  fond  of 
revolution — I  am  not  so  attracted  by  the  glare  and  glit- 
ter of  military  fame  and  applause,  which  follows  deeds 
of  arms,  as  to  desire  to  see  this  country  plunged  into 
war,  or  this  State  enter  upon  a  wild  experiment  of  a 
revolution.  I  am  not  so  much  in  love  with  these  scenes 
as  to  be  willing,  as  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox 
seems  to  be,  to  arm  the  governor  or  any  one  man  with 
the  power  to  declare  war  or  commit  revolution.  I  am 
not  disposed  to  provide  in  the  constitution — when  the 
United  States  constitution  says  that  your  governor  shall 
swear  to  support  that  instrument — that  he  shall  be  au- 
thorized to  overthrow  it.  I  do  not  think  that  authority 
would  consist  together  well  with  the  restriction  of  the 
federal  constitution,  nor  with  the  obligation  and  duties 
which  Virginia's  position  as  a  member  of  this  Union 
casts  upon  her.  But  the  gentleman  from  Appomattox 
differs  altogether  from  me  in  this  opinion.  He  loves  rev- 
olution so  much  that  he  would  not  only  provide  in  your 
constitution  that  an  ordinary  legislature  should  commit 
it,  but  also  that  your  executive  should.  The  gentleman 
may  smile  ;  but  if  this  is  not  the  legitimate  deduction 
from  his  argument  and  position,  my  intelligence  has  not 
been  equal  to  the  task  of  making  a  true  one.  I  shall 
leave  to  the  gentleman  to  explain  his  position  if  I  have 
misunderstood  him,  or  to  justify  it  if  I  have  not.  I  de- 
sire, above  all  things  else,  to  know  whether  for  such 
opinions,  as  I  have  understood  him  to  avow,  he  can  find 
a  second  on  this  floor.  When  all  seem  to  be  agreed  that 
in  entrusting  power  to  a  single  individual  there  is  dan- 
ger of  abuse,  and  that  in  view  of  that  danger  in  creating 
the  power  and  conferring  it  upon  the  executive  we 
should  define  and  point  out  the  specific  purpose  for 
which  it  shall  be  exercised,  attheheel  of  the  discussion, 
when  this  seems-  to  be  the  collected  opinion  of  this  body, 
the  gentleman  from  Appomattox  (Mr.  Booock)  rises  in 
his  seat,  rebukes  what  has  been  done  as  unwisely  done, 
and  puts  forth  a  proposition  'that  in  the  constitution  of 
Virginia  we  should  provide  for  dictatorial  powers  in  the 
person  of  its  governor. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  am  not  very  fresh  from  the 
reading  of  the  history  of  ancient  times,  or  par- 
ticularly conversant  with  Nthe  history  of  the  an- 
cient republics,  or  even  revolutionary  France,  and 
therefore,  I  am  surprised  to  learn  from  the  gentleman 
that  I  was  really  displaying  so  much  scholarship  when 
1  propounded  the  proposition  which  I  did.  I  certain- 
ly thought  I  was  looking  to  the  constitution  as  it 
stands,  and  simply  arguing  for  a  retention  of  the  same 
words  in  the  new  which  exist  in  the  old  constitution 


on  this  subject.  Now,  I  have  heard  far  and  wide  in 
this  State,  arguments  upon  all  the  questions  upon  which 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  has  touched  in  his  speech, 
but  I  have  waked  up  the  gentleman  to  the  declara- 
tion of  an  opinion  which  1  never  have  before  heard  de- 
clared, and  that  is,  that  the  government  of  Virginia 
heretofore  has  been  armed  with  the  power  of  a  dicta- 
tor !  And  he  says  that  my  categorical  answer  to  my 
friend  from  Accomac,  conceded  the  necessity  for  a  dic- 
tator. My  friend  from  Accomac  asked  me  where  I 
would  lodge  this  power  of  determining  when  to  call  out 
the  militia. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  No,  to  judge  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  a  law  which  is  to  be  resisted. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  Well,  I  said  I  would  lodge  in  the 
governor's  hands  the  power  to  embody  the  militia, 
when  the  public  safety  shall  require  it,  and  if  in 
doing  that  he  will  be  obliged  to  judge  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  law,  why  let  him  do  it.  I  desire 
the  government  organized  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
people  will  mot  be  forced  to  re3ort  to  a  mob  to  defend 
their  safety.  And  I  want  the  authority  placed  some- 
where to  judge  of  the  imminency  of  any  danger  to  their 
safety.  I  apprehend  I  was  not  mistaken,  then,  in  the 
gentleman's  position  that  he  would  vest  no  such  power 
in  the  government,  or  any  department  of  it. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  My  position  is,  that  the 
people  in  Convention  have  the  right  to  revolutionize, 
but  that  the  legislature  have  not. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  But  when  the  people  meet  in  conven- 
tion, what  power  then  have  they  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  oi  Fauquier.  They  have  all  power— all 
sovereign  power. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  What  if  the  people,  when  assembled 
in  convention,  should  determine  upon  withdrawing  from 
the  Union  ?  Does  the  gentleman  admit  that  they  have 
the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  Unquestionably— in  the 
exercise  of  this  revolutionary  power. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  do  not  care  what  power  it  is  they  ex- 
ercise, the  gentleman  admits  that  the  people,  in  Con- 
vention assembled,  have  a  right  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union.  That  is  his  proposition,  and  I  desire  to  know  then, 
if  he  is  not  a  secessionist  ?  Is  he  not  in  favor  of  secession 
as  aright  ?  He  says  the  people  of  Virginia,  in  Conven- 
tion assembled,  have  the  right  in  the  exercise  of  their 
revolutionary  power,  to  withdraw  themselves  from  the 
Union  of  these  States,  and  I  ask  him  if  that  is  or  is  not 
secession  ?  I  wish  my  friend  to  come  to  the  point, 
and  tell  me  whether  he  believes  the  people  of  Virginia, 
in  Convention  assembled,  in  the  exercise  of  what  he 
calls  their  revolutionary  power,  have  the  right  to  secede 
from  this  Union  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  If  the  people  choose  to  rev- 
olutionize the  government  they  have  the  right  to  do  it — 
the  revolutionary  right,  iheyhaveno  constitutional 
right  to  do  so,  however.  There  is  nothing  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  federal  government,  or  in  the  constitution 
of  the  State  government,  that  would  warrant  it,  but 
there  is  a  power  above  and  beyond  the  constitution,  and 
that  is  the  power  of  the  sword. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  hope  my  friend  will  indulge  me  in 
asking  him  one  further  question.  I  wish  to  know  wheth- 
er, when  the  people  have  done  this  thing,  they  are  still 
bound  in  their  allegiance  to  the  federal  constitution  as 
much  as  they  were  before,  or  whether  they  are  dis- 
charged from  it  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  My  opinion  is  this :  unsuc- 
cessful rebellion  is  treason,  successful  rebellion  is  revo- 
lution.   Is  the  gentleman  answered  ? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  No,  not  at  all.  Biave  not  a  catego- 
rical answer  from  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  will 
prove  that  I  have  not  misunderstood  him.  When  the 
people  have  met  in  Convention,  and  have  exercised 
as  he  chooses  to  designate  it,  the  revolutionary  power  to 
withdraw  from  the  union  of  these  States,  I  desire  to 
know  whether  the  people  of  Virginia  are  still  bound 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


271 


by  their  allegiance  to  the  federal  government,  or  wheth- 
er they  are  discharged  from  it  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Faquier.  I  thought  I  had  answered 
that  question. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  ask  a  categorical  answer.  Yes  or 
no. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  said  that  unsuccessful  re- 
bellion was  treason,  and  that  successful  rebellion  was 
revolution.  If  I  understand  the  point  of  the  gentle- 
man's inquiry,  and  he  does  not  consider  this  a  categori- 
cal answer,  I  have  this  further  to  say,  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve in  this  heresy  of  constitutional  secession.  I  do  not 
believe  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  any  one  of  the  States 
of  this  Union,  to  cast  off  at  its  pleasure,  the  obligations 
which  it  has  come  under  to  the  federal  government,  and 
if  that  attempt  is  made,  and  it  fails,  and  the  actors  are 
punished  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  they  will 
be  denominated  felons.    Is  the  gentleman  answered? 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  think  I  understand  the  gentleman 
now.  His  proposition  now  is,  that  if  the  people  choose 
when  they  meet  in  Convention,  they  have  the  right  to 
revolutionize  the  government,  but  if  they  are  whipped 
in  the  fight,  then  they  are  to  be  executed  as  traitors. 
He  makes  it  out  an  act  of  rebellion ;  and  I  told 
you  that  he  knew  full  well  that  an  unsuccessful  re- 
bellion was  treason.  Then  I  desire  to  know  what  dif- 
ference it  makes,  whether  the  peopie  of  Virginia  meet 
in  Convention  to  accomplish  the  thing,  or  whether  they 
accomplish  it  without  meeting  in  Convention  at  all. 
There  could  be  no  difference  in  their  position  according 
to  his  argument,  for  they  would  be  rebels  in  either  event. 
In  either  case,  they  would  have  to  submit  to  fate.  If 
unsuccessful  they  would  be  executed  as  traitors,  if  suc- 
cessful they  would  have  accomplished  a  revolution. 
What  good  then,  would  a  Convention  do  them? 

I  think,  therefore  that  I  have  not  misunderstood  or 
misrepresented  the  gentleman.  He  believes  that  we  have 
no  power  but  that  of  rebellion  against  the  government  of 
the  United  States.  Recollect  that  he  said  a  while  ago,that 
we  ought  to  organize  this  government  of  Virginia  in  refer- 
ence to  its  social  state  and  condition,  as  a  member  of  the 
confederacy,  but  he  studiously  omitted  to  say  a  worjd 
about  organizing  it  as  a  government  of  a  sovereign  State. 
I  therefore  conclude,  that  he  believes  that  we  ought  not 
to  organize  this  government  in  reference  to  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  State,  and  there  is  where  I  differ  from 
him.  I  hold  that  Virginia,  in  her  present  position,  is  not 
stripped  of  her  powers  as  a  sovereign  State,  and  that 
she  has  not  surrendered  all  her  power  of  sovereignty,  in 
the  delegation  of  powers  to  the  federal  government. 
The  gentleman  makes  a  great  outcry  about  the  opinions 
I  have  avowed  on  this  question,  but  my  only  position  has 
been,  that  in  forming  a  new  constitution,  we  should  vest 
in  the  executive  the  same  discretion  upon  this  subject 
that  he  has  possessed  under  the  present  constitution. 
In  that  respect  only,  I  differ  from  my  friend  from 
Accomac,  who  believes  as  I  do,  that  this  attribute 
of  sovereignty  should  be  vested  somewhere  in  the  gov- 
ernment. And  I  would  give  it  to  the  executive,  only 
because  the  legislature  is  not  always  in  session.  I 
think  the  power  to  guard  the  safety  of  the  people 
should  be  vested  somewhere,  where  it  could  be  exe- 
cuted promptly ;  and  simply  because  the  legislature 
cannot  always  act  promptly,  because  not  always  sit- 
ting, I  would  vest  it  in  the  governor,  as  heretofore. 

On  motion  the  committee  rose. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier,  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Education  was  taken  up  from  the 
table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  Monday 
morning  at  11  o'clock. 


MONDAY,  Fcbuaryin,  1851. 
The  C®nvention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly. 

The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 


The  PRESIDENT  presented  the  following  communi" 
cation  from  the  Auditor's  office,  which  was  read  by  the 
Secretary: 

Auditor's  Office, 
Richmond  Feb.  15,  1851. 
Sir  :  Herewith  I  have  the  honor  of  sending  to  you, 
for  the  use  of  the  State  Convention,  "A  table  showing 
the  number  of  free  white  persons,  over  the  age  of  twen- 
ty years,  in  the  several  counties,  cities,  towns,  and  grand 
divisions  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  who  cannot  read  and 
write;"  also,  "A  table  showing  the  number  of  free 
white,  free  colored,  and  slave  titheables  in  the  several 
counties,  cities,  towns,  and  grand  divisions  of  the  State 
of  Virginia,  in  the  years  1830, 1840,  and  1850." 

I  also  send  you  "A  table  showing  the  free  white,  free 
colored,  and  slave  population,  distinguished  in  each  of 
the  counties,  cities,  towns,  and  grand  divisions  of  the 
commonwealth  of  Virginia,  in  the  years  1830,  1840,  and 
1850,  arid  the  amount  and  per  cent,  of  increase  or  de- 
crease in  each  county,  city,  town,  and  division  aforesaid, 
of  each  class  of  population  aforesaid,  between  the  pe- 
riods aforesaid;"  also  a  table  showing  the  aggregate 
amount  of  taxes  assessed  in  each  county,  city,  town,  and 
grand  division  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  in  the  years 
1840  and  1850,  substituting,  however,  in  1850,  the  esti- 
mated tax  on  lots  and  lands,  in  1851,  at  the  present  rate 
of  taxation,  under  the  late  assessment,  for  the  actual 
tax  of  1850,  under  a  former  assessment  ;  together  with 
the  amount  and  per  cent,  of  increase  or  decrease  of  tax- 
es, so  ascertained,  between  the  periods  aforesaid. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

With  great  respect, 

Your  ob't  servant, 

Ro.  P.  Johnston. 

First  Auditor. 

To  the  Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason, 

President  of  the  Virginia  State  Convention. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  moved  that  the  communication  be 
laid  ©n  the  table,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  . 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  would  suggest  to  my  friend  from 
Harrison,  the  propriety  of  printing  an  extra  number  of 
this  document.  It  is  a  very  valuable  and  desirable  one, 
and  1  would  suggest  to  him  the  propriety  of  moving  the 
printing  of  two  thousand  copies  of  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  accept  the  suggestion  of  my 
friend  and  move  the  printing  of  two  thousand  copies, 
and  that  the  resolution  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  prefer  that  the  question  should  be 
taken  first,  on  printing  the  document  for  the  use  of  the 
members,  and  that  there  be  a  separate  question  on  the 
additional  printing.  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  print- 
ing an  additional  number  of  these  Census  returns,  be- 
cause we  all  know  that  they  have  to  be  revised  and  cor- 
rected at  Washington,  and  that  they  will  be  printed  in 
almost  unlimited  numbers  by  congress.  It  seems  to  me 
to  be  superfluous  to  involve  us  in  this  additional  expense 
of  printing,  under  these  circumstances. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  had  not  supposed  there  would  be 
the  slightest  objection  to  the  printing  of  an  additional 
number  of  this  document  for  the  use  of  the  Convention, 
when  it  must  be  known  to  every  member  that  the  great 
expense  of  printing  is  in  setting  up  the  types,  and  that 
the  increased  number  would  cost  but  a  trifle.  It  has 
been  suggested  also  by  many  of  the  members  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly  that  these  documents,  or  many  of  them, 
would  be  valuable  to  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  du- 
ties, and  I  think  it  would  be  but  courtesy  to  them  to 
print  enough  of  these  documents  to  supply  them  also. 
It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  printing  of  the  census 
returns  by  the  federal  government,  will  furnish  us  with 
the  list  of  the  taxes  paid  in  each  of  the  counties  of  this 
State.  This  is  what  the  document  just  sent  to  us  fur- 
nishes, and  it  is  desirable  information  to  ail,  and  I  trust 
that  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  adopt 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  The  people  in  the  country  take  very 
considerable  interest  in  many  of  the  documents  that 
have  been  prepared  and  printed  by  order  of  the  Conven- 


272 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tion.  I  have  been  frequently  written  to  for  them,  but 
in  consequence  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Convention 
in  printing  a  few  copies,  I  have  been  unable  to  furnish 
them.  As  it  is  evident  that  the  expense  of  printing 
these  documents  principally  consists  in  the  setting  up  of 
the  types,  I  hope  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  order  the  printing  of  at  least  a  few  extra  copies 
of  it,  in  order  that  not  only  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture may  be  supplied  with  them,  but  the  people  at  large 
to  some  extent  may  have  access  to  them. 

Mr.  GOODE.  I  understand  that  there  is  a  standing 
order  for  the  printing  of  a  certain  number  of  all  docu- 
ments for  the  use  of  the  members.  I  have  no  objection 
to  printing  that  number  of  this  document,  and  I  confess 
I  do  not  attach  a  great  deal  of  importance  to  the  print- 
ing of  an  extra  number.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  it 
would  be  unnecesary  to  print  a  large  number  of  these 
census  returns,  when,  as  I  have  before  said,  they  will 
have  to  be  corrected  at  Washington,  and  will  be  printed 
in  almost  unlimited  numbers  thereby  order  of  congress. 
I  feel  very  little  interest  in  the  subject  at  all,  but  I  de- 
sire that  the  question  may  be  taken  first  on  printing  the 
usual  number. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  that  the  question  would  be 
divided,  to  be  first  taken  on  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  ta- 
ble and  print  according  to  the  standing  order.  The 
question  would  then  recur  on  the  motion  to  print  an  ex- 
tra number. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  and  print  was  agreed  to. 

The  motion  to  print  two  thousand  copies  was  rejected 
— a  count  being  had — ayes  38 — noes  40. 

REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  GOODE,  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  Legislative  Department,  was  taken  from  the 
table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  SUFFRAGE. 

Mr.  EDWARDS.  I  beg  leave  to  present  to  the  Con- 
vention certain  amendments,  which  at  the  proper  time 
I  shall  propose  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Right  of  Suffrage,  and  which  I  ask  may  be  laid  on  the 
table  and  printed. 

The  proposition  is  as  follows : 

1.  In  the  article  relating  to  the  qualifications  of  elec- 
tors, strike  out  of  the  first  section  all  from  the  word 
"  Commonwealth"  in  the  first  line,  to  the  word  "provi- 
ded" in  the  fourteenth  line,  and  insert,  "of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years  and  upwards,  who  shall  have  resided 
in  the  State  one  year,  and  in  the  county,  city  or  town 
in  which  he  may  claim  the  right  to  vote  three  calendar 
months  next  preceding  an  election,  shall  be  deemed  a 
qualified  elector  ;  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  the  right 
of  suffrage  shall  not  be  exercised  by  any  person  who 
shall  ha^e  failed  to  pay3  before  the  day  of  the  election 
at  which  he  may  offer  to  voce,  the  State  and  county 
tax  with  which  he  may  have  been  assessed  for  the  pre- 
ceding year,  nor  by  any  person  of  unsound  mind,  or  who 
shall  be  a  pauper,  or  non-commissioned  officer,  soldier, 
seaman  or  marine  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  or 
by  any  person  convicted  of  an  infamous  offence." 

2.  Strike  out  the  whole  of  the  article  in  relation  to 
the  qualifications  of  senators  and  delegates,  from  the 
words  "  age  of"  in  the  second  line,  and  insert,  "  thirty 
years ;  have  been  a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth  for 
two  years,  and  actually  a  resident  of  the  district  for 
one  year  next  preceding  his  election.  And  any  per- 
son may  be  elected  a  member  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates who  shall  have  attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years;  have  been  a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth  for 
two  years,  and  actually  a  resident  of  the  county,  city, 
town,  or  election  district  for  one  year  next  preceding 
his  election ;  Provided,  however,  that  all  persons  holding- 
offices  under  the  government  of  this  State  or  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  priests  of  ev- 
ery denomination,  shall  be  incapable  of  being  elected 
members  of  either  house  of  assembly." 


The  proposition  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  order- 
ed to  be  printed. 

EXECUTIVE — BASIS    REPORT  PRIORITY    OF  CONSIDERATION. 

Mr.  SCOGGIN.  I  would  inquire  whether  the  report 
of  the  basis  committee  has  priority  over  the  executive 
report  to-day  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Both  reports  have  been  referred 
to  the  committee  of  the  wltole,  and  the  question  can  on- 
ly be  answered  in  committee  of  the  whole.  The  Con- 
vention has  adopted  no  order  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  PRICE.  The  Convention  adopted  an  order  fixing 
this,  as  the  day  on  which  it  would  take  up  the  report  of 
the  basis  committee  and  consider  it  on  every  day  here- 
after until  disposed  of. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  remembers  the  order, 
but  what  I  intended  to  say  was,  that  it  would  be  for 
the  committee  of  the  whole  Convention  to  determine 
the  question,  if  it  should  be  raised  there. 

Mr.  SCOGCIN.  I  intend,  if  it  be  in  order,  to  move 
the  postponement  of  the  consideration  of  the  report  of 
the  basis  committee,  until  we  shall  have  gone  through 
with  the  consideration  of  the  executive  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  report  is  not  pending  be- 
fore the  Convention. 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  committee  of 
the  whole  are  bound  by  the  order  of  the  Convention 
made  some  days  ago.  I  regard  that  order  as  equivalent 
to  an  order  of  the  day.  It  was  an  instruction  to  the 
committee  of  the  whole  to  take  up  the  basis  report  and 
consider  it.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  when  the 
Convention  resolves  its  elf  into  a  committee  of  the  whole, 
it  is  bound  to  take  up  that  report  in  obedience  to  the 
order  made  by  the  Convention.  What  disposition  they 
may  make  of  the  report  when  they  take  it  up,  is  anoth- 
er question  to  be  decided  by  the  committee  of  the  whole. 
They  may  take  it  up  and  consider  it  for  a  time,  and  then 
take  up  any  other  subject. 

Mi-.  SCOGGIN.  I  ask  if  it  is  not  competent  for  the 
Convention  to  rescind  the  order  directing  this  report  to 
be  taken  up  now  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  been  absent  from  the  Con- 
vention for  two  or  three  days,  and  may  not  therefore  be 
perfectly  conversant  with  what  has  been  done  here. 
The  Convention  has  undoubtedly  the  power  to  direct 
the  committee  of  the  whole  as  to  how  it  shall  dispose 
of  its  business.  When  the  Convention  shall  resolve  it- 
self into  committee  of  the  whole,  the  same  gentlemen 
compose  that  committee  who  compose  the  Convention 
itself,  and  therefore  if  the  Convention  will  give  an  in- 
struction to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  it  is  but  a  fair 
and  reasonable  inference,  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  will  pursue  the  same  course  in  regard  to  its  bu- 
siness if  left  uninstructed,  as  if  the  instructions  were 
adopted  by  the  Convention.  I  do  not  understand  that 
an  order  has  been  adopted,  making  it  imperative  on 
the  committee  of  the  whole  to  adopt  any  particular 
order  in  regard  to  its  business.  I  will  examine  the 
order. 

Mr.  PRICE.  The  order  is  obligatory  on  the  course  of 
proceeding  in  the  committee,  unless  re-considered  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  So  I  understood  at  the  time  the 
resolution  was  offered,  and  in  fact  it  was  offered  in  pur- 
suance of  an  intimation  which  I  received,  when  a  few 
days  previous  I  had  attempted  to  make  it  an  order  of 
the  day.  I  was  then  informed  by  the  Chair  that  it  was 
not  competent  to  make  an  order  of  the  day  in  commit- 
tee, but  that  the  committee  of  the  whole,  like  any  other 
committee,  being  in  subordination  to  the  Convention,  is 
bound  to  obey  the  instruction  of  the  Convention.  On 
the  very  next  day,  on  Thursday  last,  I  offered  a  resolu- 
tion to  "accomplish  that  end  which  was  adopted.  And 
while  I  am  up  I  will  move  in  pursuance  of  that  resolu- 
tion, that  the  Convention  now  resolve  itself  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  to  take  up  that  report. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


273 


Mr.  BOTTS.  Is  it  not  now  in  order  to  move  a  re-con- 
sideration ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  motion  to  re-con- 
sider. 

Mr.  BGTTS.  Do  not  the  rules  provide  for  a  motion 
to  re-consider  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  do,  but  the  motion  must  be 
moved  the  next  day  by  a  gentleman  who  voted  in  the 
majority. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  think  the  President  refers  rather  to 
the  rule  in  congress,  than  the  rule  adopted  by  this 
body. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  the 
gentleman  from  Richmond  voted  for  the  proposition, 
that  he  has  certainly  the  right  to  move  a  re-considera- 
tion. The  rule  of  the  Convention  is,  that  any  question 
once  decided,  must  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  shall  not  again  be  called  in  question.  That 
does  not  prevent  a  motion  for  re -consideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  eighth  rale  is,  "  A  question 
being  once  determined,  must  stand  as  the  judgment  of 
the  Convention,  and  shall  not  again  be  drawn  into  de- 
bate." 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Is  there  no  rule  thereafter  that  provides 
for  a  motion  to  re-consider  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  not  aware  of  any.  The 
general  parliamentary  law  is.  that  when  the  jour- 
nal of  the  preceding  day  is  read  for  approval,  it  is  com- 
petent for  any  one  who  voted  in  the  majority,  to  ask  for 
a  re-consideration,  or  in  other  words,  that  the  question 
shall  be  again  put,  that  he  and  others  may  have  an  op- 
portunity to  correct  their  votes. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  The  proper  motion  then,  under  the  de- 
cision of  the  Chair,  would  be  to  rescind  the  resolution 
heretofore  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Kanawha 
has  already  submitted  a  motion  to  go  into  committee  of 
the  whole. 

Mr.  SCOG-GTN.  I  thought  I  had  made  a  motion  pre- 
vious to  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lunenburg, 
the  Chair  supposed,  confined  himself  to  an  inquiry. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  make  this  inquiry.  Was  it  ne- 
cessary that  I  should  submit  the  motion  ?  By  the  terms 
of  the  resolution,  is  not  the  Convention  bound  to  go  into 
committee  at  once  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  would  be  bound 
if  the  hour  was  fixed,  but  there  being  no  hour  fixed,  it 
is  necessary  that  a  motion  should  be  submitted. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desire  to  suggest  to  the  Convention 
that  the  only  consideration  that  has  operated  upon  my 
mind  iu  deciding  to  move  a  re-consideration  of  the  res- 
olution, or  in  voting  now  for  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman over  the  way  (Mr.  Scoggix)  to  rescind  that  res- 
olution  

Mi*.  SUMMERS.  With  the  permission  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico,  let  us  understand  where  we  are. 
What  is  the  motion  pending  before  the  Convention  ?  Is 
it  not  my  motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  did  not  understand 
the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg  (Mr.  Scoggin)  as  sub- 
mitting a  motion.  If  he  did,  then  the  Chair  is  bound  to 
entertain  the  motion. 

Mr.  SCOG-GTN.  It  was  certainly  my  intention  so  to 
do,  and  the  gentlemen  around  me  so  understood  me.  I 
was  merely  asking  information  on  a  question  of  order. 

Mr.  STANARD.  The  gentleman  rose  and  indicated 
his  purpose,  when  in  order,  to  submit  a  motion,  which 
under  the  construction  that  the  Chair  at  the  time  put 
on  the  rule,  the  Chair  indicated  to  him  it  was  not  then 
in  order  to  make.  The  Chair  having  since  re-consider- 
ed its  decision  on  that  subject,  the  gentleman  from  Lu 
nenburg's  motion  is  certainly  as  .much  before  the  Con- 
vention at  this  time,  as  if  the  Chair  at  the  time  had  con- 
sidered it  in  order. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.    But  in  the  meantime  I  had  sub- 
mitted a  motion  to  go  into  committee,  which  motion,  I 
understand,  is  not  debatable. 
3S8 


Mr.  BOTTS.  I  understand  from  the  Chair  that  that 
motion  is  not  now  pending. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  only  motion  pending  is  that 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha.  The  Chair  has 
not  re-considered  or  changed  its  decision  on  the  subject. 
The  question  put  by  the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg 
(Mr.  Scoggin)  was,  whether  it  was  competent  for  the 
Convention  to  go  into  committee,  on  another  question. 
The  Chair  replied  that  it  was  a  question  for  the  com- 
mittee to  decide.  There  is  really  no  practicable  differ- 
ence here.  Whether  the  question  be  put  on  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  or  on  the  motion  indi- 
cated by  the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg,  the  result  will 
be  exactly  the  same. 

A  MEMBER.  One  motion  is  debatable,  the  other  is 
not. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  submit,  with  very  great  deference  to 
the  Chair,  whether  if  the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg 
did  submit  a  proposition  to  rescind  the  resolution,  the 
Chair  is  not  under  obligation  to  entertain  the  motion, 
whether  it  heard  it  or  not  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Unquestionably.  The  Chair  ac- 
knowledges the  obligation  fully,  and  if  the  gentleman 
from  Lunenburg  will  say  that  he  did  submit  a  motion  to 
that  effect,  the  Chair  will  certainly  entertain  it.  Will 
the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg  state  what  his  motion 
was  ? 

Mr.  SCOG-GLN.  There  is  some  impression  around 
that  I  did  not  do  what  I  intended  to  do.  My  object  in 
making  the  inquiry  of  the  Chair  was  with  a  view  to 
ascertain  if  it  was  in  order  to  make  the  motion.  The 
Chair,  however,  did  not  decide  in  time  to  give  me  a 
chance. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  presume  it  will  be  equally  in  order, 
if  I  can  obtain  my  object  by  assigning  my  reasons  why 
we  should  not  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the 
Basis. 

Several  MEMBERS.    The  motion  is  not  debatable. 

Mi-.  WATT£.  I  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  that  if  we  adopt  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha,  and  go  into  committee  of  the 
whole  on  the  Basis  question,  if  the  committee  do  not 
think  proper  to  go  on  with  that  question,  they  can  rise 
and  report  and  then  take  up  such  other  questions  as 
they  design. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  What  is  the  question  now  before  the 
committee  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  on  the  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Am  I  not  at  liberty  to  assign  a  reason 
why  we  should  not  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Under  the  9th  rule,  I  do  not  un- 
derstand that  the  gentleman  is. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Then  we  are  sitting  here  in  Convention 
with  no  power  to  re-consider  a  question,  or  to  state  rea- 
sons, &c. 

<  The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  competent  for  the  Conven- 
tion to  alter  its  rules,  or  to  rescind  an  order.  It  is, 
perhaps,  a  misapprehension  of  terms  under  which  gen- 
tlemen labor  in  reference  to  the  decision  of  the  Chair. 
The  rule  adopted  by  the  Convention  is,  that  its  decis- 
ions must  stand,  and  not  be  again  brought  into  debate. 
But  it  is  in  order  to  make  a  motion  to  rescind,  which 
is  equivalent  to  a  motion  to  re-consider,  and  if  the 
Convention  do  not  adopt  that  motion,  it  is  still  compe- 
tent for  the  committee  of  the  whole  to  pass  by  the 
subject,  and  rise  and  report,  thus  putting  in  the  control 
of  the  Convention,  at  every  step  of  its  proceedings,  the 
disposition  of  its  business. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Is  it  in  order  to  move  to  suspend  the 
rule? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  until  the  Convention  have 
decided  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Well,  then,  I  will  give  up  for  the  pre- 
sent. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Under  the  ninth  rule  it  is  the  ques- 
tion of  reference  that  is  not  debatable,  and  that  ques- 
tion has  been  decided.    The  question  that  is  not  debata- 


274 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ble  is  not  now  before  the  body,  and  all  motions  are  de- 
batable except  those  which  it  is  provided  shall  not  be. 
The  Chair  is  perfectly  right  in  having  disregarded  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg  as  a  mo- 
tion, and  it  was  perfectly  in  order  for  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  to  move  to  go  into  committee  of  the 
whole.  Upon  the  decision  of  that  motion  rests  the 
question  whether  the  Convention  will  go  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  on  this  subject,  or  not.  The  Con- 
vention might  refuse  to  go  into  committee  for  the  whole 
day,  and  if  it  did,  then  the  resolution  would  fall,  of 
course,  and  a  new  resolution  would  have  to  be  offered  to 
go  into  committee  on  another  day.  The  Chair  is  not 
wrong  in  its  position,  as  a  reference  to  the  manual  will 
phow.  The  question  of  going  into  committee  is  always 
to  be  determined  on  a  motion.  The  resolution  before 
us  is,  in  my  view,  in  the  nature  of  an  order  of  the  day — 
that  is,  that  on  such  a  day  the  Convention  will  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole.  Now  what  is  the  parliament- 
ary rule  on  the  subject  ?  It  is,  that  when  an  order  has 
been  made  that  a  particular  subject  shall  be  taken  up 
on  a  particular  day,  the  question  is  put,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  called  up,  whether  the  body  will  then  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  the  matter.  Surely,  gentlemen  do 
not  consider  the  resolution,  adopted  the  other  day,  as 
any  more  than  an  order  of  the  day:  and  even  an  order 
of  the  day  requires  a  motion  to  go  into  committee.  I 
maintain,  therefore,  that  it  is  perfectly  in  order,  on  a 
motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  for  gentle- 
men to  suggest  the  reason  whether  we  shall  go  into 
committee  or  not,  and  that  the  Convention  has  a  right 
to  determine  whether  it  will,  or  not.  This  is  my  view 
of  it. 

Mr.  STANARD.  According  to  my  recollection,  I 
think  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  session,  when  the 
motion  was  first  made  to  go  into  committee  of  the 
whole  on  the  executive  report,  the  precise  question 
was  raised  whether  it  was  in  order  to  discuss  that  mo- 
tion. If  I  am  not  mistaken,  on  that  occasion,  the  Chair 
decided  that  it  was  in  order  to  discuss  the  question,  and 
many  speeches  were  made  on  both  sides,  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  understand  that  the  Chair  has  made  a 
decision,  and  that  there  is  no  appeal  from  that  decision. 
I  ask,  then,  that  the  question  may  be  put,  or  that  this 
question  of  order  shall  not  be  further  discussed  when  no 
appeal  has  been  taken. 

Mr.  WOOLFOLK.  I  think  there  can  be  no  difficulty 
about  this  matter.  If  any  gentleman  desires  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  execu- 
tive committee,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  move  to  amend 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  by  insert- 
ing that  the  Convention  will  go  into  committee,  and 
take  up  for  consideration  the  report  of  that  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  always  take  plea- 
sure, in  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  this  body,  in  re- 
ceiving suggestions  upon  any  new  questions  that  may 
arise.  The  order  that  was  adopted  in  regard  to  the  bu- 
siness of  the  Convention,  is  in  these  words  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Convention  will,  on  Monday  the 
17th  inst,  and  daily  thereafter  until  otherwise  ordered, 
resolve  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  house  for 
the  purpose  of  considering  the  report  on  the  basis  and 
apportionment  of  representation,  and  such  other  amend- 
ments as  may  be  offered  thereto. 

This  is  a  standing  order  of  the  Convention  until  it 
shall  be  otherwise  ordered.  At  its  pleasure,  therefore, 
the  Convention  may  otherwise  order.  The  power  not 
only  exists  generally,  but  is  expressly  conferred  in  the 
resolution  itself.  It  is  not  competent  to  re-consider  that 
order,  for  that  is  a  technical  expression,  and  would  ope- 
rate to  set  aside  the  order  as  if  it  had  never  been  made. 
But  the  power  of  the  Convention,  while  it  does  not  ex- 
tend to  re-consideration  in  the  technical  sense,  necessa- 
rily extends  to  the  power  of  rescinding,  and  thus  attains 
the  object  of  a  re-consideration.  The  resolution  fixes  no 
hour  at  which  the  Convention  shall  resolve  itself  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  and  it  is  necessary,  therefore, 


as  in  all  matters  that  are  orders  of  the  day,  that  there 
should  be  a  motion  made  for  the  purpose  of  executing 
that  order. 

The  interpretation  which  the  Chair  puts  upon  it  is, 
that  the  order  prescribes  the  course  of  proceeding,  and 
that  a  motion  is  necessary  to  go  into  committee  under 
that  order.  If,  on  the  motion  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha,  the  Convention  determine  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole,  the  first  question  that  comes 
up  before  the  committee  will  be  the  report  on  the  basis 
of  representation.  But  then  the  committee  of  the 
whole  will  have  the  control  of  the  subject,  and  may 
pass  it  by,  and  report  to  the  Convention,  and  the  Con- 
vention can  make  another  order,  if  it  is  their  pleasure 
to  do  so.  There  can  be  no  difficulty  on  the  subject  at 
all,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  same  gentlemen  com- 
pose the  committee  of  the  whole  as  compose  the  Con- 
vention. I  am  not  sure  that  the  question  of  going  into 
committee  is  rnot  one  on  which  reasons  may  not  be  as- 
signed. The  ninth  rule,  which  has  been  alluded  to,  is, 
that  the  reports  of  the  various  committees,  when  made, 
are  to  be  referred  without  debate.  Upon  reflection,  I 
do  not  think  that  the  rule  applies  to  a  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole.  I  am  not,  therefore,  pre- 
pared to  decide  that  the  motion  to  go  into  committee 
of  the  whole  is  not  one  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  is  de- 
batable. I  am  inclined  to  think — and,  unless  some 
gentleman  shall  suggest  reasons  to  the  contrary,  shall 
decide — that  it  is  a  question  upon  which  reasons  may 
be  given  why  it  should,  or  should  not,  be  done.  I  shall 
be  happy  to  hear  suggestions  from  gentlemen  who  may 
differ  from  this  construction. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  My  own  impression  is, 
that  in  the  present  condition  of  the  question  , reasons 
cannot  be  assigned  why  we  should  not  go  into  commit- 
tee. There  is  an  imperative  order  of  the  Convention, 
that  on  this  day  the  house  will  resolve  itself  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  and  my  colleague  has  moved  that 
the  Convention  do  now  resolve  itself  into  committee 
of  the  whole.  What  will  it  avail  to  suggest  reasons  to 
the  Convention  why  we  should  not  go  into  committee,  if 
it  be  true  that  this  order  adopted  by  the  Convention  is 
imperative  upon  the  Convention  ?  The  suggestion  of 
reasons  can  result  in  no  valuable  purpose.  The  motion 
of  my  colleague  takes  precedence  of  any  proposition  to 
rescind  that  order.  The  question  must  be  submitted 
to  the  Convention,  and,  therefore,  I  beg  leave  most  re- 
spectfully to  say,  that  it  does  seem  to  me  that,  under 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed,  that 
it  is  not  competent,  on  this  motion,  to  designate  any 
reasons  why  we  should  not  go  into  committee  of  the 
whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion,  that  un- 
der a  proper  interpretation  of  the  rule,  that  reasons 
may  be  given,  at  any  hour  of  the  day,  why  the  Con- 
vention should  not  then  resolve  itself  into  committee 
of  the  whole.  It  is  in  order,  therefore,  for  the  gentle- 
man from  Henrico  to  state  his  reasons,  if  he  desires  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  desired  only  to  suggest  a  single  rea- 
son why  I  was  opposed  to  the  order,  and  why  I  desired 
it  to  be  re-considered  or  rescinded.  I  decidedly  prefer 
that  the  basis  report  shall  be  the  last  that  shall  be  acted 
upon  by  the  Convention.  Personally  I  am  entirely  in- 
different to  the  order  of  business.  I  had  as  lief,  person- 
ally, take  up  that  question  as  any  other,  and  any  other 
as  that.  But,  in  consideration  of  the  public  duty,  be- 
lieving that  I  shall  best  promote  the  interests  of  those 
who  sent  me  here,  as  well  as  the  best  interests  of  the 
entire  Commonwealth,  I  decidedly  prefer  to  see  every 
other  question  acted  on  before  that  is  taken  up,  and  for 
one  reason,  and  that  only.  The  reason  has  had  its  influ- 
ence upon  my  mind,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  has  en- 
tered into  the  minds  of  other  gentlemen.  If  we  take  up 
this  basis  report,  and  act  upon  it  as  the  first  question 
that  is  to  be  considered,  I  am  apprehensive  that  we 
shall  adopt  a  provision  iu  the  constitution  that  will  be 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


275 


obnoxious  to  a  very  large  p©rtion  of  this  body.  Adopt 
what  basis  you  may,  .take  either  of  the  reports  that 
have  been  submitted  to  the  committee,  and  it  must  be 
objectionable  to  a  very  large  portion,  consisting  of  very 
nearly  half  of  this  body.  Now,  I  mean  to  make  no  im- 
putation upon  the  motives  of  any  gentleman  here,  but 
human  nature  is  human  nature  the  world  over,  and 
what  I  apprehend  is  this — 

Mr.  W IS  E.    I  rise  to  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  BOTTS.    State  the  point  of  order. 

Mr.  WISE.  My  point  of  order  is  this :  This  Con- 
vention has  solemnly  resolved  the  very  point  which  the 
gentleman  is  discussing.  He  is  not  debating,  under  the 
decision  of  the  Chair,  whether  we  shall  go  into  commit- 
tee at  this  hour,  but  whether  we  shall  take  up  the  basis 
report  first  or  last. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  call  the  gentleman  to  order,  unless  he 
takes  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Accomac  is 
stating  his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  Chair  has  decided  that  the  point  to 
be  discussed  is,  whether  we  shall  go  into  committee  this 
day  at  the  hoar  moved.  The  Chair  has  decided  that 
the  Convention  has  adopted,  as  a  standing  order,  the 
resolution  to  go  into  committee  some  time  to-day,  but 
as  no  hour  was  fixed,  a  motion  was  required  to  go  into 
committee  at  some  hour.  Now,  that  is  the  sole  ques- 
tion here.  The  question  which  the  gentleman  from 
Henrico  is  discussing  id,  whether  we  shall,  in  effect,  re- 
scind the  resolution  or  not.  He  is  giving  reasons  to 
show  that  we  ought  not,  in  fact,  to  have  adopted  that 
resolution — that  we  ought  not  to  have  resolved,  to-day, 
to  take  up  the  basis  report.  I  hope  that  the  Chair  will 
understand  me.  I  say  that  the  only  point  that  remains 
to  be  determined  is,  whether  we  shall  agree  to  the  mo- 
tion to  go  into  committee,  or  not,  at  this  hour,  and  not 
whether  we  shall  take  up  the  basis  report  first  or  last. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  decision  of  the  Chair  was, 
that  reasons  might  be  suggested  why  the  Convention 
should  not  now  entertain  the  motion  to  go  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole,  for  the  purpose  of  executing  this  or- 
der adopted  by  the  Convention.  The  objection  to  the 
arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  is,  that  they 
go  to  the  merits  of  the  original  question.  The  Chair 
cannot  decide  that  that  course  of  debate  is  out  of  order. 
It  may  be  a  reason  for  not  going  into'  committee  of  the 
whole. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  was  about  to  say,  when  I  was  inter- 
rupted by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  that  human 
nature  is  human  nature  the  world  over,  and  that  I  in- 
tended to  cast  no  imputation  upon  the  motives  or  con- 
duct of  any  gentleman  here,  when  I  expressed  my  ap- 
prehension that  if  we  take  up  this  question  first,  and 
make  a  decision  upon  it,  so  obnoxious  to  so  large  a  por- 
tion of  the  house,  as  I  apprehend  it  will  be,  let  it  be  de- 
cided as  it  may,  that  instead  of  bending  all  our  energies 
to  perfect  a  constitution,  and  to  make  every  part  of  the 
constitution  as  perfect  as  passible,  that  there  will  be  an 
indisposition  to  labor  to  that  end,  if  there  is  not  a  dis- 
position of  an  opposite  character  to  make  every  other 
provision  as  objectionable  as  it  may  be  made,  in  order 
to  secure  the  rejection  of  the  constitution  when  it  shall 
come  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  Now,  I  believe 
that  if  we  take  up  every  other  proposition  first — and  I 
can  see  no  reason  for  hastening  this  question,  and  I  do 
not  believe  that  its  determination  is  to  depend  upon  the 
time  at  which  it  is  to  be  taken  up — there  will  be  a  gen- 
eral and  universal  desire  on  the  part  of  every  mem- 
ber of  this  body,  to  perfect  every  part  of  the  con- 
stitution and  to  make  it  as  acceptable  as  possible  to  the 
people  of  the  Commonwealth.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
believe  that  if  we  make  the  first  provision  so  obnox- 
ious and  unacceptable  to  a  large  portion  of  the  body, 
that  we  shall  find  gentlemen  here  looking  to  destroy  in- 
stead of  looking  to  perfect  it.  That  is  the  reason,  and 
the  only  reason,  which  has  operated  on  my  mind  in  this 


matter,  and  I  think  it  is  entitled  to  the  consideration  of 
the  members  of  this  body. 

Mr.  SCOGCIN.  The  only  reason  that  I  desired  that 
the  consideration  of  the  basis  report  should  be  postpon- 
ed, was,  that  I  thought  that  time  might  be  saved  by  get- 
ting through  with  the  consideration  of  the  executive  re- 
port. I  had  no  other  idea  than  the  saviDg  of  time,  and 
I  do  not  see  how  any  inconvenience  can  result  to  any 
body  by  the  adoption  of  that  course.  When  I  inquired 
of  the  Chair  if  it  was  in  order  to  submit  a  motion,  and 
when,  while  waiting  for  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  and 
before  I  could  submit  that  motion,  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha  moved  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
that  was  the  only  object  I  had  in  view.  I  desired,  with 
a  view  of  saving  time,  that  we  should  dispose  of  the 
executive  report,  before  we  took  up  the  report  on  the 
basis. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  regret  that  the  submission  of  a 
motion  by  myself  interferes  in  any  degree  with  the  pur- 
poses of  the  gentleman  from  Lunenburg.  I  certainly 
was  not  aware  that  he  had  indicated  his  purpose  of  sub- 
mitting a  motion,  or  I  should  not  have  interfered  with 
his  intentions  in  that  respect.  The  reason  he  suggests 
for  not  going  into  committee  of  the  whole  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  the  basis  question,  is  a  very  legiti- 
mate one  for  those  who  think  as  he  does.  It  may  be 
that  a  large  portion  of  the  Convention  may  be  of  the 
opinion  that  it  is  better  to  go  on  with  the  report  of  the 
executive  committee  and  finish  it  before  we  take  up  oth- 
er business,  and  how  far  this  opinion  may  be  correct  or 
incorrect,  it  is  not  for  me,  of  course,  to  determine.  But 
I  regret  that  my  friend  from  Henrico  has  deemed  it  his 
duty  to  submit  the  reason  which  he  has,  why  we  should 
not  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  basis  report. 
He  seems  to  think  that  if  we  shall  go  into  this  exciting 
subject,  let  it  be  determined  as  it  may,  it  will  unfit  us 
for  the  due  consideration  of  the  other  great  questions 
connected  with  the  remodeling  of  our  organic  law. 
Now,  if  I  am  not  very  much  mistaken,  if  my  memory 
has  not  failed  me  in  this  particular,  my  friend  from  the 
county  of  Henrico,  in  the  month  of  October,  united  with 
those  who  desired  an  adjournment  of  the  Convention 
for  the  very  purpose  of  procuring  the  materials  upon 
which  we  were  to  act  upon  this  very  identical  question. 
I  understood  the  gentleman  as  concurring  with  those 
who  advocated  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention, 
that  the  basis  question  should  stand  in  the  front  and  not 
in  the  rear,  where  he  now  seeks  to  place  it.  I  certainly 
understood  that  gentleman  with  others  who  voted  for 
the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  at  that  time,  to  do 
so  for  the  reasons  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Hal- 
ifax, and  I  believe,  by  the  gentleman  from  Pittsylva- 
nia, that  this  basis  question  should  precede  all  others. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  cor- 
rect him  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  He  is  entirely  mistaken.  I  voted  for 
the  adjournment  in  order  to  afford  time  and  opportunity 
to  obtain  statistical  information  deemed  important  to 
the  consideration  of  this  basis  question.  And  I  call  on 
the  gentleman  himself,  as  well  as  every  other  gentle- 
man, to  bear  witness  to  the  fact*  that  I  stated  on  that 
occasion,  as  I  have  stated  to-day,  that,  for  my  own  part, 
I  was  perfectly  indifferent  as  to  the  order  of  business, 
but  that  my  belief  was,  that  if  we  remained  in  session 
from  the  1st  of  October  until  the  1st  of  January,  with- 
out these  statistics,  that  nothing  would  be  done,  except 
to  turn  our  hall  of  meeting  into  a  political  debating 
club  room.  My  object  was  to  save  time.  But  if  it  was 
not,  if  the  gentleman  has  not  misapprehended  me,  I  pre- 
sume it  would  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  him  to  say,  that 
upon  reflection  I  have  changed  my  mind. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Every  gentleman  has  the  right  to 
change  his  mind  on  any  question,  and  I  do  not  charge 
any  thing  improper  in  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  if 
this  change  has  come  over  him.  I  may  be  mistaken  in 
assigning  the  gentleman  the  position  whieh  my  memory 


276 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


does,  but  has  he  not  said  that  now,  which  is  equivalent 
to  taking  the  same  position?  He  says  that  he  expressed 
himself  as  personally  indifferent  to  the  course  of  pro- 
ceeding, as  he  now  expresses  himself,  but  he  took  it  for 
granted,  that  if  the  Convention  proceeded  to  the  con- 
sideration of  other  departments  of  the  government,  in 
the  absence  of  materials,  having  reference  to  the  basis 
question,  that  the  body  would  be  converted  into  a  po- 
litical debating  society,  or  something  of  the  kind.  "Was 
it  not  a  natural  inference  then,  that  the  basis  question 
should  first  occupy  the  consideration  of  the  body  ?  Oth- 
erwise, what  was  the  necessity  for  the  statistics,  the 
absence  of  which  produced  the  adjournment  ?  If  then 
he  was  in  favor  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention, 
for  the  purpose  of  procuring  this  statistical  infoimation, 
to  enable  the  Convention  to  proceed  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  subject  of  the  basis,  does  it  not  necessarily 
follow  that  he  must  have  entertained  the  opinion, 
that  the  basis  question  should  first  have  occupied  the 
attention  of  the  body  ?  If,  in  the  absence  of  this  in- 
formation, we  were  in  a  condition  to  do  nothing,  and 
could  have  proceeded  to  the  consideration  usefully  of 
no  other  branch  of  the  Constitution,  it  carries  with  it 
the  concession  that  this  subject  ought  first  to  have  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  the  body.  But  I  have  regarded 
it  as  conceded  all  around.  It  had  seemed  to  me  to  be 
the  general,  if  not  the  universal  opinion  in  this  body, 
that  this  great  agitating  question  should  first  be  grap- 
pled with,  and  I  had  certainly  considered  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico  as  concurring  in  that  opinion.  The  ad- 
journment of  the  Convention,  and  every  thing  which  has 
occurred  since,  has  but  confirmed  me  in  the  belief  that 
the  general  opinion  was,  that  we  should  first  take  hold 
of  that  subject  and  settle  it.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Henrico,  if  his  opinion  or  prophecy  be  correct,  that 
if  we  proceed  now  to  the  disposition  of  this  subject, 
that  there  will  be  half  the  house  one  way  or  the  other 
dissatisfied,  and  that  we  shall  be  in  a  condition  unfit- 
ting us  for  the  proper  consideration  of  the  other  busi- 
ness of  the  Convention,  if  he  does  not  perceive  that  if 
we  now  pass  by  this  subject,  and  proceed  to  the  consid- 
eration of  other  business,  that  he  will  be  producing  the 
very  feeling  that  he  anticipates  ?  And  while  up,  per- 
mit me  to  say  that  one  very  great  consideration  with 
me,  in  now  desiring  to  go  into  committee  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  up  this  basis  report,  is,  that  we  may  rid 
ourselves  of  other  and  exciting  topics  of  agitating  dis- 
cussion, which,  with  all  due  deference  to  those  who 
have  participated  in  it,  I  cannot  but  regard  as  an  ex- 
tremely unfortunate  one  to  have  been  aroused  here.  If 
I  have  any  knowledge  of  what  we  were  sent  here  to  do, 
we  were  at  least  not  sent  here,  as  I  conceive,  to  discuss 
or  to  decide  whether  secession  would  be  a  constitutional 
remedy  for  State  grievances,  or  whether  it  be  a  right 
of  revolution.  Where  are  we  now  ?  Upon  an  open  sea, 
wide  and  shoreless  ;  and  if  we  shall  fail  to  go  into  the 
consideration  of  this  basis  question,  this  executive  re- 
port again  comes  up,  and  we  are  to  go  still  further  on 
with  the  wide  and  boundless  discussion  which  has  been 
entertained  here  in  reference  to  the  powers  of  the  exec- 
utive, and  the  powers  that  shall  be  conferred  upon  him. 
A  foreigner  who  should  have  come  among  us  within  the 
last  two  or  three  days,  unacquainted  with  our  institu- 
tions and  with  the  proceedings  of  this  body,  might  well 
have  conceived  that  we  were  here  deliberating  on  a  ques- 
tion of  peace  and  war,  and  on  the  propriety  of  a  de- 
claration of  war.  The  least  he  could  say  would  be  that 
there  were  those  here  who  deemed  it  more  important 
to  arm  the  State  government  with  the  power  to  battle 
with  and  resist  the  authority  of  the  federal  government, 
than  to  infuse  into  the  State  government  itself  those 
principles  which  shall  give  it  internal  vigor  and  develop 
its  own  powers  and  resources.  I  think  that  the  people 
of  this  Commonwealth  sent  us  here  to  infuse  into  this 
government  of  ours  a  degree  of  popular  energy  which 
it  has  never  yet  had.  They  have  not  sent  us  here  to  go 
out  of  the  Union,  to  resist  the  action  of  another  gov- 
ernment to  which  we  belong  and  of  which  we  are  a  part, 


but  to  settle  the  foundation  of  our  own  prosperity,  and  to 
place  our  institutions  on  the  best  and  wisest  footing.  And 
it  is  for  the  very  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  topics  so  agitat- 
ing and  exciting  as  those  which  have  recently  entered  this 
body,  that  I  prefer  now  to  go  into  the  consideration  of 
this  basis  question.  You  talk  of  the  basis  question  as 
being  an  agitating  one,  and  as  unfitting  the  minds  of  the 
members  of  this  body  to  proceed  candidly  and  fairly  to 
the  consideration  of  other  subjects,  yet  are  you  better 
enabled  thus  to  discharge  your  duty  from  a  participa- 
tion in  the  still  more  exciting  topics  of  discussion  which 
have  entered  here  ?  Lay  aside  the  basis  question  and 
go  on  with  the  question  of  secession  and  disunion,  and 
what  have  you  gained  by  the  change  that  will  enable 
you  coolly,  calmly  and  wisely  to  lay  the  foundation  of 
your  State  government  ? 

I  hope  that  it  will  not  be  the  pleasure  of  this  body  to 
rescind  this  resolution,  solemnly  adopted  on  Thursday 
last,  and  which  was  regarded  on  all  sides  as  an  expres- 
sion of  the  determination  of  this  body  to  take  up  the 
basis  question  first,  and  to  proceed  with  it.  I  hope  it 
will  adhere  to  that  resolution.  If  it  be  an  agitating 
question,  and  one  calculated  to  excite  feeling  here,  let  it 
be  remembered  that  it  is  one  which  above  all  others  in- 
terests and  excites  our  constituents.  The  whole  State 
is  interested  in  our  proceeding  to  the  settlement  of  this 
question  in  some  form,  and  I  will  not  indulge  in  the 
gloomy  anticipations  which  the  gentleman  from  Henri- 
co has  expressed  here,  and  I  hope  that  his  prophecy  will 
not  be  fulfilled.  Although  I  do  not  concur  in  the  remark 
made  by  his  colleague  the  other  day,  that  he  was  more 
distinguished  for  his  spirit  of  prophecy  than  any  thing 
else,  I  do  hope  that  at  least  in  this  instance,  his  pro- 
phetic vision  will  be  found  to  have  been  mistaken.  I 
will  not  permit  myself  to  believe  that  after  we  have  set- 
tled this  question,  we  shall  be  found  arrayed  as  we  are 
now  arrayed — half  on  one  side  and  half  on  the  other — 
the  one  exulting  triumphant  and  the  other  greatly  dis- 
satisfied and  desponding.  I  hope  we  shall  come  to  bet- 
ter results  than  the  gentleman  anticipates,  and  I  shall 
yet  cling  to  the  hope  that  we  may  arrive  at  results  much 
more  in  accordance  with  the  general  wish,  and  more 
harmonizing  with  the  prosperity  and  glory  of  this  old 
commonwealth.  I  hope,  therefore,  this  resolution  will 
not  be  rescinded,  and  that  the  report  will  at  once  be 
taken  up.  I  will  conclude  the  remarks  which  I  have 
thus  hastily  thrown  out,  by  asking  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  BOTTS.  In  rising  to  reply  to  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha,  I  beg  leave  to  say  it  is  net  because  I 
consider  myself,  as  in  the  slightest  degree  obnoxious  to 
his  animadversions  in  regard  to  the  debate  which  has 
taken  place  on  the  executive  report.  The  gentleman 
has  wholly  misunderstood  the  nature  of  my  objection. 
I  simply  expressed  an  apprehension — I  did  not  make 
the  prophecy.  An  apprehension  or  a  fear  expressed 
is  not  a  prophecy.  I  merely  expressed  the  apprehension 
that  if  we  decided  this  question  as  we  must  decide  it, 
either  in  favor  of  the  one  plan  or  the  other,  that  it  would 
produce  a  very  unhappy  and  unpleasant  state  of  things. 
It  was  not  the  agitation  of  the  question,  and  I  never 
apprehended  the  discussion  of  the  question  was  to  un- 
balance the  minds  of  this  body  for  the  determination 
of  other  great  questions,  nor  do  I  indulge  in  the  appre- 
hensions of  the  gentleman  that  the  discussion  of  the 
question  of  secession  and  nullification  is  to  disqualify 
the  minds  of  the  members  of  this  body  from  the  settle- 
ment of  other  important  questions.  Not  at  all.  I  de- 
precate the  introduction  of  these  questions  into  this 
body  as  much  as  any  other  gentleman,  but  I  can  see  no 
effect  which  this  discussion  is  to  produce  on  my  mind,  or 
on  the  mind  of  any  other  member,  so  as  to  prejudice  in 
the  slightest  degree  the  consideration  of  other  questions. 
But  the  very  thing  is,  the  decision  which  may  be  arrived 
at  on  this  basis  question.  We  do  know  that  there  are 
two  sectional  parties  here  contending  for  opposite  prin- 
ciples in  regard  to  this  basis  of  representation,  and  the 
apprehension  that  I  expressed  was.  that  when  you  came 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


277 


to  decide  and  fix  in  the  constitution,  as  you  cannot  fix 
nullification  and  secession  in  your  constitution,  a  propo- 
sition so  objectionable  to  a  large  portion  of  this  Conven- 
tion as  either  of  these  basis  reports,  that  they  may  be- 
come utterly  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  other  questions, 
if  it  did  not  produce  a  desire  on  their  part  to  make  ev- 
ery other  provision  of  the  constitution  equally  objection- 
able to  the  particular  section  of  country  against  whom 
this  question  should  be  decided,  so  as  to  insure  its  defeat 
before  the  people.  Thus,  instead  of  perfecting  the  work 
we  are  sent  here  to  perform,  we  should  be  engaged  in 
destroying  it.    That  was  my  idea. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  voted  for  the  adjournment  of 
the  Convention  with  the  express  understanding  that  the 
basis  question  was  the  foundation  upon  which  this  con- 
stitution was  to  stand,  and  I  had  thought  that  all  those 
gentlemen  from  eastern  Virginia  who  voted  with  me, 
together  with  those  from  western  Virginia,  in  favor  of 
that  adjournment,  were  influenced  by  the  same  consid- 
erations. But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  gentlemen  are 
now  disposed  to  shingle  the  house  before  the  walls  have 
been  raised.  I  am,  however,  still  of  the  opinion  that 
this  question  of  the  basis  should  be  settled  before  any 
other  step  is  taken  in  the  progress  of  our  labors.  And 
if  we  are  to  break  up  without  accomplishing  any  thing, 
why  in  my  opinion  the  sooner  this  Convention  adjourns 
the  better.  If  no  constitution  is  to  be  framed  by  this 
body  that  will  be  adopted  by  the  people,  why  the  soon- 
er the  deliberations  of  this  body  are  brought  to  a  close, 
the  better  it  will  be  for  the  commonwealth.  And  re- 
garding this  question  as  the  first  which  should  be  settled, 
and  as  the  only  one  in  regard  to  which  there  will  be 
much  difference  of  opinion  in  this  Convention,  I  hope 
that  we  shall  at  once  enter  upon  its  consideration.  And 
in  giving  my  vote  to  that  end,  I  shall  be  only  carrying 
out  the  purpose  established  by  the  adjournment  of  the 
Convention  in  October  last. 

Mr.  COX.  As  the  yeas  and  nays  have  been  orderev), 
I  desire  to  state  briefly  the  reason  which  will  govern 
me  in  the  vote  I  am  called  upon  to  give.  I  prefer,  with 
the  gentleman  from  Henrico,  that  the  basis  question 
should  be  the  last  settled,  and  I  believe  with  him  that 
we  would  be  more  likely  to  have  abetter  constitution  if 
the  question  was  settled  last.  But  the  question  with  me 
is,  can  this  be  done,  and  I  put  the  question  to  every  gen- 
tleman here  who  has  watched  the  progress  of  our  debates 
from  the  very  moment  we  met  down  to  the  present  time  ? 
I  appeal  to  every  gentleman  who  has  noticed  the  lati- 
tude of  discussion  indulged  inhere,  if  on  every  occasion 
the  question  of  the  basis  has  not  in  some  shape  or  other 
been  lugged  into  it  \  This  has  induced  me  to  believe 
that  we  can  settle  no  question  until  we  have  first  settled 
the  basis.  If  I  thought,  with  the  gentleman  from  Hen- 
rico, that  we  could  do  it,  I  would  vote  with  him,  and 
put  off  the  basis  to  the  last ;  but  believing  that  we  can 
settle  no  other  question  until  the  basis  question  is  set- 
tled, I  shall  vote  now  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  proceed  with  it  until  it  is  decided.  I  believe  that 
unless  some  such  plan  is  adopted,  there  will  be  no  tell- 
ing when  our  debates  will  close.  I  have  no  hopes  cer- 
tainly that  we  shall  get  away  before  dog-days.  1  hope, 
therefore,  we  shall  at  once  proceed  to  the  settlement  of 
this  basis  question,  and  however  it  may  be  settled,  I 
trust  we  shall  go  on  harmoniously  to  make  the  best  con- 
stitution we  can. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  voted  in  the  month  of  October 
for  the  adjournment  of  this  Convention,  until  these  ma- 
terials could  be  procured  ;  and  as  I  intend  to  vote  now 
against  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  I 
beg  leave  to  state  why  I  do  so.  It  is  with  no  purpose 
on  my  part  of  postponing  the  decision  of  the  basis 
question,  until  we  shall  have  decided  all  others.  But 
I  am  of  opinion  now — I  know  it  is  so  in  regard  to  my- 
self, and  I  apprehend  it  is  so  in  relation  to  other  mem- 
bers— that  we  are  not  prepared  to-day,  to  take  up  this 
basis  question.  I  believe  the  two  reports  presented  by 
the  committee  do  not  present  in  any  tangible  form  for 
our  discussion,  the  real  question  of  the  basis  of  repre- 


sentation. I  believe  that  question  is  presented  in  the 
form  of  the  amendment  submitted  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  ;  and  that  has  this  morning,  for  the  first 
time,  been  put  in  my  hands  in  a  printed  form.  I  desire 
time  to  examine  it,  and  I  should  have  been  very  glad  if 
my  friend  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Summers)  had  consented 
to  postpone  this  matter,  for  at  least  one  day  longer.  It 
is  a  very  grave  question,  and  I  am  perfectly  certain,  in 
my  own  mind,  that  if  we  go  into  discussion  now,  upon 
the  reports  submitted  by  these  two  committees,  or  by 
the  committee  in  the  name  of  its  two  sub-committees, 
that  we  shall  make  no  progress.  We  shall  find  our- 
selves, as  a  matterof  necessity,  involved  in  a  discussion,, 
not  of  the  basis  of  representation,  but,  in  the  first  place, 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  representation  ought  to  be 
apportioned  in  the  four  great  divisions  of  the  Common- 
wealth. I  hope,  therefore,  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Convention  not  to  go  into  that  subject  to-day,, 
but  to  pass  it  by  until  all  shall  have  had  an  opportunity 
of  examining  this  amendment,  which  in  my  judgment, 
does  present  the  real  question  for  us  to  discuss. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  As  those  with  whom  I  act  upon 
this  question  are  not  ready  to  go  into  this  discussion  to- 
day, I  trust  that  the  Convention  will  postpone  the  order 
for  a  day  or  two,  with  the  understanding  that  it  shall  be 
taken  up  in  a  very  short  time.  It  is  a  mere  question  of 
courtesy  I  think. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  remark  submitted  by  my 
friend  from  Halifax,  (Mr.  Edmunds,)  calls  upon  me  to 
act  upon  a  ground  not  heretofore  presented.  He  re- 
quests the  postponement  for  a  short  time  on  the  ground 
of  the  want  of  preparation  on  the  part  of  some  gen- 
tlemen in  the  body,  to  proceed  in  the  discussion  now. 
If  I  pursued  the  inclinations  of  my  mind,  I  shou]d  most 
cheerfully  yield  to  any  suggestion  of  the  kind.  But 
there  is  a  difficulty  which  presents  itself.  If  we  pass 
this  matter  to-day,  when  shall  we  get  at  it  again.  If 
we  pass  this  matter  to-day,  and  go  into  a  discussion  of 
the  questions  which  have  arisen  on  the  executive  report, 
to-morrow,  or  the  next  day,  will  find  us  still  further  re- 
moved from  any  probability  of  taking  hold  of  questions 
arising  on  the  basis  report.  If  gentlemen  will  devise 
any  scheme  by  which  the  laying  over  the  basis  report 
to-day,  will  not  prevent  us  from  certainly  taking  it  up 
to-morrow,  why,  so  far  as  an  individual  member  is  con- 
cerned, I  have  no  objection.  But  unless  I  can  be  satis- 
fied that  passing  it  by  to-day,  will  not  result  in  produ- 
cing still  greater  uncertainty  as  to  the  time  when  it 
shall  come  up,  I  must  adhere  to  the  motion  which  I  made. 
And  1  would  remarkto  my  friend  on  the  other  side,  that 
when  we  have  gone  into  the  committee  of  the  whole, 
and  made  some  progress,  it  may  be  that  a  motion  to 
rise  may  be  made  before  any  necessity  shall  arise  for 
any  objection  on  their  part. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  should  be  perfectly  content,  so  far 
as  lam  concerned,  that  the  day  after  to-marrow  should 
be  fixed,  with  the  general  approbation,  for  taking  up  this 
basis  report.  I  do  not  know  the  precise  manner  in 
which  this  is  to  be  accomplished. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  ask  my  friend  from  Loudoun, 
if  we  go  into  the  consideration  of  the  executive  re- 
port, if  it  may  not  be  that  to-morrow  when  we  adjourn, 
some  gentleman  will  be  entitled  to  the  floor.  A  ques- 
tion of  deep  importance  may  be  started,  explanations 
may  be  considered  necessary,  in  order  to  place  a  gen- 
tleman in  his  proper  position  before  the  country,  and 
thus  the  basis  question  may  again  be  shut  out.  A 
Sunday  having  intervened  since  the  last  discussion  on 
the  executive  report,  it  seems  to  me  the  better  course 
will  be  to  begin  afresh  with  another  subject  this  morn- 
ing. 

Mr.  BROWN.  This  further  difficulty  presents  itself 
to  my  mind.  Suppose  we  fail  to-day  to  go  into  commit- 
tee of  the  whole  on  this  subject,  will  it  not  in  effect  re- 
scind and  destroy  this  force  of  the  order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  sir,  not  unless  another  or- 
der was  adopted. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Then  I  suppose  we  might  pass  it  by, 
if  gentlemen  so  earnestly  desire  it,  with  a  general  un- 


278 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


derstanding  as  to  when  it  shall  be  taken  up,  without  any 
serious  inconvenience. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  think  that  by  going  on  with  the  re- 
port of  the  basis  committee,  we  shall  attain  at  least 
one  good  end,  and  that  is,  get  clear  of  the  discussion 
which  has  sprung  up  on  the  report  of  the  executive 
committee.  That,  I  think,  is  a  very  important  consid- 
eration. There  is  another  reason  also,  why  we  should 
go  on  with  the  report.  It  is  certainly  the  most  import- 
ant question  that  will  come  up  for  consideration,  and  it 
commends  itself  therefore  to  primary  consideration  on 
account  of  its  intrinsic  importance.  My  friend  from 
Loudoun  says  that  he  is  not  prepared,  but  no  one,  I 
suppose,  has  any  idea  that  this  discussion  will  terminate 
to-day,  or  to-morrow,  or  next  day. 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  did  not  say  that  I  would  take  any 
part  in  the  discussion.  When  I  said  I  was  not  prepared, 
I  meant  that  I  was  not  ready  to  go  into  the  considera- 
tion of  the  question. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Then  there  is  no  reason  for  a  postpone- 
ment, for  if  my  friend  is  not  prepared  to  vote  now,  he 
certainly  will  be,  by  the  time  this  discussion  terminates. 
I  hope,  therefore,  he  will  withdraw  his  objection  to  pro- 
ceeding to  the  consideration  of  this  report. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  I  am  one  of  those  who  originally 
thought  that  this  question  of  the  basis  ought  to  be  the 
last  settled  by  this  body,  and  that  we  might  have  gone 
on  to  settle  all  others  before  we  proceeded  to  its  consid- 
eration. I  am  perfectly  satisfied,  however,  from  the 
discussions  which  have  taken  place  during  the  last 
twelve  or  fourteen  days,  that  we  can  never  proceed  with 
the  arrangement  of  any  of  the  departments  of  govern- 
ment, until  we  have  disposed  of  this  question  of  the  ba- 
sis. Therefore,  if  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  will 
defer  his  motion  for  a  few  days,  and  let  us  dispose  of 
the  question  now  pending,  I,  for  one,  will  unite  with 
him  and  others  in  advocating  the  taking  up  of  the  basis 
question,  in  order  to  make  at  once  a  final  disposition  of 
it.  I  ask  of  the  gentleman  that  he  will  accept  the  prop- 
osition made  by  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun,  and  let 
this  question  be  deferred  until  Wednesday,  and  then  we 
may  all  come  better  prepared,  having  finished  this  part 
of  the  executive  report,  for  the  consideration  of  the  ba- 
sis report. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  am  reluctant  to 
trouble  the  Convention,  but  to  my  mind  there  is  a  doubt 
at  least,  whether  at  some  future  day  we  can  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole  on  this  subject,  without  now 
taking  it  up,  arising  from  the  terms  of  the  order  itself. 
That  order  declares  that  on  this  day  the  Convention 
will  resolve  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole,  and 
so  on  from  day  to  day.  If  we  fail  this  day  to  resolve 
ourselves  into  committee  of  the  whole,  is  not  the  order 
rendered  null  and  void,  and  is  it  not  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  take  some  substantive  and  distinct  action  in  re- 
gard to  it  ?  My  object  in  rising  is  to  ask  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Chair  to  the  terms  of  the  order,  and  to  in- 
quire whether  the  result  will  not  follow  which  I  have 
indicated. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would  appear  to  me  beyond 
doubt,  that  the  order  is  a  subsisting  one,  and  that  it 
will  no  more  effect  that  order,  should  the  Convention 
fail  to  go  into  committee  to-day,  than  it  would  if  it 
should  fail  to  do  so  any  day  afterwards.  But  the  mat- 
ter can  be  arranged  beyond  all  doubt,  if  there  is  any 
doubt  on  the  subject.  If  the  Convention  will  resolve 
itself  into  committee  of  the  whole,  they  can  pass  the 
subject  by  and  not  act  on  it  until  a  subsequent  day. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  hope  that  course  will  not  be  taken,  for 
the  reason  of  the  decision  which  the  Chair  has  made,  a 
reason  that  will  decide  my  mind  not  to  postpone,  upon 
the  ground  that  a  motion  was  attempted  to  be  made 
this  morning  to  rescind  the  rule,  which  motion  was  an- 
ticipated by  a  motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole, 
upon  which  the  Chair  entertained  a  discussion  of  the 
whole  merits  of  the  question  of  rescinding  the  rule. 
When  the  question  of  going  into  committee  comes  up 
again,  we  shall  have  another  discussion  of  the  question 


of  rescinding  the  rule,  and  so  on  from  day  to  day,  and 
thus  this  rule  which  has  once  been  adopted  and  made  a 
standing  order  of  the  Convention,  will  be  kept  open  from 
day  to  day  ad  infinitum.  ISTow  that  is  a  controlling 
reason  with  me  not  to  postpone  this  order.  I  shall  vote 
to  go  into  committee  now  and  for  the  reasons  so  clearly 
and  wisely  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Chesterfield 
(Mr.  Cox.)  Every  gentleman  here  will  reserve  something 
in  his  own  mind  made  to  depend  upon  the  question  of 
the  basis  of  representation.  This  debate  upon  the  ex- 
ecutive department  has  been  kept  open  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  wait  the  coming  in  of  the  other  question. 
It  has  been  spun  out,  it  has  been  widened  by  reason  of 
waiting  for  this  basis  question.  The  question  will  come 
up  on  every  other  subject  other  than  that  of  the  basis 
question,  and  from  now  until  long  past  the  dog-days  you 
will  have  discussion  spun  out  and  attenuated,  ad  infini- 
tum, until  the  basis  is  fully  settled.  The  moment  that 
great  struggle  is  over  and  all  the  strength  of  debate,  all 
the  desire  for  debate,  and  all  the  voting  is  at  an  end  up- 
on this  question,  at  once  this  body  collapses,  and  the 
other  questions  will  appear  to  be  of  so  much  less  conse- 
quence that  we  can  easily  come  to  a  decision  upon  them. 
I  for  one  shall  vote  upon  the  other  questions  in  this  body 
as  if  the  basis  question  did  not  exist.  I  shall  vote  pre- 
cisely on  the  other  questions  of  reform  now  as  I  would 
hereafter,  whether  this  basis  question  be  decided  pro  or 
con.  As  to  the  reason  assigned  by  the  gentleman  from 
Loudoun  that  he  is  not  ready  because  one  of  the  proposi- 
tions has  but  just  come  in  to-day,  it  does  not  appear  to 
me  to  be  sufficient  for  a  postponement.  The  proposition, 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  does  not  differ  from  the 
proposition  already  before  the  Convention  except  that 
the  one  is  a  blank  proposition  and  the  other  is  not.  I 
do  not  know  who  is  prepared  or  who  is  not  prepared  for 
a  blank  proposition,  and  a  proposition  of  that  kind  may 
defer  our  action  forever,  but  I  am  certain  that  nothing 
can  be  done,  that  nothing  will  be  done,  and  that  every 
thing  in  the  heavens  above  and  on  the  earth  below  will  be 
debated  and  discussed  until  this  basis  question  is  settled. 
Settle  that  and  we  are  at  once  collapsed  and  ready  to 
go  home. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole  and  there  were  yeas  80,  nays  32, 
as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  John  Y.Mason,(Pres't,)An  Person,  Arm- 
strong, Arthur,  Banks,  Barbour,  Beale,  Bird  of  Shenan- 
doah, Bland,  Bocock,  Brown,  Byrd  of  Frederick,  Cam- 
den, Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chapman, 
Claiborne,  Cook,  Cox,  Deneale,  Edwards,  Faulkner, 
Fisher,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  M.  R.  H.  Gar- 
nett,  Hays,  Hill,  Hoge,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Johnson,  Jones, 
Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher,  Ligon,  Lionberger, 
Lucas,  McCamant,  McCandlish,  McComas,  Martin  of 
Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moore, 
Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Newman,  Pendleton,  Price,  Ran- 
dolph, Saunders,  Seymour,  Sheffey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Ka- 
nawha, Smith  of  King  and  Queen,  Smith  of  Greenbrier, 
Smith  of  Jackson,  Stephenson,  Stewart  of  Morgan,  Stuart 
of  Patrick,  Summers,  Tate,  Taylor,  Trigg,  Van  Winkle, 
Watts  of  Roanoke,  White,  Whittle,  Willey,  Williams  of 
Shenandoah,  Wise,  Wysor — 80. 

Nays — Messrs.  Botts,  Bowles,  Burges,  Chambliss, 
Cock,  Davis,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Flood,  Garland,  Goode, 
Hall,  Hopkins,  Janney,  Lynch  Moncure,  Purkins,  Scog- 
gin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of  Rich- 
mond city,  Shell,  Smith  of  Norfolk  couDty,  Southall, 
Stanard,  Straughan,  Tredway,  Turnbull,  Wallace,  Watts 
of  Norfolk  county,  Williams  of  Fairfax,  Woolfolk— 32. 

So  the  motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  was 
agreed  to. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &c. 
The  Convention  then  resolved  itself  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair,)  and  took  up  for  con- 
sideration the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Basis 
and  Apportionment  of  Representation. 

The  reading  of  the  report  was  dispensed  with,  on  mo- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


279 


tion  of  Mr.  Summees,  it  being  printed  and  in  the  hands 
of  members. 

Mi-.  SUMMERS  then  moved  to  strike  out  all  of  pro- 
position A  (mixed  basis)  except  the  first  and  last  sec- 
tions, and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  all  of  proposition  B 
(the  suffrage  basis)  except  the  first  section. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  move  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  and  I 
propose  as  a  substitute  for  proposition  A  and  proposi- 
tion B  both,  the  following  proposition  : 

1.  The  legislature  shall  be  formed  of  two  distinct 
branches,  which  together  shall  be  a  complete  legisla- 
ture, and  shall  be  called  the  general  assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia. 

2.  One  of  these  shall  be  called  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, and  shall  consist  of  members,  to  be  chosen 

 for  and  by  the  several  counties,  cities  and  towns 

of  the  commonwealth.  The  other  shall  be  called  the 
senate,  and  shall  consist  of  members,  for  the  elec- 
tion of  whom  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  shall  be  di- 
vided into  districts.  Each  county,  city  and  town,  of  the 
respective  districts  at  the  time  of  the  first  election  of 
its  delegate  or  delegates  under  this  amended  Constitu- 
tion, shall  vote  for  one  senator  ;  and  the  sheriff's  or  other 
officers  holding  the  election  for  each  county,  city  or 
town,  within  five  days  at  furthest  after  the  last  county, 
city  or  town  election  in  the  district,  shall  meet  at  some 
convenient  place,  and  from  the  polls  so  taken  in  their 
respective  counties,  cities  and  towns,  return  as  a  sena- 
tor the  person  who  shall  have  the  greatest  number  of 
votes  in  the  whole  district. 

3.  To  keep  up  the  senate  by  rotation,  the  districts 
shall  be  divided  into  classes  and  numbered  by  lot.  At  the 

end  of  years  after  the  first  general  election,  the  

members  elected  by  the  first  division  shall  be  displaced, 
and  the  vacancies  thereby  occasioned  supplied  from  such 
class  or  division  by  a  new  election  in  the  manner 
aforesaid.  This  rotation  shall  be  applied  to  each  di- 
vision, according  to  its  number,  and  continued  in  due 
order. 

4.  Representation  in  both  legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  amongst  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  each  ;  deducting 
from  such  taxes,  all  taxes  paid  on  licenses  and  law  pro- 
cess. In  making  such  apportionment,  there  shall  be  al- 
lowed one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the  said  in- 
habitants, and  one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the 

said  taxes  ;  and  in  like  manner  there  shall  be  allowed 

one  senator  for  every  part  of  the  same  :  Provided, 

that  the  representation  of  no  city  or  town  shall  at  any 

time   exceed  delegates  and  senators  ;  but 

the  surplus  fractions  thereof,  whether  of  population  or 
taxation,  or  of  both  combined,  shall  be  estimated  in  as- 
signing representation  to  the  sections  of  the  State  in 
which  they  are  respectively  situated. 

5.  The  general  assembly,  after  the  year  ,  and 

at  intervals  thereafter  of  not  less  than  ten  years,  shall 
re-apportion  representation  in  both  legislative  bodies, 
according  to  the  principle  and  in  the  manner  herein  de- 
clared ;  but  in  every  re-apportionment,  the  amount  of 
taxes  shall  be  estimated  from  the  average  of  the  ten 
preceding  years. 

6.  The  whole  number  of  members  to  which  the  State 
may  at  any  time  be  entitled  in  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives of  the  United  States  shall  be  apportioned  as 
nearly  as  may  be  amongst  the  several  counties,  cities 
and  towns,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of 
free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths 
of  all  other  persons. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  merely  rise  in  order  to  under- 
stand precisely  the  situation  of  the  question.  The  first 
question  I  suppose  will  be  upon  the  adoption  or  rejec- 
tion of  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 

The  CHAIR  stated  that  the  first  question  would  be  on 
the  proposition  of  Mr.  Scott. 


Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  did  not  expect  nor  do  Re- 
sign to  enter  this  day  into  the  discussion  of  the  question 
now  before  the  committee.  My  purpose  in  moving  the 
substitute,  was  to  place  before  the  body  in  the  form  of  a 
distinct  proposition,  free  from  embarrassment  of  all  ques- 
tions of  detail,  that  which,  according  to  my  judgment,  is 
the  proper  basis  of  representation.  The  basis  upon 
which  this  body  itself  has  been  assembled,  and  that 
which  to  this  extent  has  received  the  sanction  of  the 
people  of  this  Commonwealth.  If  gentlemen  entertain 
a  different  opinion,  and  have  another  and  a  novel  pro- 
position to  move,  involving  a  change  in  the  order  of 
things  that  now  exists,  it  seems  to  me  proper  that  we 
should  hear  from  them  the  reasons  which  they  are  pre- 
pared to  urge  in  support  of  their  change.  So  far  as  I 
am  personally  concerned,  I  am  perfectly  content  that 
the  vote  on  this  question  shall  be  taken  without  the  con- 
sumption of  one  moment  of  time  ;  for  I  have  no  expec- 
tation that  to  whatever  extent  this  debate  may  be  pro- 
longed, it  will  result  in  the  change  of  the  vote  of  one  in- 
dividual member  of  this  body  upon  the  principle  con- 
tained in  the  substitute.  I  repeat  I  have  moved  the  sub- 
stitute with  a  view  to  present  the  question  of  the  Lasis 
in  such  a  form  that  a  vote  may  be  taken  involving  a 
decision  of  the  principle  only,  disembarrassed  of  all 
questions  of  detail.  The  fourth  section  of  the  substitute 
declares  the  principle  upon  which  representation  ought 
to  be  apportioned.  In  the  preceding  sections  blanks  are 
left  which  may  be  filled  after  the  decision  upon  this 
principle  question  according  to  the  judgment  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  committee.  If  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  the 
substitute  shall  be  adopted,  it  determines  nothing  but 
that  representation  in  both  branches  of  the  general  as- 
sembly shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  coun- 
ties, cities  and  towns  of  the  Commonwealth  upon  what 
is  termed  the  mixed  basis.  We  have,  then,  only  to  turn 
|  back  and  determine  the  proper  number  for  a  house  of 
delegates,  and  fill  up  the  first  blank  ;  and  determine 
whether  the  general  assembly  shall  be  convened  annu- 
ally or  biennally,  and  fill  up  that  blank.  So  in  respect 
to  the  senate.  I  did  not,  as  I  have  before  said,  come 
here  with  the  design  of  engaging  in  the  debate,  but  with 
the  expectation  of  hearing  from  other  gentlemen,  who  I 
understand  are  prepared  in  the  first  instance  to  enter 
upon  this  wide  field  of  discussion.  And  I  repeat  that  so 
far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  I  have  no  desire  to  agi- 
tate debate,  but  am  willing  that  the  vote  should  be  ta- 
ken upon  the  proposition  without  discussion,  deeming  it 
only  proper  before  any  final  vote  is  taken  that  due  no- 
tification shall  be  given  to  absent  members. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  rise  merely  to  inquire  what  is  the 
question  before  the  committee.  The  primary  proposi- 
tion is  that  marked  A,  and  a  motion  is  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier  to  strike  out  a  portion  of  A  and 
insert  a  portion  of  proposition  B.  Then  comes,  as  I  un- 
derstand, the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, to  amend  the  amendment.  In  that  aspect,  if 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  prevails, 
it  would  merely  strike  out  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  and  then  the  question 
would  come  up  whether  the  committee  would  strike  out 
also  proposition  A.  But  if  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  substitute 
for  the  whole,  why,  then  on  that  proposition,  we  settle 
the  whole  question.  I  ask  the  Chair  to  inform  me  as  to 
the  state  of  the  question.  Is  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier  to  be  regarded  as  a  substitute  for 
both  the  other  propositions,  or  merely  as  an  amendment 
to  the  amendment? 

The  CHAIR.  The  Chair  understands  it  to  be  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha,  operating  as  a  substitute  for  the 
whole. 

Mr.  "WISE.  An  amendment  operating  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  whole  ? 

The  CHAIR.  The  question  is  to  be  first  taken  on 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  as  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Kanawha.    If  it  should  be  adopted,  then 


280 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


it  becomes  a  proposition  competing  with  proposition  A. 

Mr.  "WISE.    Will  we  have  to  take  two  votes  or  one  ? 

The  CHAIR.  The  votes  will  have  to  be  taken  first 
on  the  amendment  to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  WISE.    Yes  sir,  then  what  next? 

The  CHAIR.  Then  the  question  is  on  the  amend- 
ment as  amended. 

Mr.  WISE.  Then  I  understand  the  proposition  to  be 
to  amend  the  amendment,  and  that  we  shall  have  to  take 
two  votes. 

The  CHAIR.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WISE.  Is  it  in  order  for  me  to  ask  for  a  divis- 
ion of  the  question  to  be  first  taken  on  striking  out  pro- 
position A  ?  If  it  is,  I  ask  for  a  division  of  the  question 
to  be  first  taken  on  proposition  A. 

The  CHAIR.  The  impression  of  the  Chair  is,  that 
the  question  being  first  on  the  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment, it  is  not  in  order  to  ask  for  a  division  of  the  ques- 
tion at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  merely  desired  to  ascertain  the 
precise  situation  of  the  question.  I  am  not  prepared  to 
discuss  the  question  to-day  at  all,  and  I  would  only  re- 
mark in  relation  to  the  observation  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  that  his  proposition  is  to  disembarrass 
this  question,  that  in  my  mind  it  really  tends  to  embar- 
rass the  question.  Proposition  A  tells  us  precisely  the 
amount  of  money  that  is  to  be  thrown  into  the  scale 
against  the  man.  His  proposition  does  not  tell  us  wheth- 
er the  man  is  calculated  to  be  worth  a  dime  or  a  dollar, 
a  dollar  or  a  pound  sterling.  Now  I  might  vote  for  his 
proposition  if  he  would  value  the  man  high  enough.  I 
might  come  to  it  as  a  compromise — I  do  not  say  that  I 
would.  But  I  know  exactly  now  the  valuation  of  pro- 
position A,  and  I  do  not  know  what  the  valuation  of  the 
man  is  in  the  proposition  which  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  has  submitted.  Proposition  B,  it  is  said,  is  a 
novel  proposition  !  If  it  is  a  novel  one  in  this  Common- 
wealth, it  is  not  a  novel  proposition  in  any  other.  And 
if  those  who  propose  it  are  to  be  asked  to  show  a  rea- 
son why  it  should  be  adopted,  I,  in  reply,  will  not  say 
as  Cicero  said  to  Cataline — "  How  long,  oh  Cataline, 
how  long  is  our  patience  to  be  abused  " — but  I  will  ask 
the  gentleman  to  assign  me  a  reason,  how  long,  oh  how 
long,  is  money  to  be  weighed  in  the  scale  against  men 
in  Virginia  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  do  not  propose,  as  I 
said  when  I  was  up  before,  to  embark  in  this  discussion 
now.  Nor  do  I  propose  to  detain  the  committee  by  re- 
sponding to  the  interrogatories  of  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise.)  If  this  discussion  shall  proceed, 
that  gentleman  will  learn,  if  from  no  other  source, 
from  me,  the  reason  why,  in  the  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  legislative  department  of  this  common- 
wealth, property  ought  to  be  considered,  and  he  will 
hear  the  reasons  why,  in  the  distribution  of  the  legisla- 
tive power,  regard  should  not  be  had  to  mere  numbers. 
I  rise  n©w  for  the  purpose,  if  indeed,  every  gentle- 
man's own  intelligence  has  not  already  supplied  him 
with  an  answer,  to  answer  so  much  of  that  gentle- 
man's remarks  as  represents  this  substitute  as  throw- 
ing embarrassments  around  the  question  instead  of  re- 
moving them.  The  proposition  A,  contains  not  only 
the  principle  of  the  mixed  basis  of  representation,  but 
it  prescribes  the  number  of  which  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, and  the  number  of  which  the  senate  shall  be 
composed,  and  provides,  also,  that  the  sessions  of  the 
general  assembly  shall  be  biennial.  It  does  more.  It 
prescribes  an  actual  apportionment  of  representation 
amongst  the  counties.  These  are  all  matters  of  detail, 
in  respect  to  which  individual  members  of  this  body 
may  entertain  different  opinions,  however  they  may 
concur  in  the  great  principle  of  representation.  I  may 
agree  with  an  associate,  that  the  proper  principle  of 
representation  is  that  which  will  combine,  in  some 
form,  white  population  and  taxation,  but  I  may  not 
agree  with  him  as  to  the  number  of  which  the  two  le- 
gislative bodies  ought  to  be  composed,  nor  agree  with 
him  upon  the  question  of  annual  or  biennial  sessions. 
I  may  agree  with  him  upon  the  principle  of  the  basis, 


and  yet  differ  from  him  upon  the  details  of  the  appor- 
tionment. And  does  not  every  gentleman  see,  that  if 
proposition  A  is  presented  to  the  body  for  adoption,  we 
must  pass  by  the  principle  of  representation,  and  ad- 
dress ourselves  to  the  settlement  of  these  details.  It  is 
to  avoid  that  difficulty  and  disembarrass  the  question 
of  these  matters  of  detail,  that  I  have  presented  the 
substitute,  my  purpose  being  to  bring  this  body  to  a 
vote  first  upon  the  basis  of  representation.  It  will  not 
commit  any  member  to  matters  of  mere  detail. 

That  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  criticism  of  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  must  readily  be 
perceived,  when  members  turn  their  attention  to  the 
substitute.  It  declares  in  language  not  to  be  mista- 
ken, that  representation  in  both  bodies  shall  be  appor- 
tioned amongst  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  each,  deducting 
from  such  taxes,  all  taxes  paid  on  licences  and  law  pro- 
cesses. Here  is  a  principle  palpable  to  the  view — a 
tangible  one,  upon  which  discussion  can  proceed — a 
vote  upon  which  will  settle,  as  far  as  a  vote  of  a  ma- 
jority in  this  body  can  settle,  whether  representation 
in  the  legislative  department  shall  be  based  upon  popu- 
lation alone  or  upon  a  combination  of  white  population 
and  taxation.  It  is  true  that  the  substitute  does  not 
specifically  declare  to  what  fractional  part  of  the  in- 
habitants and  to  what  fractional  part  of  the  taxes  a  re- 
presentative shall  be  allowed.  But  the  reason  of  this 
omission  must  be  apparent,  because  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  the  true  fractional  part  until  we  have  filled 
the  first  blank,  and  determined  of  what  number  we  will 
constitute  the  two  houses.  When  that  shall  be  done, 
we  will  be  provided  with  the  means  of  ascertaining  the 
fraction.  The  intention  is,  as  I  apprehend  the  gentle- 
man from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  full  well  knows, 
when  we  shall  determine  upon  the  proper  number  of 
which  to  compose  the  two  bodies,  to  fill  these  blanks 
in  the  fourth  section  so  as  to  distribute  representation 
in  equal  moities,  according  to  the  number  of  white  in- 
habitants and  the  amount  of  taxation. 

Mr.  WISE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  wish 
to  call  his  attention  to  another  point.  I  agree  with  the 
gentleman  that  the  fractions  which  shall  divide  the 
white  population,  and  the  fraction  which  shall  divide 
the  taxation  cannot  be  determined — but  it  is  this  that 
can  be  determined  :  Whether  the  fraction  to  divide 
the  population  or  the  devisor,  shall  be  the  same  in  each 
as  the  one-seventy-fifth  part  of  the  population,  is  to  the 
one-seventy-fifth  part  of  taxation?  That  can  be  de- 
termined without  fixing  the  number  of  the  House.  In 
the  proposition  A,  it  is  one-seventy-fifth  of  taxes  to  one- 
seventy-fifth  of  population,  and  the  number  of  dollars 
of  taxation  being  less  than  the  number  of  population, 
it  results  necessarily  in  making  an  equal  fraction  that 
you  value  every  white  man  at  a  price  less  than  $1. 
The  gentleman  does  not  indicate  in  his  proposition 
what  is  to  be  the  proportionate  fraction.  That  can  be 
fixed,  and  until  it  is  fixed  by  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion, I  shall  be  very  much  confused  and  embarrassed 
by  it.  That  is  the  point  which  the  gentleman  does  not 
meet. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
be  proper  to  fill  the  blank  in  the  fourth  section  until 
the  committee  shall  have  fixed  the  number  of  delegates 
and  senators  with  which  the  two  legislative  bodies  are 
to  be  composed.  No  difficulty  can  arise  out  of  the 
present  form  of  the  substitute.  The  settlement  of  this 
question  of  the  fraction — the  adjustment  of  the  rela- 
tion which  the  fractional  part  of  the  inhabitants,  and 
the  fractional  part  of  the  taxation  is  to  bear  to  each 
other — is  a  matter  which  may  be  settled,  and  conve- 
niently settled,  after  the  vote  shall  have  been  taken  up- 
on the  substitute  as  it  stands.  It  does  not  commit  the 
body  in  advance  to  any  particular  adjustment  of  the 
fractions.  It  leaves  that  an  open  question ;  or,  to  use 
his  own  figure,  leaves  the  biddings  open ;  and  an  op- 
portunity will  be  given  to  my  friend  from  Accomac 
(Mr.  Wise,)  when  he  comes  to  fill  this  blank,  to  bid 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


281 


This  ought  to  furnish  no  ob 


as  high  as  he  chooses 
jection  to  him. 

Mr.  WISE.  The  gentleman  will  allow  me  to  say 
that  then  it  will  be  too  late.  The  gentleman  first  fixes 
the  principle  to  be  a  combined  basis  of  taxation  and 
population,  and  if  he  has  the  power  to  fix  that,  he  has 
the  power  to  price  the  horse.  I  am  a  bound  bidder.  I 
want  t©  know  before  I  accede  to  the  principle,  what 
shall  be  the  relation  between  dollars  and  cents  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  man  on  the  other — the  proportion — 
that  is  all  I  desire.    Fix  the  proportion,  and  if  it  is  a 


mere  question 
down  so  that 

man,  shall  be  valued  at  what 
throw  away  the  small  item. 


,  a  small  picayune  matter,  and  comes 
the  dollar  as  compared  with  the  white 
it  is  worth,  why,fl  will 
But  if  his  proposition 


when  fixed,  will  bring  about  the  result  of  proposition 
A,  and  the  dollar  shall  be  considered  as  worth  more 
than  one  white  man,  I  will  not  vote  for  his  proposition 
nor  listen  to  it  all. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    I  do  not  expect  to  get  the 
vote  of  my  friend  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  for  the  pro- 
position, and  I  shall  therefore  not  be  guilty  of  the  vain  at- 
tempt to  model  it,  according  to  a  form  that  will  be  agree- 
ble  to  him.    We  know  that  a  difference  of  opinion  exists 
amongst  the  members  who  compose  this  body  in  re- 
spect to  the  plan  upon  which  the  principle  of  the  mixed 
basis,  if  it  be  agreed  upon,  shall  be  carried  out.  Some 
gentlemen  entertain  the  opinion  that  the  entire  number 
of  the  white  inhabitants  shall  be  added  to  the  entire 
amount  of  taxation  estimated  in  dollars,  and  a  distri- 
bution be  made  of  the  representation  amongst  the  coun- 
ties, cities  and  towns  of  the  commonwealth,  upon  a 
plan  calculated  upon  that  basis.    That  is  one  mode  of 
working  out  the  mixed  basis.    Now,  the  objection  to 
that,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is,  that  it  is  an  uncertain  plan. 
A  plan  which  will  produce  one  result,  if  you  estimate 
taxes  in  dollars,  and  another  result  if  you  estimate 
taxes  in  dimes  or  cents.    According  to  the  plan  which 
the  substitute  contemplates,  that  ambiguity  will  be 
guarded  against,  that  uncertainty  avoided  ;  for  the  sub- 
stitute proposes  to  declare  what  fractional  part  of  the 
white  inhabitants  shall  be  entitled  to  a  member,  and 
what  fractional  part  of  taxation  shall  be  entitled  to  a 
member.    A  result  will  be  achieved  in  that  way  not  li- 
able to  this  objection  for  uncertainty ;  for  the  same  re 
suit  will  ensue  whether  you  estimate  the  taxes  in  one 
denomination  or  in  another.    Neither  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise,)  nor  any  other  gentleman, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  can  have  any  difficulty  in  understand- 
ing the  proposition.    If  there  be  a  difficulty  resting  up- 
on the  mind  of  any  person,  1  desire  now  to  say  that 
when  the  time  comes  for  filling  the  blank  in  section 
fourth,  if  no  one  else  makes  the  motion,  I  will  make  it,  to 
adjust  these  fractions,  so  that  in  the  practical  result, 
one  moiety  of  representation  in  both  bodies,  shall  be 
distributed  according  to  white  inhabitants,  and  the  oth- 
er moiety  according  to  the  taxes  paid.    I  explained  be- 
fore, that  my  only  purpose  in  printing  the  substitute, 
was  to  disembarrass  the  question  before  the  committee, 
of  the  details  into  which  proposition  A  had  descended, 
and  bring  this  body  to  a  vote  by  which  the  principle  of 
representation  should  be  fixed.    That  was  the  object 
of  the  substitute.     Not  to  change  the  principle  of 
proposition  A,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  adhere  to  that 
principle,  and  to  claim,  as  that  proposition  does,  that 
representation  shall  be  distributed  according  to  popu- 
lation and  taxation  ;  and  that  equality  shall  be  observed 
in  the  actual  apportionment  between  the  two,  so  as  to 
give  one  moiety  of  representation  to  the  one,  the  other 
moiety  to  the  other. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  re- 
marked, while  he  was  up  before,  that  the  principle  em- 
braced in  the  substitute  which  he  offers  is  the  same  as 
that  upon  which  the  present  constitution  is  based.  He 
considers  it  as  a  proposition  to  some  extent,  at  all  events 
passed  upon  by  the  people  in  voting  for  the  call  of  this 
Convention.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  whether  in  that  he  meant  to 


say  that  proposition  A  contains  the  basis  adopted  by  the 
general  assembly,  and  upon  which  this  Convention  is 
now  assembled,  or  whether  he  was  speaking  of  his  own 
substitute?  I  understood  him  as  speaking  of  his  own 
substitute,  and  not  of  proposition  A.  He  announced 
that  the  principle  he  advocated  was  the  principle 
upon  which  this  Convention  was  assembled.  I  desire 
to  know  whether  that  is  the  proposition  contained  in 
plan  A,  or  to  what  other  proposition  he  referred  ? 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    I  supposed,  as  I  explain- 
ed when  I  first  introduced  the  substitute  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Convention  last  week,  that  there  was  no 
difference  in  principle  between  the  substitute  and  pro- 
position A.    The  only  difference  was,  that,  whereas, 
proposition  A  proposes  to  settle  half  a  dozen  matters  of 
detail,  in  respect  to  which  differences  of  opinion  may 
be  entertained  by  all  of  us,  the  substitute  proposes  on- 
ly to  commit  this  body  to  the  principle  of  the  basis, 
leaving  all  matters  of  detail  for  future  discussion  and 
future  adjustment.    I  said,  when  I  was  first  up,  that  I 
did  not  intend  to  participate  thus  early  in  the  discus- 
sion, and  that  I  did  not  come  here  to-day  under  any 
such  expectation  ;  that  I  was  content,  if  other  gentle- 
men were,  to  take  the  vote  upon  the  question  pending, 
without  discussion.    And  I  said  in  that  connection,  as 
a  justification  for  the  course  I  had  indicated  my  will- 
ingness to  pursue,  that  I  did  not  understand  the  propo- 
sition of  the  substitute  to  involve  any  violent  change 
from  the  existing  order  of  things  in  Virginia  ;  that  the 
principle  of  the  substitute  contained  no  novelty  with 
us;  and,  in  proof  of  that,  referred  to  the  fact  that  the 
Convention  itself  had  been  convened  upon  the  principle 
announced  in  it.    I  was  not  a  member  of  the  general 
assembly  when  the  law  was  passed  which  called  this 
Convention,  but  I  have  understood  that  it  proceeded  up- 
on the  same  principle. 

That  the  apportionment  of  representation  in  the  con- 
vention was  made  between  the  several  grand  divisions 
of  the  State,  upon  the  principle  of  the  mixed  basis, 
worked  out  to  a  result  on  the  principle  indicated  in  the 
substitute — worked  out  by  assigning  a  moiety  of  repre- 
sentation to  the  white  inhabitants,  and  a  moiety  to  the 
taxes.  If  I  am  mistaken  in  that,  the  gentleman  from 
Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  who  may  be  better  informed, 
will  correct  me.  But  I  understand  that  to  be  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  bill  for  the  organization  ©f  this  Con- 
vention was  prepared  ;  and,  so  understanding ,  I  urged 
it  as  a  reason  why  the  burden  of  opening  this  debate 
should  rest  upon  the  other  side.  There  is  the  more 
reason  in  this  when  we  consider  that  proposition  B  pro- 
poses to  adopt  a  state  of  things  never  before  known  in 
Virginia  ;  a  novelty  in  its  history — one  which  never 
had  received,  in  any  form,  the  sanction  of  the  people. 
Whereas,  according  to  my  understanding,  the  contrary 
was  the  case  in  respect  to  the  substitute. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  understood  the  gentleman  then, 
as  I  do  now,  to  say  that  his  substitute  would  be  made 
complete  by  filling  the  blank  with  every  seventy -fifth 
part  of  population,  and  every  seventy -fifth  of  taxation, 
half  and  half  of  each,  so  that  every  seventy-fifth  part  of 
the  two  combined,  shall  be  entitled  to  send  one  delegate. 
This,  he  says,  is  the  basis  upon  which  the  present  Con- 
vention is  assembled.    This  he  regards  as  an  old  prin- 
ciple, one  to  which  we  have  been  long  accustomed,  and 
so  long  accustomed,  that  we  are  bound  to  show  a  rea- 
son for  throwing  it  off.  and  abandoning  it.    Am  I  to 
understand  the  gentleman  as  maintaining  here,  that 
because  a  majority  of  the  good  people  of  Virginia 
adopted  the  proposition  submitted  by  the  legislature 
for  the  convening  of   a  convention  to  amend  their 
organic  law,  or  to  make   a  new  constitution,  that 
they  are  thereby  to  be  regarded  as  having  fore-closed 
the  question,  and  decided  for  themselves  their  will- 
ingness to  accept  and  abide  by  that  basis  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  general  assembly  of  Virginia  ?  This 
is  an  old  proposition,  one  to  which  we  have  long  been 
accustomed,  and  the  other  is  a  novelty!  Proposition 
B  contains  a  principle  of  representation  new  to  us,  and 


282 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


as  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say,  though  I  may  1 
have  misapprehended  him,  new  and  unknown  to  his-  t 
tory  also.  < 
Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    So  far  as  the  action  of  J 
our  government  is  concerned  ;  I  mean  the  common-  t 
wealth  of  Virginia.  s 
Mr.  SUMMERS.    If  the  gentleman  means  to  fill  1 
the  blank  in  the  fourth  section  with  equal  amounts  of  s 
population  and  taxes  so  as  to  conform  to  plaa  A,  why  ; 
does  he  leave  it  blank  ?    Why  does  the  gentleman,  in  ; 
reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  inform  him  that  i 
it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  bid  ?    Why  does  he  inform  1 
him  that  it  is  fixed  up  as  a  sort  of  sliding  scale,  where-  < 
by  population  can  be  enlarged  on  the  one  hand,  and  < 
taxes  limited  on  the  other  ;  or  taxes  enlarged  on  the  ] 
one  hand,  and  population  limited  on  the  other  ?    He  1 
knows  very  well  that  it  is  competent  for  any  member  l 
of  the  Convention,  let  his  own  opinions  be  what  they  . 
may,  to  move  the  ©ne-eightieth  part  in  population,  and  : 
the  one-twentieth  part  in  taxes  ;  or,  to  reverse  the  pro-  i 
position,  one-twentieth  part  in  population,  and  one-  i 
eightieth  part  in  taxes — in  a  house  of  one  hundred,  I  i 
mean.    If  it  be  the  gentleman's  purpose  to  fill  the 
blank — as  he  has  I  understand  conceded — with  the  pre- 
cise language  proposed  in  plan  A,  I  can  imagine  no 
sort  of  reason  for  leaving  it  in  blank.    He  told  us,  in  ' 
his  first  remarks,  that  the  value  of  his  proposition  was, 
that  upon  it  gentlemen  might  vote  for  the  mixed  prin-  : 
ciple,  and  afterwards  fix  the  proposition  as  might  best 
suit  them.    When  a  physician  visits  me  on  a  sick  bed 
and  desires  me  to  swallow  a  pill  which  he  tells  me  is  : 
partly  composed  of  bread,  and  partly  composed  of 
arsenic — partly  of  bread  known  to  be  wholesome  and 
the  staff  of  life,  and  partly  of  arsenic  known  to  be  dele- 
terious and  fatal,and  when  I  ask  him  to  inform  me  in  what 
proportion  these  ingredients  are  mixed,  would  it  be  quite 
proper  to  tell  me  to  swallow  the  pill  and  he  will  inform 
me  afterwards  how  he  has  mixed  the  ingredients.  I  de- 
mand to  know  before  the  gentleman  fron  Fauquier  asks 
me  to  vote  on  his  substitute,  how  these  ingredients  are  to 
be  mixed  ?  I  decline  to  swallow  this  substitute  and  then 
be  informed  afterwards  of  the  composition  of  this  new 
medicine  for  the  body  politic.  His  proposition  is  an  old 
one,  and  the  opening  of  this  debate  must  be  thrown,  as  he 
imagines,  upon  those  who  propose  to  parcel  out,  and  di- 
vide the  legislative  power  of  this  commonwealth  equally 
among  the  people  who  are  parties  to  it !    It  is  a  novel 
proposition ,  and  the  onus  probandi  is  upon  those  who 
sustain  it !    Why,  I  have  understood  that  the  very  defi- 
nition of  the  term  civil  society,  was  that  it  was  com- 
osed  of  equals.    I  had  never  supposed  that  it  would 
e  necessary,  in  this  enlightened  era  of  republicanism 
and  constitutional  liberty,  to  maintain  that  all  those 
who  are  members  of  the  body  politic  have  equal  rights 
in  the  government  which  is  to  be  formed;  on  the  con- 
trary, I  had  supposed  that  those  who  proposed  that  a 
government  should  be  founded  one-half  on  taxation  and 
one-half  on  population,  maintained  a  proposition  so 
novel  and  so  extraordinary  in  itself,  that  we  had  a  right 
to  demand  of  them  their  reasons,  and  the  grounds  upon 
which  they  asked  us  to  assent  to  it.    I  have  a  right 
now  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  by  what 
course  of  reasoning  is  it  that  he  expects  to  maintain  that 
the  legislative  powers  of  this  commonwealth,  are  to 
be  withheld  from  the  hands  of  a  majority  of  the 
people  of  the  commonwealth  ?    Give  us  a  reason  for 
this,  what  I  term,  new  and  extraordinary  proposi- 
tion.   Let  us,  I  say,  hear  a  reason  upon  which  you  are 
authorized  to  disfranchise  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
people  of  this  commonwealth.    Let  us  hear  by  what 
process  of  ratiocination   you  expect  to  establish  a 
proposition  by  which,  while  you  have  a  majority  of 
100,000  of  your  people  in  the  western  portion  of  the 
State,  you  place  the  legislative  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  minority,  giving  to  this  minority  some  twenty  or 
thirty  majority  on  joint  ballot  in  the  general  assembly. 
Let  us  hear  the  reason  which  has  induced  you  to  import 
from  South  Carolina  a  principle  of  representation,  and 
to  seek  to  plant  it  in  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia. 


You  call  upon  us  to  open  the  discussion,  and  say  that 
the  burthen  of  proof  is  on  us,  to  sustain  the  right  to  an 
equal  participation  in  this  government ;  but  I  deny  it. 
Let  us  understand,  also,  why,  if  it  is  deemed  necessary 
that  taxation  should  form  a  component  part  of  repre- 
sentation, that  we  of  the  west  should  be  deprived  of 
the  value  and  benefit  of  our  increasing  taxation  ?  Look 
at  the  table  which  was  presented  here  this  morning, 
and  you  will  find  that  between  the  years  1840  and 
1850  there  has  been  an  increase  of  upwards  of  sixty- 
four  per  cent,  in  that  portion  of  the  common- 
wealth lying  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  ;  while  the  increase 
of  taxation  east  of  the  mountains  has  been  but  little  ov- 
er thirty  per  cent.  But  here,  you  not  only  found  your 
representation  half  on  population  and  half  on  taxes, 
but  you  have  adopted  the  other  and  the  accompanying 
feature  of  the  South  Carolina  constitution,  both  in  plan 
A,  and  in  the  substitute,  which  provides  that  at  every 
apportionment  the  amount  of  taxes  shall  be  estimated 
upon  the  average  for  the  ten  preceding  years.  Even 
upon  your  own  plan  of  population  and  taxation  you  will 
not  give  us  the  benefit  of  the  taxation  which  we  are  pay- 
ing.   Are  not  these  novelties  that  require  explanation  ? 

I,  like  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  had  not  the 
least  anticipation  of  addressing  a  word  to  this  commit- 
tee on  this  subject  to-day,  but  inasmuch  as  my  friend 
has  taken  the  ground  that  this  was  a  novel  proposition, 
and  one  which  imposed  the  burthen  of  proof  upon  us, 
I  felt  myself  called  upon  to  reply  in  the  manner  in 
which  I  have  attempted  to  do.  I  think  that  we  have 
much  more  right  to  call  on  him  for  an  explanation  of 
these  features  of  the  substitute,  and  plan  A.  I  think 
the  people  of  this  commonwealth  are  anxious  to  hear 
the  process  of  reasoning  upon  which  the  gentleman, 
able  and  eloquent  as  he  is  known  to  be,  in  debate, 
feels  justified  as  a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth,  and  as 
a  member  of  this  body,  in  throwing  the  whole  legisla- 
tive power  of  the  State  into  the  hands  of  a  minority  of 
the  people,  and  depriving  the  majority  of  all  voice  in 
the  government.  If  there  is  any  novelty  in  these  pro- 
positions, it  is  certainly  on  his  side,  and  if  there  is  any 
reason  growing  out  of  the  idea  of  novelty,  why  the  one 
side  or  the  other  should  open  this  debate,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  on  his  side. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  am  sorry  to  trespass  so 
often  upon  the  time  of  the  committee  ;  but  really  the 
remarks  of  my  friend  from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Summers) 
are  of  such  a  character  as  to  require  something  in  reply 
from  me.  I  do  not  think  the  gentleman  treats  the  pro- 
position submitted  by  me  altogether  candidly  and  fair- 
ly. He  seems  to  think,  or  he  would  have  others  think, 
that  there  is  something  in  the  form  of  the  substitute  in 
the  nature  of  a  trap,  and  that  my  expectation  is,  that 
in  some  way,  undefined — because  he  has  left  it  unde- 
fined— advantage  will  be  gained  over  the  party  with 
which  he  acts. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  I  have  said  upon  that  sub- 
ject, I  felt  justified  in  saying,  because  of  the  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  That  was  laughingly  said 
to  the  gentleman  in  response  to  his  own  figure.  He 
complained  that  the  substitute  did  not  in  express  terms 
fix  the  fraction,  and  demanded  of  me,  after  I  had  ex- 
plained some  half  dozen  times,  again  to  state  the  rea- 
sons which  influenced  me  in  leaving  those  blanks.  He 

•  says  that  there  can  be  no  difficulty  whatsoever  in  my 
.  filling  the  blank  at  this  time.  Does  not  the  gentleman 
,  know — have  Inot  already  explained  ? 

Mr.  WISE/  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  inter- 
;  rupt?    That  is  not  my  proposition. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  am  speaking  to  the  gen- 
-  tleman  from  Kanawha.  The  reason  why  these  frac- 
.  tions  cannot  be  adjusted  now  is,  that  we  have  not  deter- 
i  mined  upon  the  number  of  delegates  and  senators  of 

•  which  we  shall  compose  the  two  legislative  bodies. 
Fix  those  numbers  and  you  relieve  me  from  all  difncul- 

t  ty  whatsoever,  in  respect  of  the  precise  amount  of  the 
I  fraction.  The  gentleman  says  that  I  offered  him  a  pill 
.  compounded  in  part  of  poison.    And  he  desires  to  know 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


283 


before  he  takes  the  pill,  in  what  proportion  these  in- 
gredients are  to  enter  into  its  composition.  Is  it  a 
cause  of  objection  to  the  gentleman  that  we  require 
him  in  the  first  instance  to  determine  whether  he  will 
compound  this  pill  of  these  two  ingredients,  leaving  it 
for  after  consideration,  to  determine  the  exact  propor- 
tion of  the  two?  What  fair  ground  of  objection  is  it, 
that  the  substitute  proposes  to  take  the  question  first 
upon  the  ingredients  of"  which  the  bill  shall  be  com- 
pounded, leaving  it  for  the  wisdom  of  this  body  to  ad- 
just hereafter  the  proportion  ?  Ought  he  not  rather  to 
meet  the  proposition  in  a  different  spirit  ?  Ought  he 
not  to  consider  it  as  some  concession,  as  intended  in  a 
spirit  of  kindness,  if  not  of  mercy,  that  we  leave  him  a 
voice  hereafter  in  determining  the  proportion  in  which  he 
will  take  the  wholesome  food  and  the  poison.  The  gen- 
tleman says  that  he  desires  to  know,  and  the  people  of  this 
commonwealth  also,  the  reasons  for  another  feature  in  this 
report.  If  we  are  to  organize  the  government  upon 
this  principle  of  representation,  and  distribute  the 
members  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislative  depart- 
ment according  to  population  and  taxation,  why  does 
the  substitute  propose  to  deprive  the  west  of  the  bene- 
fit it  may  derive  from  its  increasing  taxation.  I  did  not 
expect  that  that  feature  in  the  substitute  would  have 
been  singled  out  by  the  learned  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, (Mr.  Summers,;  and  made  the  subject  of  this 
pointed  assault.  But  the  purpose  is  obvious.  It  is  a 
purpose  of  fairness  and  of  justice.  It  is  intended  to 
tie  the  hands  of  the  legislative  department,  when  it 
shall  come  to  exercise  the  power  that  it  is  proposed  to 
vest  in  it  over  this  subject  of  apportionment,  so  as  to 
prevent  it  from  practising  acts  of  injustice.  To  tie  its 
hands  so  that  it  can  commit  injustice  neither  to  the  east 
nor  to  the  west ;  to  provide  a  rule,  which  in  all  time  to 
come,  will  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  legislature,  by 
the  arrangement  of  its  tax  bills,  to  perpetrate  injustice. 
"Without  that  restriction,  which  seems  so  much  to  have 
excited  the  opposition  of  my  friend  from  Kanawha, 
does  not  every  gentleman  perceive  that  with  the  power 
to  re-apportion  representation,  and  with  the  power  of 
taxation,  it  will  be  in  the  power  of  the  legislature,  if 
you  are  to  re-apportion  according  to  the  latest  assess- 
ment, so  to  arrange  its  tax  bill  as  to  vary  for  the  single 
year  the  proportion  of  taxes  to  be  paid  by  the  two  sec- 
tions of  the  State,  and  thus  affect  the  proportion  of  rep- 
resentatives. 

The  legislature  by  its  tax  bill  enacted  the  year  before 
the  re-apportionment  is  to  be  made,  may  so  adjust  it  as 
to  collect  in  the  eastern  sections  of  the  State  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  taxes  than  may  be  collected  in  the 
western.  It  may  do  this  for  the  specific  purpose  of 
casting  in  the  apportionment  next  to  be  made,  a  more 
preponderating  majority  in  the  east.  It  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  that  injustice  ;  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  to  the  western  section  a  representation  upon 
this  principle  fairly,  in  accordance  to  its  taxation,  that 
this  proposition  is  inserted.  It  is  for  no  advantage  to 
eastern  Virginia,  and  is  for  no  disadvantage  to  western 
Virginia,  but  to  secure  justice  to  both.  If  the  legisla- 
ture shall  so  adjust  its  tax  bill  as  to  throw  an  undue 
amount  of  taxation  upon  the  western  section,  during 
any  of  the  preceding  ten  years,  when  they  come  to  re- 
apportion representation  according  to  the  substitute, 
the  west  will  obtain  representation  as  an  equivalent  for 
it.  There  is  really  no  danger  that,  in  arranging  the 
tax  bill,  eastern  Virginia,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  swell- 
ing its  majority,  will  entail  upon  itself  an  undue  pro- 
portion of  the  pecuniary  burdens  of  the  commonwealth. 
If  western  Virginia  will  assume  upon  itself  a  majority 
of  these  burdens  I  will  vote  now  to  give  them  a  major- 
ity of  representation.  If  they  will  take  representation 
in  proportion  to  then-  contributions  to  the  public  trea- 
sury ;  if  they  will  agree  to  pay  a  majority  of  the  tax  as 
they  claim  to  have  a  majority  of  the  representation,  I 
will  say  take  it.  If  you  pay  most  of  the  taxes  you  shall 
enjoy  most  of  the  representation.  The  gentleman  de- 
sires to  know  a  reason  for  this  novelty.  Why  in  the 
adjustment  of  the  constitution  of  this  State,  it  is  pro- 


posed to  put  the  legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  a  mi- 
nority ?  He  says  he  desires  to  have  the  reason,  and 
the  people  of  Virginia  desire  to  have  the  reason,  i  will 
give  him  the  reason  in  a  few  words.  It  is  to  promote 
the  general  welfare,  to  secure  good  government  ;  it  is 
to  guard  the  interests  of  the  community  against  abuse  ; 
it  is  to  secure  property,  that,  in  our  present  social 
condition,  I  believe  will  be  endangered  by  surrendering 
the  legislative  control  to  a  majority  of  mere  numbers. 
If  the  gentleman  wants  a  reason;  if  his  constituents 
want  a  reason,  I  think  they  have  it — to  guard  the  power 
of  legislation  against  abuse  ;  to  secure  the  rights  of 
property,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  persons  ;  to  promote 
the  common  interests  of  all  ;  to  ordain  a  government 
which  shall  contain  within  itself  a  just  principle  of  pro- 
tection. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  not  done  with  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  yet,  in  my  effort  to  get  at  his  proposi- 
tion. I  call  the  gentleman's  attention  again  to  the  fact 
that  without  filling  the  blank  which  is  to  propose  the 
number  of  representatives,  he  can  fill  the  blank  that 
proposes  the  proportion  between  population  and  taxes. 
I  ask  the  gentleman  to  give  me  a  reason  for  this  fact, 
that  whilst  the  number  of  white  population  in  the 
State,  in  round  numbers,  is  898,000,  and  the  number, 
the  sum  of  taxation  exclusive  of  the  items  which  he  ex- 
cludes is  495,000,  why  is  it  that  to  the  495,000  of  tax 
he  gives  nearly  the  same  number  of  representatives  that 
he  would  give  to  the  898,000  of  population  ?  The  sum 
of  population  and  the  sum  of  taxes  combined,  in  round 
numbers,  is  1,393,000.  The  sum  of  the  white  popula- 
tion is  so  nearly  double  that  of  the  sum  of  taxes,  that  you 
may  say  that  it  is  double  it,  yet  if  he  has  a  house  of  one 
hundred,  he  would  give  to  the  898,000  people  fifty  rep- 
resentatives, and  he  would  give  to  the  $495,000  of  taxes 
also  fifty  representatives  !  Why  is  it,  I  ask  him  again, 
that  one  dollar  in  money  shall  be  counted  as  more  than 
two  white  men  ?  Admitting  even  that  his  principle  of 
the  mixed  and  combined  basis  is  correct,  I  ask  him 
to  give  me  a  reason  for  this  proportion  in  the  dose.  He 
asks  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  to  take  the  dose 
first,  and  then  he  will  fix  the  proportion  for  him  after- 
wards. Does  not  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  per- 
ceive that  it  is  an  all  essential  and  vital  matter  to  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  to  have  him  settle  the  pro- 
portion, to  ascertain  the  proportion  of  bread.  A  little 
arsenic  in  the  pill  might  do  no  harm,  but  an  overplus 
of  arsenic  might  send  the  interests  of  the  constituents 
of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  to  the  tomb  of  the 
Capulets.  Now  I  want  to  know  the  proportion,  the  ex- 
act proportion,  as  the  number  of  people  is  double  the 
sum  of  taxation.  But  I  got  from  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  what  I  intended  to  get  from  him.  He  has  let 
the  cat  out  of  the  meal  to  my  satisfaction. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    There  is  no  cat  in  it. 

Mr.  WISE.  There  was  this  cat  in  it :  The  propo- 
sition A  told  us  that  we  could  value  a  white  man  at 
just  about  fifty-three  or  fifty-five  cents  apiece.  I  do 
not  know  but  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  values  a 
white  man  higher.  He  may,  as  the  sum  of  population 
is  double  the  sum  of  tax  as  two  to  one,  value  the  white 
man  at  a  dollar.  Well,  if  he  would,  he  might  have  got 
my  vote  perhaps.  At  any  rate  there  would  have  been 
less  of  arsenic  in  his  proposition  than  in  proposition  A. 
But  I  understand  him  to  tell  us  that  he  must  give  us  the 
same  double  dose.  And  in  response  to  the  inquiries 
put  to  him  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  why  is  it 
that  the  patience  of  this  commonwealth  is  to  be  abused 
any  longer  by  this  attempt  to  weigh  the  minority  against 
the  majority  by  throwing  dollars  and  cents  in  the  scale 
against  people,  he  tells  us  by  an  omniun  gatherum  argu- 
ment that  it  is  to  secure  better  government,  to  secure 
the  liberty  and  the  property  of  the  people,  and  to  pre- 
vent abuses.  Then  I  have  got  another  question  to  ask, 
and  it  is  one  which  I  hope  to  have  answered  to  my  sat- 
isfaction. Is  it  true  that  that  is  the  only  power  that 
can  be  relied  upon  to  secure  good  government  ?  Is  it 
true  that  the  suffrage  power  cannot  be  relied  upon,  in 
a  government  that  professes  that  a  republican  people 


284 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


can  govern  themselves,  to  secure  good  government? 
And  he  makes  the  declaration  by  this  proposition  that 
that  the  voters  in  this  commonwealth  shall  be  equal — 
one  man  to  one  man,  equal  numbers  to  equal  numbers 
of  men — at  the  polls.  But  while  asserting  the  proposi- 
tion that  they  shall  be  equal  at  the  polls,  we  are  told 
that  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  governing,  and  that 
money,  mammon,  the  ami  sacra  fames,  half  property 
and  possession  alone  can  secure  good  government.  If 
this  is  to  be  the  sort  of  basis  that  is  to  come  from  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  tell  him  that  he  will  only 
doubly  convince  me  the  other  way.  I  admit  that  pro- 
perty should  be  secured  and  be  represented,  but  it  is 
not  a  master  to  represent.  It  should  be  protected  by 
representation,  but  should  not  be  itself  a  representa- 
tive. You  not  only  propose  to  make  it  a  representa- 
tive, but  you  propose  to  give  it  the  double  power  of 
a  voter,  and  when  I  ask  for  a  reason  for  this,  I  am  told 
that  it  is  to  secure  good  government.  And  we  are  told 
that  that  alone  can  give  good  government  to  a  people 
who  profess  that  a  people  can  govern  themselves.  I 
am  not  satisfied  yet,  I  want  another  reason. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  will  try  to  satisfy  even 
my  friend  from  Accomac.  We  have  come,  in  this  dis- 
cussion, to  a  proposition,  in  respect  of  which,  at  last, 
we  are  both  agreed.  For,  with  all  my  heart,  I  agree 
with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  that  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  good  government,  property  should  be  protect- 
ed, and  that  it  should  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  elements 
of  society,  entitled  to  protection  through  representation. 
I  agree  with  my  friend  from  Accomac  in  that,  and 
where  we  disagree  is  in  the  mode  and  measure  of  this 
protection  and  representation.  In  the  principle  we 
agree — 

Mr.  WISE.    No,  sir  ;  no. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  agree  with  you,  ac- 
cording to  the  express  terms  in  which  you  announced 
your  proposition — 

Mr.  WISE.    No,  sir  ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  That  property  was  entitled  to 
protection,  and  protection  to  be  secured  by  representa- 
tion. Now  the  substitute  proposes  so  to  distribute  re- 
presentation in  this  Commonwealth  as  to  secure  that 
protection  to  property  which  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac admits  it  to  be  entitled  to.  So  far  as  it  respects 
that  question,  I  trust  my  friend  is  answered.  He  de- 
sires to  know  how  long  the  patience  of  the  good  people 
of  this  Commonwealth  is  to  be  abused  by  these  efforts 
to  continue  the  control  of  the  government  in  the  hands 
of  the  minority.  I  will  answer  him  that  question  when 
he  answers  me  another.  How  long  is  the  patience  of 
the  good  people  of  this  Commonwealth  to  be  abused  by 
this  eternal  demand,  on  the  part  of  western  Virginia, 
that  we  should  commit  the  destinies  of  this  Common- 
wealth to  a  majority  of  mere  numbers?  When  he  an- 
swers satisfactorily  that  question,  I  shall  be  prepared 
to  answer  satisfactorily  his.  If  patience  is  assaulted — 
if  patience  is  abused,  I  submit  to  this  committee  whether 
the  assault  and  abuse  does  not  come  from  those  who,  pay- 
ing less  than  one-third  of  the  taxes  of  this  Commonwealth, 
are  eternally  clamoring  for  the  possession  of  the  purse- 
strings.  The  gentleman  misapplies  his  classics.  Cata- 
line  was  a  conspirator,  plotting  against  the  safety  of  the 
State.  His  purpose  was  to  overthrow  the  consolidated 
authorities,  to  subvert  the  existing  order  of  things,  and 
seize  the  public  treasure.  He  had  the  audacity  to  pro- 
secute his  schemes  in  the  face  of  day,  even  in  the  very 
sanctuary  of  the  senate;  and  it  was  to  rebuke  that 
audacity  that  Cicero  used  the  striking  expressions  to 
which  allusion  has  been  made.  With  more  propriety  I 
may  retort  the  question,  and  in  this  presence,  demand 
to  know  how  long  is  the  patience  of  the  State  to  be 
abused  by  this  eternal  clamor  for  the  purse  strings — a 
clamor  on  behalf  of  those,  who  paying  less  than  a  third 
of  the  public  taxes,  participate  but  in  that  proportion  in 
any  burthens  that  the  law  may  impose. 

To  go  back  to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac,  I  agree  with  him  that  property  is  entitled  to 


protection,  and  that  the  only  adequate  protection  is  in 
representation;  and  if,  in  the  adjustment  of  representa- 
tion amongst  the  counties,  cities,  and  towns  of  this  Com- 
monwealth, we  adopt  a  ratio  of  mere  numbers — white 
numbers — we  shall  organize  the  government  upon  a  prin- 
ciple that,  instead  of  affording  protection  to  property, 
will  lay  it  open  to  be  plundered  at  the  discretion  of  a 
mere  majority  not  paying  one-third  of  the  public  burdens 
of  the  Commonwealth  or  contributing  in  the  proportion 
of  one-third  to  the  common  burdens  that  we  have  to 
bear. 

I  do  not  see  the  propriety  of  this  debate  which, 
against  my  will,  has  been  this  morning  thus  forced  upon 
me.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  have  been  more  con- 
sistent with  the  proper  dispatch  of  the  business  that  has 
assembled  us  here,  if  gentlemen  would  address  them- 
selves, in  a  candid  spirit,  to  the  consideration  of  the  sub- 
stitute, because  they  can  but  perceive  in  the  terms  in  which 
that  substitute  is  proposed,  a  fair,  clear,  and  perspicuous 
annuncaition  of  that  principle  of  representation  upon 
which  eastern  Virginia  has  heretofore,  throughout  all 
time,  stood  committed — the  principle  of  representation,  to 
which,  in  the  amended  constitution,  to  come  extent,  and 
in  the  organization  of  this  Convention  to  a  greater  extent, 
th©  people  of  the  Commonwealth  have  given  their  assent. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  desire  but  to  correct  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier.  He  seems  to  understand  me  as  if  I  had 
said  the  very  reverse  of  what  I  did  say — as  saying  that 
property  should  be  a  representative  principle.  He  says 
that  we  agree  in  saying  that  property  should  be  repre- 
sented, and  I  do  agree  with  him  to  that  extent.  Prop- 
erty should  be  represented,  persons  should  be  repre- 
sented ;  and  everything  in  the  Commonwealth  should  be 
represented.    There  we  agree. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    Adequately  represented. 

Mr.  WISE.  Yes,  adequately,  impartially,  paternally, 
and  providentially,  if  you  please.  And  I  go  further,  and 
say  conservatively  and  radically  represented.  [Laugh- 
ter.] But  does  that  concede  the  principle  that  property 
should  become  a  representative,  either  by  itself  or  by  its 
agents  ?  Property  is  but  a  part  of  the  constituency,  and 
so  a  horse,  a  cow,  or  the  earth  and  its  products.  But 
does  that  say  that  a  horse  or  a  cow  should  be  a  repre- 
sentative, or  an  ox,  or  an  ass  ?  [Laughter,]  Not  at  all. 
What  I  said  was  this,  and  wherein  my  friend  from  Fauquier 
and  myself  differ  is  in  this  :  He  says  that  a  fair  and  equal 
apportionment  of  representation  based  on  the  voters  of 
the  State  will  not,  and  cannot,  represent  property.  I  say 
that  a  fair  and  equal  representation,  based  on  a  free  and 
equal  suffrage,  is  the  highest  protection  to  property. 
He  says  that  a  majority  of  voters  will  plunder  property, 
that  the  people  cannot  be  trusted  with  political  power, 
and,  in  effect,  that  they  will  plunder  themselves.  I  say 
that  the  people  are  not  plunderers.  The  only  plunder- 
ers that  I  have  known  on  earth  are  monarchs  and  aristo- 
crats. The  exclusive  few — those  who  attempt,  through 
property,  to  seize  on  the  political  power,  are  the  plun- 
derers to  be  feared.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  measure  of  re- 
presentation at  all,  and  the  gentleman  does  not  stand 
there  with  me.  I  do  not  go  one  inch  with  him  on  the 
principle.  He  says  that  a  majority  of  the  people  are 
not  to  be  trusted  with  power,  and  that  we  must  have 
money  side  by  side  with  them  in  the  halls  of  legislation 
to  check  the  majority  of  the  people,  and  keep  them  from 
becoming  plunderers  one  upon  another.  I  deny  that 
proposition  entirely.  Property  shall  be  protected — 
property  shall  be  represented— everything  shall  be  pro- 
tected and  represented,  and  shall  be  protected  and  re- 
presented by  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people.  When  you  deny  to  the  majority  of 
the  people  the  right  to  protect  themselves,  each  and  all 
alike,  you  deny  all  republican  principle,  and  my  only 
object  was  to  bring  the  issue  up  for  debate.  I  do  not 
intend  to  debate  it  now,  and  it  will  be  many  a  day,  per- 
haps, before  I  do  debate  it.  I  desire  to  hear  a  great 
many  issues  raised  on  this  issue.  I  am  no  more  prepared 
now  than  is  the  gentleman  fr@m  Fauquier,  but  I  shall 
collect  myself,  and  I  know  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


285 


will  collect  himself,  to  set  forth  the  reasons  pro  and  con — 
money  against  men — upon  the  proposition  whether  the 
monied  power  is  necessary  to  protect  the  people  of  the 
Commonwealth,  to  secure  property  and  to  secure  per- 
sons, or  whether  the  people  are  capable  of  self-govern- 
ment unchecked  by  the  property  power.  The  issue  is 
now,  I  hope,  fairly  made  up,  and  whether  the  east  or 
the  west  leads  off,  is  a  matter  of  very  little  difference. 
"We  are  about  to  start  in  the  argument,  we  are  about  to 
draw  the  swords  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
referred  when  this  Convention  first  opened  its  session, 
and  on  this  issue  I  tell  gentlemen  I  am  unchangeable. 
,  On  this  issue  I  am  prepared  to  stand,  and  my  only 
1  prayer — notwithstanding  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
says  that  men's  minds  are  not  to  be  changed  here — is, 
that  God  will  give  the  battle,  not  to  the  strong,  but  to 
the  side  that  has  the  right.  It  is  the  right  of  the  people 
against  the  right  of  money — mammon  against  liberty — 
and  may  God,  in  his  mercy,  help  the  people  in  this 
fight. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  confess  I  was  not  a  little  surprised 
when  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  offered 
the  amendment  now  before  the  committee,  and  declined 
to  suggest  a  single  reason  why  it  should  be  adopted; 
and  was  prepared  to  submit  it  to  a  vote,  unless  objec- 
tion should  be  made  to  it.  I  am  desirous,  for  one,  that 
the  gentleman  should  suggest  some  reason  to  the  com- 
mittee why  this  amendment  should  be  adopted ;  and  I 
should  suppose,  that  upon  the  submission  of  a  proposi- 
tion of  this  kind  he  would  be  prepared  not  only  to  sub- 
mit the  reasons  which  influenced  him  in  so  doing,  but 
prepared  to  do  so  before  any  argument  was  brought 
against  the  proposition  thus  submitted.  I,  for  one,  am 
prepared  to  say  that  I  do  not  concur  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier,  in  considering  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  his  amendment  as  not  being  a  novel  one.  I 
c6nsider  it — particularly  the  fourth  section  of  it — as  a 
most  strange  and  novel  proposition ;  and  therefore,  I 
desire  to  hear  some  reasons  before  I  shall  be  expected 
by  that  gentleman,  and  those  who  think  with  him,  to 
give  a  vote  on  this  amendment.  The  gentleman  said  in 
his  remarks  offering  the  proposition,  that  the  basis  con- 
tained in  it  was  the  same  as  that  decided  by  the  action 
of  the  general  assembly  in  calling  this  Convention.  I 
would  inform  the  gentleman  that,  according  to  my  re- 
collection of  that  body  in  calling  this  Convention,  no 
such  example  as  the  one  contained  in  his  amendment 
was  there  adopted,  nor  did  the  committee  of  that  body 
ever  report  the  bill  which  eventually  became  a  law,  and 
assembled  the  Convention.  The  bill  reported  by  the 
committee  was  not  sanctioned  by  the  general  assembly. 
The  bill  which  they  reported  contained  an  apportion- 
ment of  representation  according  to  the  principle  of  pro- 
position A,  but  that  bill  was  not  sanctioned  by  the  gen- 
eral assembly.  The  bill  which  did  subsequently  be- 
come a  law,  and  under  which  this  Convention  is  assem- 
bled, was  one  not  coming  from  any  committee,  but  a 
proposition  submitted  by  one  of  the  members  of  the 
body.  I  am,  therefore,  not  satisfied  with  his  declara- 
tion that  this  is  not  a  novel  proposition.  And  I  do  hope, 
that  gentlemen  who  are  not  favorable  to  that  proposi- 
tion, will  concede  to  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  the 
right  and  propriety  that  he  should  open  this  discussion. 
I  desire  to  hear  from  him,  and  I  desire  to  hear  not  only 
the  reasons  why  a  proposition  which  is  so  entirely  novel, 
and  not  contained  in  our  present  constitution,  nor 
in  the  constitution  of  1776,  should  be  inserted  in  the 
connstitution  which  we  are  called  upon  to  submit 
to  the  people.  I  say,  that  so  far  as  Virginia's  his- 
tory is  concerned,  it  is  an  entirely  novel  proposition, 
and  I  desire  to  hear  the  reasons  upon  which  the 
gentleman  expects  the  favorable  action  of  this  com- 
mittee in  regard  to  it.  And  then  I  desire  the  gentle- 
man to  assign  me  another  reason  why  he  does  not  ad- 
here to  his  principle  after  he  has  once  laid  it  down,  and 
why  this  proposition  is  contained  in  the  fourth  section : 

Representation  in  both  legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  amongst  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  ac- 


cording to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid,  in  each;  deducting 
from  such  taxes,  all  taxes  paid  on  licenses  and  law  pro- 
cess. In  making  such  apportionment,  there  shall  be  al- 
lowed one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the  said  inhabi- 
tants, and  one  delegate  for  every  part  of  the  said 

taxes  ;  and  in  like  manner  there  shall  be  allowed  one 

Senator  for  every  part  of  the  same. 

Here  he  asserts  what  he  considers  to  be  a  principle, 
and  yet  what  does  the  remaining  part  of  the  section  de- 
clare : 

"Provided,  That  the  representation  of  no  city  or  town 

shall  at  any  time  exceed  delegates  senators  ; 

but  the  surplus  fractions  thereof,  whether  of  population 
or  taxation,  or  of  both  combined,  shall  be  estimated  in 
assigning  representation  to  the  sections  of  the  State  in 
which  they  are  respectively  situated." 

I  desire  the  gentleman  to  tell  me  in  the  first  place, 
why  this  discrimination  is  made,  or  said  to  be  made, 
against  the  cities  and  towns  ;  and  in  the  second  place, 
why  the  representation  which  these  cities  and  towns 
would  be  entitled  to,  should  not  be  given  to  those  cities, 
but  be  distributed  through  the  district  in  which  they  are 
located.  I  think,  with  all  kindness,  that  it  is  at  least 
due  the  members  of  this  body  that  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  should  be  permitted  to  assign  the  reasons  which 
have  influenced  him  in  offering  this  amendment,  and  I 
trust  he  will  do  so. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  Very  near  four  hours 
have  been  appropriated  to  this  struggle  at  arm's  length. 
The  combatants  must  be  somewhat  exhausted,  and  must 
need  a  breathing  spell  before  they  engage  in  close  quar- 
ters ;  and,  therefore,  I  move  that  the  committee  now 
rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  to  meet  at  11 
o'clock,  to-morrow  morning. 


TUESDAY,  February  18,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  PRESIDENT  submitted  a  communication  from 
General  William  H.  Richardson,  which  was  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

Richmond,  February  17,  1851. 
To  the  Hon.  John  Y.  Mason, 

President  of  the  Convention : 
Sir  : — In  obedience  to  the  instructions  of  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  the  State  Agricultural  Society,  I  have 
the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  the  enclosed  resolutions, 
adopted  by  that  committee. 

Very  respectfully,  your  ob't.  serv't., 

William  H.  Richardson,  Chairman. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  State 
Agricultural  Society,  on  Monday,  the  17th  of  February, 
1851— 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  President  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  and  the  Speakers  and  members 
of  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  be  respectfully 
invited  to  attend  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Society,  com- 
mencing on  Tuesday  evening,  the  18th  instant,  in  the 
Hall  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  at  7  o'clock,  and  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  proceedings  of  the  Society. 

Resolved,  That  the  Chairman  transmit  a  copy  of  the 
resolution  to  the  President  of  the  Convention,  and  to 
the  Speaker  of  each  House  of  the  General  Assembly. 
(Copy.)  A.  Robinson,  jr., 

Recording  Secretary. 

legislative  power  of  taxation,  &c. 
Mr.  FAULKNER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  in  my 
hand  some  propositions  which  I  desire  to  lay  before 
the  Convention,  and  to  ask  that  this  body  will  consid- 
er them  at  some  future  day,  either  in  connection 
with  the  basis  report,  or  as  amendments  to  the  re- 


286 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


port  of  the  committee  on  the  legislative  department. 
They  relate  to  the  subject  of  taxation,  to  the  limita- 
tion of  existing  State  debt,  and  to  limitations  on  the 
legislative  power  to  create  debts  in  future.    I  claim  no 
merit  whatever  for  the   propositions,  if  merit  they 
are  found  to  possess.    I  have  culled  them  from  whatever 
sources  were  accessible  to  me,  and  wherever  I  found 
them  to  conform  best  to  my  own  ideas.    Indeed,  in  a 
matter  of  so  much  difficulty  as  I  found  this  subject  of 
limiting  the  money  appropriating  power  of  the  legisla- 
tive department,  I  have  endeavored  to  avail  myself  of  the 
wisdom  and  experience  of  other  States  and  other  govern- 
ments.   I  believe  that  if  there  is  a  subject  which  at  this 
time  engrosses  the  public  mind,  certainly  the  anxiety  of 
the  reflecting  portion  of  the  people  of  this  State,  it  is 
the  tendency  now  so  manifest  in  the  past  and  present 
action  of  our  legislature,  to  involve  us  in  the  evils  of 
an  enormous  and  profitless  public  debt.    I  believe  that 
many  persons  were  led  most  anxiously  to  look  to  the 
call  of  this  Convention  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  be- 
cause of  that  defect  in  our  existing  system  of  govern- 
ment, which  places  in  the  power  of  the  agents  of  the 
people,  in  a  single  department  of  the  government,  the 
power  of  mortgaging,  ad  libitum,  the  property  and  la- 
bor of  the  people  of  this  State.    It  is  my  own  opinion, 
and  I  know  it  is  the  known  and  declared  opinion  and 
sentiment  of  the  district  which  I  represent,  that  if  we 
fail  or  neglect  to  impose  upon  those  who  wield  this  pow- 
er in  the  general  assembly,  just  and  proper  limitations, 
that  we  shall  have  failed  to  accomplish  one  of  the  most 
important  objects  for  which  the  people  have  sent  us  to 
this  place.    I  shall  press  these  propositions,  or  a  propo- 
sition looking  to  the  same  end,  without  the  slightest  re- 
ference to  the  fact   of  whether  the  east  shall  retain 
or  the  west  shall  acquire  power  under  the  constitution 
which  we  are  now  engaged  in  framing.    Our  past  expe- 
rience has  shown  that  where  the  control  of  the  legisla- 
tive policy  of  this  State  has  been  confided  to  an  east- 
ern majority,  such  fact  has  not  furnished  to  us  any  ade- 
quate safeguard  against  the  wild,  reckless  and  injudi- 
cious system  of  public  expenditure  ;  and  it  would  be  as- 
suming more  than  I  am  disposed  to  assume,  to  suppose 
that  if  an  unchecked  or  an  unlimited  power  were  now 
transferred  to  the  west,  that  we  should  be  free  from  the 
abuse  of  the  same  power.    I  shall  therefore  press  this 
proposition,  or  a  proposition  looking  to  the  same  result, 
I  care  not  what  may  be  the  decision  of  this  body  upon 
this  question  of  geographical  power.    I  am  aware  of 
the  extreme  difficulty  of  attempting  to  regulate  this 
subject  of  appropriation.    I  know  there  is  not  in  the 
whole  structure  of  government  a  function  that  requires 
to  be  more  cautiously  and  more  deliberately  dealt  with. 
I  am  not  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  internal  improvement, 
or  the  policy  of  internal  improvement,  but  I  seek  to 
give  it  a  direction  ;  I  would  wish  to  give  it  a  di- 
rection different  from  that  which  it  has  heretofore 
had  in  this  State.    Above  all,   I  would  seek  to  divest 
it  of  those  local  combinations  which  have  been  the 
bane  and  destruction  of  the  system  wherever  it  has  pre- 
vailed.   I  do  not  flatter  myself  that  the  plan  I  have 
proposed  is  perfect,  or  that  it  is  the  best  that  can  be 
proposed,  but  it  is  the  best  that  has  yet  occurred  to  my 
mind,  and  unless  something  better  calculated  to  accom- 
plish that  result  shall  occur  to  my  mind,  or  be  suggest- 
ed by  others,  it  is  the  proposition  that  I  shall  sustain  in 
this  body.    I  desire  now  to  lay  it  before  the  Convention, 
that  it  may  be  printed,  and  that  the  members  may  have 
an  opportunity  of  reflecting  upon  it,  and  of  giving  to  it 
the  consideration  which  it  may  merit. 

The  propositions  were  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as 
follows : 

I.  TAXATION. 

1.  Taxation  shall  be  equal  and  uniform  throughout  the 
State,  and  no  one  species  of  property  shall  be  taxed 
higher  than  another  species  of  property  of  equal  value, 
on  which  taxes  shall  be  levied.  All  property  in  the  State 
shall  be  taxed  in  proportion  to  its  value,  to  be  ascer- 


tained as  directed  by  law,  except  such  property  as  two- 
thirds  of  both  houses  ©f  the  legislature  may  think  proper 
to  exempt  from  taxation. 

2.  The  legislature  shall  have  the  power  to  lay  an  in- 
come tax,  and  to  tax  all  persons  pursuing  any  occupation, 
trade  or  profession,  provided  that  the  term  "  occupation" 
shall  not  be  construed  to  apply  to  pursuits  either  agri- 
cultural or  mechanical. 


II.  LIQUIDATION  OF  EXISTING  DEBT. 

1.  There  shall  be  set  apart  annually  by  the  auditing 
and  disbursing  officers  of  the  treasury,  from  the  revenue 
accruing  from  taxation  and  the  fund  for  internal  im- 
provements, a  sum  equal  to  seven  per  cent,  of  the  State 
debt  existing  on  the  first  of  January,  1852.  The  fund 
thus  set  apart  shall  be  called  the  "  Sinking  Fund,"  and 
shall  be  set  apart  and  applied  by  the  officers  aforesaid 
to  the  payment  of  the  interest  of  the  State  debt,  and 
the  principal  of  such  part  as  may  be  redeemable.  If  no 
part  be  redeemable,  then  the  residue  of  the  sinking  fund, 
after  the  payment  of  interest,  shall  be  invested  in  the 
bonds  or  certificates  of  debt  of  this  Commonwealth,  or 
of  the  United  States,  or  of  some  of  the  States  of  this 
Union,  and  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  State  debt  as 
it  shall  become  redeemable.  For  the  purpose  of  setting 
apart,  making  and  superintending  this  investment,  the 
said  officers  shall  constitute  a  board,  with  all  necessary 
power  to  carry  into  effect  this  article  ;  the  organization 
of  which  board  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

2.  The  claims  of  the  State  against  any  incorporated 
company,  to  pay  the  interest  and  redeem  the  principal 
of  any  loan  advanced  by  the  State  to  such  company, 
shall  be  fairly  enforced,  and  not  released  or  compro- 
mised ;  and  the  money  arising  from  such  claims  shall  be 
set  apart  and  applied  as  part  of  the  "  Sinking  Fund," 
towards  the  liquidation  of  the  existing  debt  of  the 
State.  But  the  time  limited  for  the  fulfilment  of  any 
contract  of  loan  heretofore  made  maybe  extended  by  law. 

III.  LIMITATIONS  UPON  FUTURE    STATE  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  No  moneys  shall  ever  be  paid  out  of  the  treasury 
of  this  State,  or  any  of  its  funds,  or  any  of  the  funds^ 
under  its  management,  except  in  pursuance  of  an  appro- 
priation by  law  ;  nor  unless  such  payment  be  made  with- 
in two  years  next  after  the  passage  of  such  appropria- 
tion act ;  and  every  such  law  making  a  new  appropria- 
tion or  continuing  or  reviving  an  appropriation,  shall 
distinctly  specify  the  sum  appropriated,  and  the  object 
to  which  it  is  to  be  applied  ;  and  it  shall  not  be  suffi- 
cient for  such  law  to  refer  to  any  other  law  to  fix  such 
sum. 

2.  The  legislature  shall  not  pledge  the  faith  of  the 
State  for  the  payment  of  the  principal  or  interest  of 
any  bonds,  bills,  contracts  or  obligations  for  the  bene- 
fit or  use  of  any  person,  corporation  or  body  politic 
whatever. 

3  The  State  may,  to  meet  casual  deficits  or  failures 
in  revenues,  or  for  expenses  not  provided  for,  contract 
debts  ;  but  such  debts,  direct  and  contingent,  singly  orin 
the  aggregate,  shall  not  at  any  time  exceed  one  million 
c  f  dollars  ;  and  the  moneys  arising  from  the  loans  crea- 
ting such  debts,  shall  be  applied  to  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  obtained,  or  to  repay  the  debts  so  con- 
tracted, and  to  no  other  purpose  whatever. 

4.  In  addition  to  the  above  limited  power  to  contract 
debts,  the  State  may  contract  debts  to  repeal  invasion, 
suppress  insurrection,  or  defend  the  State  in  war  ;  but 
the  money  arising  from  the  contracting  of  such  debt 
shall  be  applied  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  raised, 
or  to  repay  such  debts,  and  to  no  other  purpose  what- 
ever. 

5.  Except  the  debts  specified  in  the  third  and  fourth 
sections  of  this  article,  no  debt  shall  be  hereafter  con- 
tracted by  or  on  behalf  of  this  State,  unless  such  debt 
shall  be  authorized  by  a  law  for  some  single  work  or 
object,  to  be  distinctly  specified  therein  ;  and  such  law 
shall  impose  and  provide  for  the  collection  of  a  direct 
annual  tax  to  pay,  and  sufficient  to  pay,  the  interest  on 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


287 


such  debt  as  it  falls  due,  and  also  to  pay  and  discharge 
the  principal  of  such  debt  within  eighteen  years  from 
the  time  of  the  contracting  thereof. 

6.  No  such  law  shall  take  effect  until  it  shall,  at  a 
general  election,  have  been  submitted  to  the  people, 
and  have  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  for 
or  against  it  at  such  election. 

7.  On  the  final  passage  of  such  bill  in  either  house  of 
the  legislature,  the  question  shall  be  taken  by  ayes  and 
noes,  to  be  duly  entered  on  the  journal  thereof,  and 
shall  be  :  "  Shall  this  bill  pass,  and  ought  the  same  to 
receive  the  sanction  of  the  people  ?  " 

8.  The  legislature  may,  at  any  time  after  the  appro- 
val of  such  law  by  the  people,  if  no  debt  shall  have  been 
contracted  in  pursuance  thereof,  repeal  the  same  ;  and 
may  at  anytime,  by  law,  forbid  the  contracting  of  any 
further  debt  or  liability  under  such  law  ;  but  the  tax 
imposed  by  such  act,  in  proportion  to  the  debt  and  lia- 
bility which  may  have  been  contracted,  in  pursuance  of 
such  law,  shall  remain  in  force  and  be  irrepealable,  and 
be  annually  collected,  until  the  proceeds  thereof  shall 
have  made  the  provision  herein  before  specified  to  pay 
and  discharge  the  interest  and  principal  of  such  debt 
and  liability. 

9.  The  money  arising  from  any  loan  or  stock  creating 
such  debt  or  liability,  shall  be  applied  to  the  work  or 
object  specified  in  the  act  authorizing  such  debt  or  lia- 
bility, or  for  the  payment  of  such  debt  or  liability,  and 
for  no  other  purpose  whatever. 

10.  No  such  law  shall  be  submitted  to  be  voted  on  at 
any  general  election,  when  any  other  law  or  any  bill 
shall  be  submitted  to  be  voted  for  or  against. 

11.  Every  law  which  imposes,  continues  or  revives  a 
tax,  shall  distinctly  state  the  tax  and  the  object  to 
which  it  is  to  be  applied  ;  and  it  shall  not  be  sufficient  to 
refer  to  any  other  law  to  fix  such  tax  or  object. 

12.  On  the  final  passage  in  either  house  of  the  legis- 
lature, of  every  act  which  imposes,  continues,  or  re- 
vives a  tax,  or  creates  a  debt  or  charge,  or  makes,  con- 
tinues or  revives  any  appropriation  of  public  trust,  mo- 
ney or  property,  or  releases,  discharges,  or  commutes 
any  claim  or  demand  of  the  State,  the  question  shall  be 
taken  by  ayes  and  noes,  which  shall  be  duly  entered  on 
the  journals,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected 
to  either  house  shall,  in  all  such  cases,  be  necessary  to 
give  it  the  force  of  a  law. 

The  propositions  were  then  laid  on  the  table  and  or- 
dered to  be  printed. 

'  THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION",  &c. 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  SMITH,  of 
Greenbrier,  resumed  the  consideration  in  committee  of 
the  whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair,)  oFthe  report  of 
the  committee  on  the  basis  and  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  respectfully  ask  the 
attention  of  the  committee,  whilst,  in  my  imperfect  man- 
ner, I  submit  to  its  consideration,  my  views  on  this  ques- 
tion of  deep  and  vital  interest  to  the  country.  In  exe- 
cuting the  important  and  delicate  trust  confided  to  us, 
by  our  constituents,  it  is  impossible,  sir,  to  be  unmind- 
ful of  the  character  (moral  and  intellectual)  of  a  por- 
tion of  our  immediate  predecessors,  in  the  great  and  in- 
teresting work  of  constitutional  reform.  I  speak  with 
reference,  exclusive  reference,  to  the  very  worthy  and 
respectable  gentlemen  who  constituted  the  eastern  del- 
egation in  the  convention  of  '29-30.  Many  of  them  were 
distinguished  by  pre-eminent  ability,  and  all  of  them  by 
those  virtues  of  the  heart,  which  impart  a  peculiar 
charm  to  the  efforts  of  strong  and  brilliant  minds.  He 
who  looks  into  the  proceedings  of  that  convention,  will 
see  inscribed  upon  the  roll  of  its  members,  the  names  of 
Madison,  Monroe,  Marshall,  Randolph,  Leigh,  Giles, 
Tazewell,  Barbour,  and  others  confessedly  of  no  or- 
dinary talents.  Some  of  them — many  of  them — have 
sunk  into  the  grave,  whilst  others  of  them  have  lived 
to  witness  the  meeting  of  another  convention.    And  now 


here  we  are,  at  or  about  the  end  of  twenty- one  years 
only,  to  revise,  amend,  and  reform  the  existing  consti- 
tution of  Virginia — the  workmanship  of  their  hands. 
No  one  cherishes  a  more  profound  respect  and  admira- 
tion for  the  talents  and  virtues  of  the  great  and  good 
men  to  whom  I  alluded,  than  I  do,  and  no  one,  there- 
fore, I  trust,  will  attribute  anything  I  may  say  to  a  sen- 
timent or  feeling  of  unkindness  to  them.  It  would  in- 
deed be  a  subject  of  sincere  and  unfeigned  regret  with 
me  to  utter  one  "v*  ord,  which  by  any  possible  construc- 
tion could  be  interpreted  into  an  imputation  upon  the 
motives  of  the  illustrious  men,  to  whom  reference  has 
been  made.  But  I  have  been  sent  here  to  represent  the 
sentiments  and  opinions  of  most  kind,  and  generous 
constituents,  and  I  should  look  upon  myself  as  wholly 
unworthy  of  their  confidence,  if,  restrained  by  the  re- 
spect I  have  professed,  (and  which  is  as  strongly  felt 
as  professed,)  I  should  forbear  to  give  the  freest,  yet 
the  most  respectful  utterance  to  those  sentiments  and 
opinions.  It  is  my  purpose,  therefore,  to  deliver  a  brief 
but  unreserved  commentary  on  the  doctrines  of  the 
men  of  '29-' 30,  and  this  I  shall  do  without  fear,  favor 
or  affection.  Intellectual  as  unquestionably  they  were, 
surely  they  were  not  infallible.  Participating  with  us 
in  the  frailties  of  our  common  nature,  they  might  err, 
and  in  my  judgment  have  erred.  If  this  be  so,  then,  as 
I  am  not  so  presumptuous  as  to  suppose  the  proposed 
task  within  the  competency  of  my  unaided  powers,  I 
invoke  a  common,  united,  vigorous  effort  to  detect  and 
expose  their  errors,  to  the  end  that  full  and  equal  jus- 
tice may  be  done  to  the  several  parts  of  this  ancient  and 
renowned  commonwealth.  What  then  is  the  general 
character  impressed  by  the  good  and  wise  of  '29-30,  on 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  State  ?  I  propound  the  in- 
terrogatory, in  the  confident  expectation  that  but  one 
response  can  be  given  to  it,  and  that  response  is — it  is 
plainly  and  obviously  anti-republican.  Nothing  is  more 
apparent  to  my  mind,  than  that  the  existing  govern- 
ment violates  the  great  principle  of  political  equality 
so  essential  to  a  representative  republican  government; 
that  it  is  aristocratic  in  all  its  features ;  that  it  pros- 
trates in  the  dust  those  invaluable  truths,  which  have 
been  wisely  embodied  in  the  declaration  of  rights ;  is  at 
war,  open  war,  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  age, 
and  at  utter  variance  with  the  wishes  of  the  people. 
Do  we  not  see  the  most  impressive  proof  of  the  truth 
of  this  last  remark,  in  the  recent  judgment  of  condem- 
nation, calmly  and  deliberately  pronounced  by  the  peo  - 
pie  at  the  polls  in  the  month  of  August  last  ?  A  major- 
ity of  twenty-five  or  twenty-six  thousand  freemen  have 
pronounced  it  unfit,wholly  unfit,  for  the  beneficial,  prac- 
tical purposes  of  good  government.  What  a  commen- 
tary upon  the  wisdom  of  statesmen  !  and  how  striking- 
ly does  it  illustrate  the  indiscretion,  and  I  will  add, 
without  intending  to  be  offensive,  the  folly  of  disregard- 
ing the  matured  and  well  considered  opinions  of  the 
people.  Public  sentiment  must  be  consulted.  It  can- 
not be  safely  disregarded.  For  a  while  it  may  be  re- 
sisted, successfully  resisted,  but  eventually  it  must  and 
will  be  triumphant.  It  must  be  so.  It  cannot  be  other- 
wise. It  will  ever  be  so,  until  despotism  is  erected  up- 
on the  ruins  of  popular  liberty,  and  God  grant  that  it 
may  ever  be  so  in  this  "  land  of  the  free  and  home  of 
the  brave." 

I  have  remarked,  sir,  substantially,  that  one  of  the 
characteristic  and  distinguishing  features  of  our  consti- 
tion  is,  a  marked  inequality  in  the  distribution  of  polit- 
ical power.  Is  not  this  most  apparent  ?  Proof  of  it  is 
written  on  the  face  of  the  instrument  itself,  and  writ- 
ten so  broadly  and  distinctly,  that  he  who  runs  may 
read  and  understand.  Rejecting  white  population  or 
the  qualified  voters,  as  the  only  true  and  legitimate  ba- 
sis of  representation,  it  not  only  gives  to  eastern  Vir- 
ginia a  present  unjust  majority,  but  the  power  of  per- 
petual control  in  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, as  far  as  that  object  can  be  accomplished  by 
constitutional  arrangement.  The  growing  population 
and  increasing  pecuniary  resources  of  the  west,  are  dis- 


288 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


regarded,  and  eastern  Virginia  is  secured  in  the  posses- 
sion of  power  in  defiance  of  every  change  which  may 
occur  in  the  condition  of  the  country.    Is  this  right  ? 
Can  it  be  right  %    Is  it  just  ?    Is  it  not  indeed,  to  the 
west,  injustice,  gross,  unmitigated  injustice  ?  I  call  upon 
the  members  who  constitute  the  eastern  delegation  to 
correct  the  wrong,  the  palpable,  grievous  wrong.  I 
call  upon  them  to  render  to  the  people  of  the  west,  that 
justice,  which  under  similar  circumstances,  would  most 
promptly  and  cheerfully  be  rendered  unto  them.    I  ap- 
peal to  them  to  bear  testimony  by  their  recorded  votes 
to  the  obvious,  indefensible  injustice,  against  which  we 
of  the  west  una  voce  enter  our  most  earnest  and  delibe- 
rate protest,  speedily  to  apply  the  corrective,  and  at 
once  and  forever  remove  the  reproach  which  now  un- 
happily rests  on  the  otherwise  fair  and  spotless  escutch- 
eon of  eastern  Virginia.    I  am  an  eastern  Virginian, 
born  and  raised  almost  within  cannon-shot  of  this  very 
building  ;  educated  in  part  in  this  very  city,  and  cher- 
ishing for  the  east,  and  the  people  of  the  east,  all  that 
warm  and  devoted  attachment  which  it  is  so  natural  to 
feel  for  the  land  of  one's  nativity,  and  yet  I  solemnly 
declare,  if  I  were  permanently  resident  in  your  midst, 
and  a  member  of  this  Convention  from  the  east,  I  would 
not  hesitate  to  do  that  which  I  have  so  earnestly  and 
sincerely  invoked  you  to  do.    I  would  adopt  white  pop- 
ulation or  the  qualified  voters  as  the  only  true  and  le- 
gitimate basis  of  representation,  because,  with  all  my 
heart,  mind,  soul  and.  strength,  I  believe  in  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people.    Yes  sir,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people.    "Where  is  the  Virginian  who  would  call  in 
question  this  fundamental  doctrine  ?     Where  is  the 
intelligent  American  citizen  who  would  refuse  to  yield 


it  his  most  cordial  assent  ?  I  veriiy 


believe  such  a  Vir- 


ginian- 
found. 


-such  an  American  citizen — can  no  where  be 
The  doctrine  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  free 
government,  and  without  it,  iu  my  judgment,  there  can 
be  no  rational,  well  seemed,  well  regulated  liberty.  I 
do  not  propose,  however,  to  go  into  a  labored  argument 
in  vindication  of  this  now  well-established  American 
doctrine.  Filmer,  the  once  corrupt  and  profligate  min- 
ion of  power,  has  no  disciples  here  or  elsewhere,  I  trust 
in  Virginia.  Every  where  throughout  Christendom, 
the  advocates  of  freedom  have  succeeded  in  the  gradu- 
al, but  steady  diffusion  of  liberal  principles.  The  hu- 
man mind  in  a  good  degree  has  been  emancipated.  The 
jure  divino  has  ceased  to  exert  its  paralizing  influence, 
and  every  where  the  masses  begin  to  regard  it  as  a  mis  - 
erable  humbug,  contrived  to  cheat  them  of  their  rights. 
A  brighter  day  has  dawned  upon  the  world — but  I  for- 
bear, I  will  not  press  the  inquiry.  I  forbear  to  speak  of 
my  own  hopes  and  fears,  or  the  interest  which  the 
friends  of  free  government  every  where  take  in  the  on- 
ward march  of  liberty,  and  the  promise  it  makes  of  re- 
lief to  the  oppressed  nations  of  the  earth.  It  is  enough 
for  my  purpose  to  know,  that  here,  in  this  country,  in 
Virginia,  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  has  long  ago 
been  recognized,  and  may  I  not  hope,  forever  establish- 
ed %  The  doctrine,  sir,  eomes  down  to  the  men  of  the 
present  day,  sanctified  by  time,  and  tested  and  confirmed 
by  experience.  It  comes  to  us  commended  to  our  ac- 
ceptance by  the  treasure  expended,  the  blood  shed,  and 
the  sufferings  endured  by  the  American  revolution. 
The  patriots  in  that  ever  memorable  conflict,  purchased 
it  at  a  high  price,  and  have  handed  it  over  to  us,  to  be 
kept  as  a  most  precious,  sacred  deposit.  Let  us  now 
look  for  a  single  moment,  to  some  only  of  the  many  in- 
valuable truths  which  these  patriots  have  wisely  em- 
bodied in  the  declaration  of  rights.  In  the  second'  arti- 
cle of  this  declaration  these  patriots  tell  us  "  that  all 
power  is  vested  in  and  consequently  derived  from  the 
people."  In  simple  but  explicit  language,  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people  is  briefly  but  distinctly  recognized. 
Power,  and  as  if  that  word  was  inadequate  to  express 
the  thought  with  sufficient  precision,  it  is  said,  all  pow- 
er is  vested  in  the  people.  And  yet  this  declaration 
has  been  pronounced  to  be  an  arrant  abstraction.  What 
sir,  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  an  arrant  abstraction  ? 


The  declaration  in  the  bill  of  rights,  which  proclaims 
the  great  elementary  principle  that  all  power  is  vested 
in,  and  consequently  derived  from  the  people,  an  arrant 
abstraction?  No,  sir  !— no.  It  is  pure,  unmixed,  unadul- 
terated truth— practical  truth.  If  power  resides  not  with 
the  people,  with  whom  does  it  reside  ?  With  kings  ?  Un- 
der the  resistless  energy  of  the  language  thus  quoted,  the 
monarch  loses  his  crown,  and  a  pampered,  favored  no- 
bility their  exclusive  privileges.  But,  sir,  there  is  an- 
other important  principle  announced  by  these  patriots 
in  the  article  under  consideration,  which  we  should  be 
careful  to  remember,  because  it  will  serve  as  a  useful 
guide  in  the  examination  and  decision  of  other  questions 
which  will  come  before  us.  It  is  declared  "  that  magis- 
trates are  trustees  of  the  people,  and  at  all  times  amen- 
able to  them."  Here  the  relation  between  the  repre- 
sentative and  the  constituent  body  is  plainly  and  dis- 
tinctly defined.  It  is  the  relation  of  principal  and 
agent.  The  representative  is  invested  with  temporary 
power,  for  the  accomplishment  of  objects  connected  with 
the  public  interests.  He  is  a  trustee,  a  mere  trustee  ; 
the  people  are  the  beneficiaries,  ;to  whom  belong  the 
power,  and  as  soon  as  his  trust  is  executed,  he  goes 
back  to  the  body  of  the  people,  stripped  of  all  authori- 
ty, to  render  an  account  of  his  stewardship.  I  have  ad- 
verted to  this  relation,  not  because  it  has  any  immedi- 
ate or  necessary  connexion  with  the  question  before  us, 
but  because  il  is  found  in  the  same  article  which  de- 
clares the  power  of  the  people,  and  indicates  the  rule 
which  will  govern  me,  and  I  hope  will  govern  this 
Convention,  in  the  decision  of  other  very  important 
questions. 

In  confirmation  (if  confirmation  be  needed)  of  the 
proposition,  that  the  people  are  the  only  legitimate 
source  of  all  rightful  political  authority,  I  take  leave, 
most  respectfully,  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  third  article  in  the  bill  of  rights.    After  de- 
claring that  government  is  or  ought  to  be  instituted  for 
the  common  benefit  and  protection  of  the  people,  and 
indicating  the  preferable  government,  the  great  doctrine 
of  popular  rights  is  re-announced  in  the  following 
terms — "  that  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  in- 
dubitable, unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform, 
alter  or  abolish  the  government,"  whenever  it  is  found 
inadequate  to  the  ends  for  which  it  was  instituted.  Here 
we  have  another  instance  of  the  bold,  independent  and 
peculiarly  expressive  language  of  the  fathers  of  the 
revolution.   The  sentiment  could  not  have  been  more 
forcibly  or  beautifully  expressed.    It  is  not  a  simple  af- 
firmation of  right,  but  the  right  is  pronounced  to  be  in- 
dubitable— not  only  indubitable  but  unalienable — not 
only  unalienable,  but  indefeasible.    A  majority  of  the 
community,  it  is  asserted,  hath  this  right.    Let  us  in- 
quire briefly  what  is  the  kind  of  community  intended 
by  this  clause  ?    What  is  its  character  ?    How  constitu- 
ted ?    What  are  its  elements  ?    The  response  to  these 
interrogatories,  seems  to  me  to  be  obvious  enough. 
Clearly  it  is  an  association  of  freemen  for  political  pur- 
poses— an  association  I  mean,  of  free  white  men,  not  of 
freemen  with  black  and  yellow  skins — a  society  of  ra- 
tional, responsible  men,  (such  as  I  have  described  them) 
capable  of  entering  into  the  social  compact — capable  of 
contracting  and  being  contracted  with.     And  now, 
with  this  brief  exposition,  excluding  as  you  see,  women, 
infants  and  all  other  disabled  persons,  permit  me  to  ask, 
whether  it  is  possible  to  suppose  that  the  authors  of 
that  inimitable  production,  the  bill  of  rights,  could  have 
contemplated  by  the  clause  under  consideration,  a  mix- 
ed community  ?    A  community  of  freemen  and  slaves  ? 
A  community  compounded  of  men,  dollars  and  cents  ? 
The  supposition  cannot  be  made  or  entertained  for  a 
single  moment.    It  is  repelled  by  that  care  which  dis- 
tinguishes the  announcement  of  all  their  principles,  by 
the  uniform  precision,  and  accuracy  which  pervade 
the  entire  instrument,  and  effectually  repelled  by  the 
natural  and  reasonable  import  of  the  terms  employed. 
If  the  authors  of  the  bill  of  rights  had  intended  the 
singular  compound  of  which  I  have  spoken,  they  would 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


269 


not  have  left  it  to  be  deduced  by  a  very  loose,  and  inj 
my  judgment,  most  unsatisfactory  inference.  It  would' 
hare  been  clearly  expressed.  The  elements  of  popula-  j 
tionand  wealth,  of  men  and  money  would  have  been  de- 
scribed in  appropriate  language.  The  mixed  principle, [ 
in  a  word,  would  hare  been  so  distinctly  denned,  that 
Misconception  would  have  been  impossible.  This  how-1 
ever,  they  have  not  done,  and  I  conclude  therefore,  that ; 
the  strange  compound  to  which  I  have  referred  waSi 
never  contemplated  by  them. 

But,  sir,  in  the  progress  of  time,  differences  of  opin-1 
ion  must  necessarily  exist  in  the  community  of  which  I 
have  been  speaking,  in  relation  to  proposed  changes  in 
the  fundamental  law,  and  hence  the  necessity,  the  ab- 
solute necessity,  of  some  rule  for  the  adjustment  and 
settlement  of  those  differences  of  opinion.  The  article 
under  consideration  furnishes  that  rule.  It  declares, 
that  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  the  indubitable, 
unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter  orj 
abolish,  (tc.  Here  we  have  no  mixed  majority,  which1 
is  but  another  name  for  a  minority.  It  is  the  plain,  sim- 
pie,  republican  majority,  to  which  the  people  of  this 
country  have  long  been  accustomed,  and  which  for  one, 
I  am  unwilling  to  surrender.  True,  the  strict  letter  of  j 
the  rule  restricts  it  to  questions  of  constitutional  reform,  | 
but  the  spirit  goesbeyondthe  letter  and  makes  it  equal-! 
ly  applicable  to  any  and  every  political  operation.  Why| 
not  ?  Why  adopt  one  rule  for  constit  utional  reform,  and  j 
another  and  different  rule  for  the  legislative  department  ; 
of  the  government  ?  If  the  rule  of  the  bill  of  rights  be 
safe  in  the  one  case,  it  cannot  be  unsafe  in  the  other.  | 
If  it  be  wise  and  expedient  in  the  reformation  of  the ! 
government,  how  can  it  be  unwise  and  inexpedient  in! 
its  application  to  the  ordinary  legislation  of  the  coun-  j 
try  ?  I  am  aware,  of  no  consideration,  however  plausi- 1 
ble,  which  at  any  time  or  place,  or  under  any  circum-  j 
stances,  could  ever  tempt  me,  or  ought  to  tempt  anyj 
other  Virginian,  to  discard  the  tried,  well  established) 
republican  doctrine,  which  affirms  the  right  of  a  simple,  j 
pure,  unmixed  majority  to  govern.  Strip  the  people  of) 
this  invaluable  right — let  the  Convention  gravely  and  | 
solemnly  renounce  it,  and  it  requires  no  prophetic  spirit  | 
to  predict  that  the  day  must  come,  when  every  -vestige! 
of  popular  freedom  will  be  swept  away  from  this  an-  j 
cient  and  renowned  commonwealth.  In  my  judgment! 
there  can  be  no  safety,  no  peace,  no  quiet  to  the  public 
mind,  except  in  the  adoption  of  white  population  or  the  j 
qualified  voters,  as  the  only  true  and  legitimate  basis  j 
of  representation.  But  property  or  taxation  has  been! 
and  still  is,  most  vehemently  and  zealously  urged  as  a 
proper  element  in  the  distribution  of  political  power,  j 
Are  gentlemen  prepared  by  another  constitutional  ar- 1 
rangement,  permanently  and  indefinitely  to  fasten  upon  j 
the  people  of  the  west,  a  principle  not  only  repulsive  to  | 
their  feelings,  at  war  with  those  friendly  relations  which  j 
should  always  exist  between  the  different  portions  of  I 
the  commonwealth,  but  utterly  repugnant  to  all  the  | 
principles  of  free  government  ?  We  all  profess  to  be 
republicans  —  republicans  in  theory  —  republicans  in 
practice — and  how  then  can  gentlemen  insist  upon  per-J 
petuating  the  power  of  the  country  in  the  hands  of  a 
minority  ?  What  right,  moral  or  political,  has  the  mi- 
nority to  that  power  \  Whence  is  it  derived  ?  from  what 
source \  from  what  code?  from  what  compact  ?  Who) 
are  the  parties  to  it  ?  I  ask  what  right  has  the  wealth  | 
of  the  State  to  control  the  destinies  of  the  State  ?  The 
government  of  Virginia,  organized  as  it  is,  is  and  can 
be  nothing  more  or  less  than  an  odious  and  most  offen- 
sive aristocracy.  In  violation  of  the  most  solemn  de- 
claration in  the  bill  of  rights,  the  power  of  the  common- 
wealth is  transferred  from  the  hands  of  the  many  (its 
rightful  depositories)  to  the  hands  of  the  favored  few.  i 
A  despotism  is  established — political  equality  (the  most 
beautiful  and  distinguishing  feature  in  the  creed  of  the ! 
republican)  is  at  an  end,  and  the  whole  people  of  the 
west,  by  the  organic  law  of  the  land,  are  reduced  to  the 
miserable  and  dependent  condition  of  serfs — serfs  to  the 
east.  I 


I  now  desire  to  direct  the  attention  of  members  con- 
stituting the  eastern  delegation  in  this  Convention,  to 
other  consequences  which  must  necessarily  result  from 
the  doctrine  maintained  by  them.  If  it  be  true  that 
property  or  taxation  is  a  necessary  and  indispensable 
element  in  the  distribution  of  political  power,  and  that 
regard  must  be  had  to  it,  in  the  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentation between  the  east  and  west,  it  must  or  at  least 
ought  to  be,  adopted  in  the  apportionment  between  the 
counties,  cities  and  towns  of  eastern  Virginia.  Are 
gentlemen  prepared  for  this  ?  Are  they  willing  so  to 
apply  their  doctrine  \  Are  they  prepared  in  the  appor- 
tionment between  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  of  the 
east,  to  give  to  each  a  representation  in  proportion  to 
the  white  population,  and  the  amount  or  value  of  prop- 
erty held  by  each,  or  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  each  ? 
Are  they  willing,  by  such  an  arrangement,  to  give  to 
the  cities  and  counties  embracing  a  very  large  amount 
of  the  wealth  of  the  country,  the  power  of  controlling 
and  defeating  ad  libitum  and  indefinitely  the  wishes, 
feelings  and  sentiments  of  counties  with  more  limited 
means  r  Are  they  prepared  to  practice  an  injustice  so 
revolting  \  Their  doctrine  leads  to  that  result.  Per- 
haps, however,  they  are  not  willing  to  exhibit  towards 
the  latter  counties,  so  much  of  unkindness  and  illiberal- 
ity.  Why  then  do  that  in  the  apportionment  between 
the  east  and  west,  which  it  would  not  be  proper  to  do 
in  the  apportionment  between  the  several  cities,  towns 
and  counties  of  eastern  Virginia  \  If  the  principle  be 
unjust  in  the  one  case,  it  cannot  be  just  in  the  other. 
But  this  is  not  all.  Would  gentlemen  be  willing,  by  a 
single  blow,  to  strike  down  the  political  equality  which 
exists  between  the  independent  freemen  of  the  east  ? 
Would  they  make  eastern  voters  unequal  at  the  polls  } 
Would  they  invest  one  eastern  man  with  an  amount  of 
power,  because  of  his  wealth,  which  they  would  deny 
to  another  eastern  man,  because  of  his  poverty  ? 
Would  they  give  to  the  one  authority  to  govern  the 
other  ?  to  direct  and  control  his  fortunes  and  destinies  ? 
— in  a  word,  to  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  the  veriest 
slave  on  earth  ?  I  am  sure  they  would  not.  The  thought 
is  indignantly  repelled  as  unworthy  of  freemen — as  the 
manifestation  of  an  injustice  too  gross,  too  intolerable 
to  be  borne  for  a  single  moment.  Yet  I  am  constrained 
to  say,  that  this  very  injustice,  this  wrong,  this  griev- 
ous wrong,  has  been  and  is  practised  upon  the  people 
of  the  west,  in  the  relation  they  sustain  to  the  people  of 
the  east.  It  is  perpetrated  by  the  existing  constitution 
of  Virginia,  and  perpetrated,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  aggravation.  What 
are  those  circumstances  \  Look  to  the  organization  of 
the  last  Convention.  True,  it  was  organized  on  the  ba- 
sis of  the  senatorial  districts,  but  these  districts  were 
arranged  according  to  the  census  of  1810,  and  the 
west  lost  the  benefit  of  the  entire  increase  of  its  white 
population,  from  that  period  to  the  passage  of  the  law 
authorizing  the  sense  of  the  people  to  be  taken  on 
the  question  of  convention  or  no  convention.  In  this 
there  was  injustice.  That  convention  not  only  assigned 
to  the  east  a  present  unjust  majority,  but  deliberately 
invested  her  with  the  power  of  perpetual  control  in  the 
legislative  departmentsof  the  government.  In  this,  too, 
there  was  injustice — most  manifest  and  palpable.  And 
now,  here  we  are  in  a  convention,  so  constituted  as  to 
secure  to  eastern  Virginia  a  nominal  majority  at  least 
of  seventeen.  These  facts,  sir,  I  cannot  but  regard  as 
so  many  evidences  of  a  settled  purpose,  to  exclude  the 
west  from  its  just  participation  in  the  political  power  of 
the  State,  and  thus  excluded,  to  keep  it  in  a  state  of 
most  offensive  vassalage.  Is  it  at  all  wonderful,  there- 
fore, that  the  western  people  should  complain — ear- 
nestly complain — aye,  solemnly  protest  against  a  wrong 
which  sinks  them  below  the  level  and  dignity  of  eastern 
freemen  ?  The  constitution  degrades  the  western  white 
man,  when  it  treats  him  as  politically  unequal  to  his 
fellow  on  this  side  of  the  ridge,  and  he  who  supposes 
the  western  people  will  lie  down  tamely  and  quietly 
under  the  degradation,  has  wofully  mistaken  their  char- 


290 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CO  IS  VE  M  ICK 


acter.  I  will  not,  however,  despair  of  relief,  unpropi- 
tious  as  are  the  circumstances  to  which  I  have  advert- 
ed. Justice  may  yet  be  done  to  the  west,  and  be  done 
by  this  very  Convention. 

Elsewhere  it  has  been  said  (it  was  said  in  the  last 
convention,  and  may  be  repeated  here)  that  the  princi- 
ples so  earnestly  and  zealously  urged  by  the  west,  are 
mere  abstractions,  and  therefore  unfit  for  any  practical 
purposes  whatever.  To  the  suggestion,  I  have  this 
brief,  but  on  that  account  no  less  conclusive  response,  to 
make.  The  doctrines  of  the  west  are  the  doctrines  of 
the  fathers  of  the  revolution.  These  distinguished  and 
illustrious  patriots  were  no  visionary  theorists.  They 
indulged  in  no  idle,  metaphysical  abstractions.  They 
were  men  of  sound,  practical  sense,  and  fully  equal  to 
all  the  exigencies  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  No 
difficulties  subdued  them.  The  history  of  our  colonial 
dependence,  of  British  misrule  and  oppression,  of  the 
separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  mother  country,  and 
of  the  revolution  which  followed,  furnishes  an  impres- 
sive illustration,  not  of  their  patriotism  only,  but  of 
their  superior  wisdom.  To  that  wisdom  we  owe  our 
national  independence,  the  blessings  of  free  govern- 
ment, and  those  inestimable  principles  which  have  been 
so  carefully  and  wisely  embodied  in  the  bill  of  rights. 
These  principles  are  the  principles  of  the  western  peo- 
ple. Call  them  abstractions — call  them,  if  you  please, 
the  ravings  of  a  distempered  mind,  or  in  derision,  by 
any  other  nick-name — they  are  still  our  principles. 
We  take  them  as  the  measure  of  our  rights.  We  insist 
upon  them  as  the  measure  of  our  rights — willing  to 
take  what  they  will  give,  unwilling  to  take  less.  I  need 
scarcely  say,  that  the  authority  of  these  elementary 
principles  of  government,  is  in  no  wise  impaired  by  the 
omission  to  carry  them  into  the  constitution  of  "76.  This 
very  omission  is  but  additional  evidence  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  men  to  whom,  at  that  time,  were  committed  the 
interests  and  destinies  of  the  people.  They  were  enter- 
ing upon  a  mighty,  fearful  struggle,  which  required 
all  the  resources  of  the  country,  and  the  union,  firm  and 
unbroken,  of  all  hearts  and  hands.  Hence  the  necessity, 
the  absolute  necessity,  of  disturbing  just  then,  as  little 
as  possible,  the  order  of  things  as  it  existed  under  the 
colonial  government. 

It  has  been  alleged  in  defence  of  the  mixed  basis,  and 
in  vindication  of  the  course  pursued  towards  the  west, 
that  the  west  has  been  subjected  to  no  practical  evils. 
With  the  truth  of  this  allegation  I  have  nothing  to  do  at 
resent.  I  refuse  to  take  issue  upon  it.  I  refuse  to  do  so, 
ecause  I  am  unwilling  to  make  up  an  issue  upon  an 
immaterial  fact.  Its  decision  cannot  in  any  manner 
whatever  affect  the  decision  of  the  question  before  us — 
but  let  it  be  admitted,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  and 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  in  the  practical 
operations  of  the  government,  we  of  the  west  have  been 
treated  kindly,  humanely,  liberally,  if  you  please,  how 
can  the  concession  avail  those  to  whom  it  is  made  ?  We 
are  not  here  to  complain  of  the  want  of  kindness  or  lib- 
erality on  the  part  of  the  eastern  people,  in  the  actual 
administration  of  the  government.  We  are  here  for 
a  very  different  purpose.  We  are  here  to  deny  their 
right  to  govern  us  at  all ;  to  insist  upon  white  popula- 
tion, or  the  qualified  voters,  as  the  only  true  basis  of 
a  representative  republican  government,  and  to  urge 
upon  the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  the  fact,  that 
at  this  very  moment  there  is  in  the  west,  of  white  pop- 
ulation, a  majority  between  ninety  and  a  hundred  thou- 
sand. The  western  people  can  never  be  induced  to  em- 
brace the  mixed  or  black  basis,  as  the  proper  exponent 
of  representation.  They  are  inseparably  wedded  to  the 
white  principle.  Their  attachment — their  devotion  to 
it,  is  as  immovably  fixed,  as  are  the  foundations  of  their 
native  mountains.  They  will  never  renounce  it.  They 
can  never  renounce  it.  No  legislation,  however  bene- 
ficient,  can  ever  induce  them  to  renounce  it.  They  be- 
lieve it  to  be  above  all  just  and  reasonable  exceptions, 
and  to  be  indissolubly  connected  with  their  indepen- 
dence as  freemen.    Charge  them  not  with  obstinacy. 


Their  conduct  is  not  without  a  precedent.  There  is  a 
precedent  which  must  commend  itself  to  the  acceptance 
of  all.  That  precedent  is  furnished  by  the  American 
revolution.  What  produced  that  devolution?  Surely 
not  the  amount  of  the  stamp  tax  or  the  tax  on  tea. 
The  men  of  the  revolution  cared  not  for  its  amount.  To 
preserve  the  connexion  between  the  colonies  and  the 
mother  country,  the  parliament  was  more  than  willing- 
to  repeal  the  taxes.  The  patriots  of  that  day,  however, 
insisted  upon  a  renunciation — a  total  renunciation — ot 
the  right  assumed  to  tax  them  to  any  extent  whatever. 
The  assumed  right  was  denied  upon  the  obvious  princi- 
ple, that  no  legislative  assembly,whatever,  can  legislate 
for,  or  rightfully  impose  a  tax  upon  any  people  whatev- 
er, who  are  unrepresented  in  that  assembly.  It  was 
the  assertion  of  this  principle  on  the  one  hand,  and  its 
denial  on  the  other,  that  brought  on  that  fearful  but 
glorious  struggle  which  terminated  in  the  establishment 
of  our  national  independence.  The  men  of  that  day 
earnestly  contended  for  the  truth ;  waxed  warm  in  its 
support,  and  eventually  sealed  their  devotion  to  princi- 
ple, with  their  blood.  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  feel- 
ing as  did  the  men  of  the  revolution,  that  the  men  of  the 
mountains,  without  reference  to  the  question  of  practi- 
cal evils,  should  warmly,  zealously  and  perseveringly 
maintain  a  principle  which  they  believe  t©  be  identified 
with  the  perpetuation  of  their  liberties. 

I  will  here  notice  in  as  few  words  as  I  may,  an  argu- 
ment which  on  more  occasions  than  one,  has  been  urged 
with  great  plausibility,  but  which,  in  my  judgment,  is 
wholly  unsound.  It  has  been  said  that  the  revolution 
teaches  the  doctrine,  that  taxation  and  representation 
go  hand  in  hand,  and  that  the  friends  and  advocates  of 
the  mixed  basis  claim  nothing  but  what  is  fully  justified 
by  that  doctrine.  Let  the  proposition  as  I  have  an- 
nounced it  be  briefly  examined.  I  have  already  stated 
the  character  of  the  controversy  between  the  colonies 
and  the  mother  country,  and  that  the  right  assumed  by 
the  parliament  to  tax  them,  was  resisted  and  denied  on 
the  plain,  sensible,  rational  principle,  that  no  assembly 
whatever  can  rightfully  tax  any  people  who  are  unrep- 
resented in  that  assembly.  And  now,  what  analogy  is 
there  between  that  principle  and  the  mixed  basis  ? 
Certainly  none — none  whatever.  The  colonies  did  not 
ask  a  representation  in  the  British  parliament,  accord- 
ing to  their  population,  their  wealth,  their  contributions 
to  the  government,  or  upon  a  combination  of  any  or  all 
of  these  elements.  They  presented  no  basis  of  repre- 
sentation whatever.  A  basis  was  altogether  foreign  to 
their  purpose.  They  denied  the  right  of  the  parliament 
to  tax  them  to  any  extent  whatever,  and  at  once  placed 
themselves  upon  the  elevated  and  impregnable  ground 
just  stated.  They  claimed  no  representation  in  the  par- 
liament, and  would  have  taken  none,  however  freely  or 
voluntarily  tendered.  How  is  it  with  eastern  Virginia  ? 
She  has  claimed,  aye,  demanded  and  enforced  her  de- 
mand, not  to  a  representation  for  her  citizens  alone,  but 
for  her  citizens  and  their  property — for  her  citizens  and 
their  contributions  to  the  public  treasury.  This  brief 
view,  I  apprehend,  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  show  the 
entire  absence  of  the  slightest  restmblance  between  the 
mixed  basis  and  the  doct  rines  of  the  revolution,  and  I 
will  not,  therefore,  detain  the  committee  by  further  re- 
marks on  this  point. 

It  appears  from  authentic  official  evidence  before  us, 
that  the  political  power  of  this  commonwealth,  is,  at 
this  very  moment,  in  the  hands  of  a  small  eastern  mi- 
nority. Under  the  sanction  of  a  doctrine,  now  too  long 
and  too  well  established  to  be  gravely  questioned,  we 
of  the  west  ask  that  this  power,  by  the  organic  law  of 
the  land,  be  transferred  from  those  who  hold  it  to  an  as- 
certained western  majority  of  more  than  ninety  thou- 
sand, and  we  are  answered  that  its  continued  posses- 
sion is  necessary  t  o  the  protection  of  peculiar  eastern  in- 
terests. Fears  are  professed  that  those  interests  will 
be  subjected  to  excessive  taxation,  by  the  proposed  and 
unquestionably  rightful  depositories  of  the  power. 
These  fears  are  thus  made  the  pretext  for  denying  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


291 


the  west  a  simple  act  of  sheer  justice.  The  eastern 
people  are  the  present  trustees  of  the  power  in  ques- 
tion, and  how,  L  ask,  has  the  trust  been  executed  ?  If 
faithfully— if  the  western  people  have  found  in  their 
eastern  brethren,  honest,  kind,  and  indulgent  rulers, will, 
gentlemen  refuse  to  recognize  in  that  very  fact,  good 
and  sufficient  reason  for  the  opinion,  that  if  the  seat  of 
empire  be  changed,  the  west  will  manifest  towards  the 
east  the  same  spirit  of  honesty,  moderation  and  forbear- 
ance ?  Or  do  the  obligations  of  justice  exert  a  more 
feeble  influence  upon  the  men  of  the  mountains,  than 
upon  the  men  of  the  lowlands  ?  Is  there  less  moral  re- 
straint in  the  traus-montaine  country  than  here  ?  Less 
integrity  ?  Less  honesty  ?  My  eastern  friends  admit  a 
perfect  equality  in  all  these  respects,  but  accompany 
the  admission  with  the  disqualifying  remark,  that  temp- 
tation may  prove  too  strong  for  all  these  virtues  of  the 
heart.  The  possible  abuse  of  a  right,  then,  is  the  pre- 
text, and  in  the  estimation  of  some  gentlemen,  a  very 
sufficient  reason,  for  withholding  it  altogether.  Well,  if 
the  west  may  yield  to  the  force  of  temptation,  so  may 
the  east.  If  eastern  property  be  not  safe  from  the 
imputed  marauding  spirit  of  a  western  majority,  what 
guarantee  has  the  west,  that  western  property  will 
always  be  secure  against  a  similar  abuse  of  power  by 
an  eastern  minority?  If  danger  be  great  in  the  one 
case,  how  much  greater,  how  infinitely  greater  is  it  in 
the  other  ? 

But  for  whom  is  this  protection  demanded?  The 
fact  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  interests  of  a  few 
slave  owners,  it  is  supposed,  will  be  imperilled  by  the 
proposed  transfer  of  power,  and  must  therefore  be  se- 
cured. How  many  slave  owners  are  there  in  eastern 
Virginia  ?  Their  number  is  less  than  forty  thousand. 
What  a  small  portion  !  a  mere  fraction  of  its  population. 
And  are  the  principles  of  free  government  to  be  sacri- 
ficed for  the  alleged  benefit  of  this  battalion  of  negro- 
holders  ?  I  hope  not.  Heaven  forbid  it.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve, I  cannot  believe,  that  the  sacrifice  is  demanded 
by  the  masses  any  where  in  Virginia. 

But  I  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  feeling  of 
distrust,  so  strongly  manifested  towards  the  people  of 
the  west,  appears  to  me  to  be  not  only  very  ungenerous 
but  exceedingly  unreasonable.  What  is  there,  let  me 
ask,  in  their  entire  conduct,  ah  urbe  condita,  to  excite 
a  well  founded  apprehension,  that  the  powers  of  the 
government  would  be  abused  by  them,  to  the  oppres- 
sion and  injury  of  the  east?  What  is  there  to  justify 
an  opinion,  a  belief,  a  suspicion  even,  that  armed  with  the 
powers  of  the  government,  they  would  in  an  aggressive, 
plundering  spirit,  seize  upon  the  resources  ©f  the  east, 
and  apply  them  to  their  own  alleged  selfish  purposes. 
Where  is  the  proof  in  support  of  an  imputation  so  dis- 
creditable— so  derogatory  to  the  hon^r  of  the  west  ?  On 
what  page  of  her  history  is  it  to  be  found  ?  That  page 
has  not  yet  been  written,  and  I  apprehend  never  will 
be.  True,  she  may  have  been  indiscreet,  perhaps,  in 
sometimes  co-operating  with  the  east  in  the  establish- 
ment; of  some  petty,  injudicious  local  improvement.  If 
this  be  so,  it  is  "  the  head  and  front  of  her  offending — 
to  this  extent — no  more."  But  you  know,  "  that  trifles 
light  as  air,  are  to  the  jealous  confirmations,  strong  as 
proofs  of  holy  writ."  I  pray  gentlemen,  to  dismiss  at 
•once  and  forever,  the  unworthy  and  unfounded  suspi- 
cion. It  can  impart  no  additional  credit  to  the  chivalric 
and  otherwise  generous  character  of  eastern  Virginia. 
Instead  of  distrust,  there  is,  in  my  judgment,  abundant 
reason  for  confidence.  The  war  of  1812  furnishes  the 
most  impressive  and  memorable  illustration  of  the  truth 
of  this  remark.  Amid  its  stirring  incidents,  the  com- 
mon enemy,  it  will  be  recollected,  made  demonstra- 
tions of  his  purpose  to  burn  the  towns  and  cities  of  the 
east,  and  to  lay  waste  the  entire  country  on  the  sea- 
board. The  loud  and  anxious  call  to  arms,  was  heard  in 
its  thunder  tones,  beyond  the  mountains.  Did  western 
men  fold  their  arms  and  look  with  cold  indifference  up- 
on the  threatened  impending  ruin  ?  Oh  no.  The 
struggle  was,  who  should  be  foremost  in  pressing  on- 


ward to  the  scene  of  danger.  The  west  poured  its 
hundreds  into  the  lowlands,  whose  surface  now  bears 
melancholy  evidences  of  western  devotion  to  eastern 
interests — distinctively  so  called.  No  mention  was  then 
made  of  impassible  mountain  barriers.  No  distrust  was 
then  felt,  and  none  expressed.  The  east  did  not  then 
distrust  the  west,  nor  the  west  the  east.  Animated 
by  a  common  spirit  in  defence  of  a  common  country, 
there  was  a  oneness  of  feeling,  of  sentiment,  and  of  in- 
terest. How  is  it  now  ?  Of  the  west,  I  hope  I  may 
be  permitted  to  speak  with  something  like  the  confidence 
of  intimate  knowledge.  Aa  it  then  was,  so  it  now  is. 
She  feels  that  Virginia  with  all  her  proud  associations, 
is  the  common  home  of  all  her  sons  ;  that  Virginia  hon- 
ors are  her  honors ;  Virginia  rights,  her  rights ;  and  that 
an  enemy  to  the  east,  whether  foreign  or  domestic,  is  her 
enemy — and  let  me  tell  you,  sir,  should  the  dark  cloud 
of  northern  fanaticism,  which  has  so  long  hung  over  the 
south,  with  an  increased  and  increasing  blackness,  ever 
break  in  its  fury  upon  southern  rights,  in  that  same 
hour,  will  the  brave  and  gallant  spirits  of  the  west,  be 
found  side  by  side  with  their  eastern  brethren.  The 
west  looks  and  has  ever  looked  with  pride  and  pleasure 
on  this  good  old  commonwealth,  as  one  and  indivisible 
— not  only  theoretically,  but  practically  so.  Therefore 
it  is,  as  well  as  for  other  good  and  sufficient  reasons, 
we  tell  our  eastern  friends,  as  we  have  often  told  them, 
that  the  provision  in  the  federal  constitution,  which  se- 
cures to  the  south  a  representation  for  three-fifths  of 
her  slaves,  can  find  no  place  in  the  consideration  of  a 
question  of  representation  in  Virginia.  That  provi- 
sion which  settles  no  principle,  establishes  no  proportion 
whatever  between  representation  and  taxation,  is  sim- 
ply a  compromise  between  sovereign  and  independent 
States.  But  Virginia  is  a  single  sovereignty — a  unit 
— one  and  indivisible.  In  this  aspect,  we  have  been  in 
the  habit  of  regarding  her,  and  in  none  other.  There  is 
in  truth,  no  substantial  difference — no  material  diversi- 
ty of  interests,  between  the  east  and  west.  Invest  the 
west  with  the  legislative  power  of  the  government, 
and  I  know  of  no  peculiar  western  objects  to  induce  un- 
just and  ureasonable  levies  on  eastern  means.  I  know 
of  no  western  enterprise  in  conflict  with  the  general 
public  good.  A  few  great  avenues  of  trade,  of  State  in- 
terest, already  commenced,  I  apprehend  would  be  com- 
pleted— I  hope  speedily  completed — a  consummation 
most  devoutly  to  be  desired — a  consummation  demand- 
ed by  an  enlightened  regard  to  the  true  interests  of  our 
entire  country.  The  tide  of  emigration  which  is  now 
annnally  reducing  our  population,  and  wasting  away 
the  energies  of  the  State,  would  then  be  arrested;  the 
abundant  and  inexhaustible  sources  of  wealth  and 
strength,  with  which  our  country  abounds,  would  then 
be  fully  developed,  and  the  various  parts  of  this  good 
old  commonwealth,  would  be  bound  together  fey  cords, 
to  be  broken  by  no  power  on  earth.  The  prostrate  and 
paralyzed  body  of  Virginia,  under  the  magic  influence  of 
a  policy  so  wise,  so  beneficent,  would  spring  into  new 
life,  and  once  more  stand  erect,  in  the  midst  of  the  now 
more  prosperous  members  of  the  family.  Such  results, 
I  know,  would  gladden  the  heart  of  every  Virginian, 
and  such  results,  I  think,  may  be  confidently  anticipa- 
ted. I  again  utter  the  remark  already  made — in  my 
opinion,  there  can  be  no  peace,  no  quiet  to  the  public 
mind,  except  in  the  adoption  of  white  population,  or  the 
qualified  voters  as  the  basis  of  representation.  Reject 
it,  if  gentlemen  will,  but  let  them  remember  it  is  not 
therefore  rejected  forever.  The  day  will  soon  come, 
when  the  demand  for  justice  will  be  renewed  with  a 
sterner  purpose,  and  in  a  spirit  which  will  take  no  de- 
nial. The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  in- 
quires, how  long  will  the  patience  of  the  east  be  abused 
fey  the  complaints  of  the  west  ?  I  repeat  the  eloquent 
response  of  my  eloquent  friend  from  Accomac.  "  They 
will  be  rung  in  the  ears  of  eastern  men,  until  they  are 
made  to  tingle,"  and  I  will  add,  until  western  wrongs 
are  redressed.  I  have  finished,  what  I  intended  to 
say.    I  thank  the  Convention  for  its  polite  attention. 


292 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


Perhaps  I  hare  occupied  too  much  of  its  time.  If  so, 
I  hope  an  apology  may  be  found  for  me,  in  the  earnest 
desire  I  have  felt,  fully  to  represent  the  sentiments  of 
my  constituents,  on  this  subject  of  deep  and  absorbing 
interest.  .The  floor  will  now  be  yielded  to  others,  who, 
no  doubt,  will  conduct  the  argument  with  much  great- 
er ability. 

Mr.  CHAMBLISS.  It  is  with  great  diffidence  and 
extreme  embarrassment  that  I  rise  to  address  this  com- 
mittee— a  diffidence  originating  from  the  fact,  that  it  is 
the  first  time  in  my  life  that  I  have  ever  addressed  a 
deliberate  body,  and,  from  the  fact  that  I  am  surround- 
ed by  so  much  age,  by  so  mueh  experience,  and  by  so 
much  talent  that  is  so  far  superior  to  that  to  which  I 
can  lay  any  just  claim.  A  remark  which  has  fallen 
from  my  friend  from  Greenbrier,  has  brought  me  to  my 
feet.  Those  remarks  in  which  he  alluded  to  a  bat- 
talion of  slaveholders,  caused  me  to  feel  that  the  great 
interest  which  I  in  part  represent  on  this  floor,  deserves 
some  notice  from  its  advocates  and  its  owners.  I  am 
one,  and  my  constituents  constitute  a  large  portion  of 
that  battalion.  Yes,  small  in  territorial  extent  as  my 
district  is,  I  in  part  represent  on  this  floor,  twenty-eight 
thousand  slaves.  But,  before  I  proceed  to  notice  the 
argument  which  he  adduced  in  that  respect,  I  trust  the 
committee  will  allow  me  for  a  few  moments  to  allude 
to  the  source  from  which  he  claims  this  political  power 
of  numbers. 

This  question  is  exceedingly  interesting — interesting  to 
us  all — interesting  because  it  has  so  long  agitated  the 
public  mind  in  this  old  commonwealth.  We  all  know, 
that  when  questions  are  thus  long  agitated,  they  pro- 
duce jealousies,  heart-burnings  and  feelings,  which  I 
fear  will  unfit  too  many  of  us  upon  this  floor  to  give 
calm  and  deliberate  investigation  to  subjects  which 
may  be  presented  to  us.  I  fear  that  the  channels  into 
which  our  thoughts  have  so  long  run,  may  induce  us 
to  look  with  some  distrust  upon  any  proposition  which 
may  be  presented — according  to  the  source  whence 
it  comes.  This  is  always,  and  ever  will  be  the  inevita- 
ble result  of  long  cherished  opinions,  and  of  long  agita- 
ted questions.  The  gentleman  referred  to  that  ex- 
position of  great  truths,  political  truths,  the  bill  of 
rights,  as  the  source  from  which  he  derives  his  power  of 
numbers.  In  defence  let  me  tell  him,  that  there  is  not 
a  section  in  that  bill  of  rights  which  does  not  give  pro- 
perty as  prominent  a  position  as  persons.  What,  is  not 
property  one  of  the  very  elements  of  the  body  politic  ? 
Is  it  not  one  of  its  stays  and  supports?  What  would  a 
community  of  men  do  without  money  ?  They  would  be 
as  impotent  as  money  without  men.  What,  I  ask,  are 
the  uses  of  government  at  all  if  you  have  nothing  but 
men  to  govern  ?  Our  bill  of  rights  gives  to  majorities 
of  numbers  the  rule,  he  says,  and  its  great  principles  are 
those  upon  which  the  white  basis  has  its  origin.  Why, 
the  declaration  of  independence  itself  places  property 
in  a  middle  ground  between  life  and  honor. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  admit  that  property 
is  the  fit  subject  of  protection  of  the  government;  but 
my  proposition  is,  that  property  is  not  a  just  element  in 
the  distribution  of  political  power. 

Mr.  CHAMBLISS.  I  did  not  misunderstand,  neither 
do  I  intend  to  misrepresent  my  honorable  friend  from 
the  county  of  Greenbrier.  I  do  not  intend  to  do  so,  be- 
cause (if  for  no  other  reason)  he  was  one  of  those  illus- 
trious men  who  formed  the  constitution  under  which 
we  now  live.  I  say,  that  in  all  the  conventional  ar- 
rangements which  have  existed,  so  far  as  Virginia  is 
concerned,  whether  as  a  party  to  the  federal  compact, 
or  in  her  own  constitution,  property  has  ever  received 
a  prominence  equal  to  persons.  I  repeat,  our  fathers 
gave  their  solemn  pledge  to  sustain  their  principles; 
they  pledged  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sa- 
cred honor  in  defence  of  these  principles.  Did  they 
not  regard  their  fortunes  as  worth  something,  else  why 
pledge  them  to  sustain  the  principles  they  had  ad- 
vanced? But  there  are  more  clauses  in  the  bill  of 
rights  than  my  friend  alluded  to.    Pray  tell  me  what 


use  there  would  have  been  for  the  bill  of  rights  to  have 
declared  that  magistrates  were  the  servants  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  their  trustees  and  agents,  if  it  had  not  been  for 
the  management  of  property  ?  Do  persons  need  trus- 
tees and  agents  to  manage  them  ?  My  friend  does  not 
need  a  trustee,  and  men  are  able  to  govern  them- 
selves. Why  then  do  you  want  your  trustees  and  your 
agents,  except  to  manage  your  funds?  That  is  not 
all.  There  is  something  else  in  the  bill  of  rights  be- 
sides. It  secures  to  men  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness,  and  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possessing 
property.  There,  the  bill  of  rights  places  the  acquisi- 
tion and  keeping  of  property  in  precisely  the  same  cat- 
egory as  it  does  the  rights  of  persons.  I  think,  there- 
fore, that  property  will  be  here  regarded,  as  it  was  re- 
garded by  our  forefathers,  as  of  some  moment. 

But  I  was  astonished,  and  I  approach  this  argument, 
therefore,  with  some  greater  degree  of  feeling  than  I 
otherwise  should  approach  it,  under  the  threat  that  is 
held  over  this  body,  "  in  terrorem,"  by  my  honorable 
friend.    I  hope  he  does  not  mean  it  as  such. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  certainly  do  not  under- 
stand the  gentleman. 

Mr.  CHAMBLISS.  I  will  make  you  understand. 
He  warns  the  east,  that  if  you  deny  the  demand,  we 
will  ring  and  ring  again  this  question  till  your  ears  shall 
tingle.  What  is  that  but  a  threat,  that  if  you  deny  us 
what  we  ask,  we  will  never  let  you  rest  day  nor  night, 
till  our  wishes  are  consummated? 

If  this  committee  will  indulge  me,  and  I  hope  they 
may  indulge  me,  as  it  is  the  first  time  that  I  have  tres- 
passed upon  their  patience,  I  will  examine  briefly  the 
grounds  upon  which  we  place  this  claim  to  the  com- 
bined basis  of  representation.  Now,  I  do  not  care 
what  may  be  the  theoretical  arguments.  I  do  not  care 
what  may  be  these  abstractions  ;  we  are  sent  here 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a  practical  government, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a  government  that  shall 
regulate  our  concerns,  and  those  of  our  posterity,  as 
practical  men  ;  and  pray  tell  me  what  do  we  find  is  the 
position  in  which  this  commonwealth  is  placed  ?  Not 
with  her  interests  homogeneous ;  not  with  her  property  of 
like  kinds,  alike  distributed  throughout  the  State  ;  but 
we  find  that  while  there  is  a  majority  of  population  of 
ninety  thousands  beyond  the  mountains  ;  we  find  in  the 
east  a  minority  possessing  two-thirds  of  the  property. 
And  that  very  battalion,  to  which  my  friend  has  re- 
ferred, owns,  in  one  single  article  of  property,  an  excess 
of  upwards  of  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  this, 
taking  the  estimate  of  slaves  at  a  very  low  price.  I  re- 
peat that  we  hold  one  hundred  and  odd  millions  of  dol- 
lars worth  of  slaves  more  on  this  side  of  the  mountains 
than  you  do  on  the  other.  The  gentleman  admits  that 
this  property  is  entitled  to  protection,  and  he  admits 
that  it  is  entitled  to  the  very  best  protection.  And 
what  is  that  ?  Is  it  to  trust  to  the  magnanimity — and 
I  shall  be  the  last  man  in  this  Convention  who  will 
pretend  to  cast  any  imputation  upon  the  justice  of  our 
friends  and  brethren  from  the  west — is  it  that  we  shall 
trust  it  to  the  magnanimity  of  our  western  friends  ? 
You  are  magnanimous  we  know ;  and  you  have 
shown  it  on  many  occasions,  especially  the  memorable 
one  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier  alluded. 
In  the  war  of  1812,  our  soil  was  drenched  with  the 
blood  of  western  men,  and  the  bones  of  many  of  them, 
lie  now  upon  the  sea  shore.  For  that  we  thank  them, 
and  to  our  western  brethren  for  their  patriotism,  and 
for  their  magnanimity,  in  our  hearts  we  have  erected  a 
never  dying  monument.  But  it  is  not  with  questions 
like  that  we  have  to  deal,  but  it  is  with  the  practical 
question  of  how  this  government  shall  be  formed,  so  as 
best  to  secure  the  purposes  of  justice,  moderation,  fru- 
gality and  virtue,  and  how  this  government  can  best 
be  made  so  as  to  prevent  the  danger  of  mal-administra- 
tion.  How  can  that  be  done  ?  It  can  be  done,  says  my 
friend  from  Greenbrier,  by  committing  it  to  the  hands 
of  a  majority  of  numbers.  That  king  numbers  can  bet- 
ter rule  than  a  combination  of  all  the  various  interests 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


293 


of  the  commonwealth !  Can  that  be  true  ?  Is  the 
vast  property  which  we  hold  to  be  set  aside  ?  Why  do 
our  western  "brethren  want  the  majority  in  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  government  ?  Why  will  they  ring  it  in  our 
ears  until  they  tingle  again,  until  they  get  that  major- 
ity ?  He  admits  that  they  have  never  suffered  from  the 
administration  of  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government.  He  agrees  that  the  west  has  never  suf- 
fered from  this  power  while  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
east. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Greenbrier.  I  said  that  was  an  im- 
proper issue,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  CHAMBLISS.  It  is  an  improper  issue,  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question !  The  protection  of 
our  property  is  an  issue  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
question  !  It  is  the  question,  blink  it  as  you  may,  cover 
it  over  as  you  please  ;  strip  the  question  of  its  tinsel, 
expose  it  in  all  the  deformity  which  it  appears  to  us, 
and  its  features  stand  out  as  prominent  as  the  Greek 
slave.  What  is  asked  of  us  is,  that  we  shall  commit 
this  mighty  interest  to  their  hands,  and  their  keeping. 
That  is  the  privilege  which  he  asks  ;  that  is  the  privi- 
lege which  the  white  basis  gives.  And  for  what  ?  That 
they  may  manage  this  great  interest  which  belongs  to 
us  ;  that  they  may  take  upon  themselves  the  burthen  of 
executing  this  trust.  We  admit  to  our  western  breth- 
ren that  they  have  a  mortgage  upon  our  estates.  We, 
freely  of  our  abundance,  give  to  their  necessities  ;  but 
we  ask  for  the  power  and  the  privilege  of  appointing 
the  trustees  unto  whose  hands,  in  whose  management, 
and  by  whose  distribution  this  fund  is  to  be  carried 
out.  That  is  what  we  ask,  while  they  ask  the  east  to 
turn  over  to  them  this  fund.  Is  it  because  you  are  in 
pursuit  of  a  principle  ?  Are  your  people  dissatisfied 
because  you  are  in  pursuit  of  a  principle  and  cannot 
find  it?  Is  that  all  you  want?  I  awfully  fear  that 
if  the  principle  stood  alone,  probably,  gentlemen 
might  not  be  so  anxious  to  adopt  it.  I  repeat  that  I 
fear — I  do  not  charge  it — that  if  principle  alone  was 
involved,  that  if  our  excess  of  property  was  not  to  be 
placed  into  your  hands,  that  you  would  not,  probably, 
t)e  so  clamorous  for  a  majority,  which  would  give  you 
that  control. 

Whence  is  this  right  of  the  majority  derived  ?  Where 
does  it  come  from  ?  Where  does  this  principle  of  a 
majority  of  numbers  spring  from  ?  Does  it  spring  from 
any  natural  law  ?  I  thought  that  our  bill  of  rights, 
which  has  been  invoked  by  my  friend,  declares  that  all 
men  are  equal.  Is  there  anything  in  nature  which  gives 
any  man  a  right  to  lord  it  over  his  fellow  ?  Is  there 
anything  but  the  law  of  force  by  which  the  stronger 
overcome,  oppress  and  distress  the  weaker  ?  Surely 
there  is  no  gentleman  on  this  floor  who  is  desirious  of 
applying  that  natural  law  of  force  in  our  present  or- 
ganic law  ?  Does  it  arise  from  any  conventional  ar- 
rangement ?  If  so,  what?  Pray,  what  conventional 
arrangement  have  we,  have  our  constituents,  has  the  gen- 
tleman from  Greenbrier,  has  any  body  in  the  common- 
wealth of  Virginia,  ever  been  a  party  to,  to  invest  a  ma- 
jority of  numbers  with  the  right  to  rule  the  whole  in- 
terests of  the  commonwealth  ?  It  is  not  derived  from 
this  bill  of  rights,  from  no  law  of  nature,  and  there  is 
no  conventional  arrangement,  either  federal  or  State, 
which  gives  them  that  authority.  Tell  me,  should  it  exist? 
Are  not  the  great  elements  of  society,  persons  and  pro- 
perty ?  Are  not  all  our  laws  made  for  the  protection 
of  persons  and  property  ?  Are  not  our  courts  establish- 
ed for  the  very  purpose  of  trying  the  rights  of  persons 
and  property  ?  Is  not  our  executive  invested  with  the 
power  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  laws  in  respect  to 
persons  and  property  ?  Yet,  when  in  all  the  machine- 
ry of  government,  in  all  its  departments,  property  is  re- 
garded as  standing  side  by  side  with  the  rights  of  man, 
and,  I  am  told,  that  it  is  to  have  no  influence  in  the  gov^ 
ernment  itself,  I  am  gravely  told  that  property  is  to 
stand  alone  and  can  take  care  of  itself.    How,  when,  or 


where,  did  property  ever  take  care  of  itself?  When, 
where  and  how  did  property  ever  protect  itself,  except 
through  the  agency  of  those  who  own  it  ?  They  are 
the  active  representatives  of  this  fund.  They  are  the 
trustees  to  whose  keeping  it  is  to  be  given,  and  it  is 
only  through  them  that  property  can  be  felt  in  the  gov- 
ernment and  receive  adequate  and  efficient  protection. 
I  did  not  intend  to  detain  the  committee,  and  could  not 
do  so  physically  if  I  desired,  but  I  beg  leave  to  say  to 
my  friend  from  Greenbrier  that  though  he  may  give 
this  warning,  that  this  question  of  the  white  basis  will 
be  rung  in  our  ears  till  the  stalwart  sons  of  the  west 
shall  have  what  they  term  an  equal  voice  in  this  gov- 
ernment, that  never  so  long  as  this  battalion,  or  even  a 
corporal's  guard  of  that  battalion,  is  in  this  hall,will  we 
surrender  to  men  who  do  not  own  it,  the  control  of  that 
slave  property.  I  came  here  to  protect  that  property  ; 
I  came  here  to  protect  the  slaves  of  my  district  as  well 
as  the  persons;  I  came  here  to  have  an  eye  single  in 
all  the  departments  of  government  to  that  controlling 
interest  which  prevails  in  the  district  which  I  repre- 
sent. While  I  will  do  justice  to  all,  as  far  as  I  am  ca- 
pable, yet  my  bond  is  given,  my  pledge  is  given,  and  I 
will  stand  up  here  at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity, to  defend  that  interest — that  paramount  inter- 
est of  the  constituents  whom  I  in  part  represent — 2,500 
of  whom  in  part  stand  upon  this  floor  in  my  person. 
Yes,  I  represent  upon  this  floor  one  fourth  as  many 
slaveholders  as  there  are  living  beyond  the  Blue  Ridge 
mountains  ;  and  could  it  be  expected  that  I  should  be 
silent  when  we  were  denominated  a  mere  battalion,  and 
when  this  interest  which  I  in  part  represent  amounts  to 
upwards  of  ten  millions  of  dollars,  shall  be  sneered  at 
as  a  mere  corporal's  guard  ?  What  great  object  is  to 
be  effected  by  transferring  this  power  which  we  are  ask- 
ed to  transfer  from  our  own  hands  to  those  of  our  western 
brethren  ?  Will  it  have  a  tendency  to  allay  any  sec- 
tional strife,  any  sectional  feeling?  Will  it  have  the 
effect  of  levelling  the  mountains  and  making  our  inter- 
ests homogeneous  ?  Will  the  western  people  become  a 
commercial  community  ?  What  effect  I  say  will  it 
have  in  soothing  this  hydra-headed  sectional  feeling 
which  has.  been  stalking,  from  the  very  foundation  of 
the  government  to  the  present  day,  over  Virginia  ? 
While  you  may  soothe  the  dissatisfaction  of  our  western 
friends,  you  will  place  upon  our  eastern  friends  a  dis- 
trust ;  and  it  is  useless  for  me  to  stop  to  inquire  which  is 
the  more  deleterious  feeling  to  exist  in  the  community, 
one  of  distrust  or  one  of  simple  dissatisfaction  about 
principle  ?  To  what  greater  evils  will  not  the  one  lead 
than  the  other  ?  Our  western  brethren  may  be  dissat- 
isfied, but  certainly  they  will  have  suffered  no  injury. 
But  we  would  have  the  fears  of  the  whole  of  eastern 
Virginia  aroused,  that  their  property  would  not  suffer 
from  cupidity,  not  because  the  western  people  were 
disposed  to  grind  us  by  oppression,  but  they  would  dis- 
trust it.  Whether  that  feeling  would  be  well  or  ill 
founded,  it  is  bootless  here  to  inquire.  So  that  you  would 
transfer  the  feeling  of  distrust  to  the  east  against  the 
feeling  of  dissatisfaction  on  the  other  side  of  the  moun- 
tains. You  do  not  allay  it,  you  effect  no  practical  good, 
while  you  would  place  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
not  entitled  to  hold  them,  the  purse  strings  of  the  State. 
I  trust  that  the  time  may  soon  arrive,  I  trust  that  the 
time  is  at  hand,  I  trust  it  will  ever  be  at  hand  when  ev- 
ery man  in  every  part  of  Virginia  will  feel  himself  to 
be  a  Virginian.  Does  it  need  a  white  basis  to  bind  our 
western  brethren  to  us  by  a  cord  which  cannot  be  bro- 
ken ?  Are  they  not  now  bound  to  us  by  all  the  cords 
of  sympathy  and  of  brotherly  affection,  of  a  common 
interest  and  of  loyalty  to  our  institutions,  that  will 
never  allow  them  to  break  off  from  us  ?  We  have  no 
distrust  of  your  people  as  individuals,  but  do  you  not 
know  that  we  are  dealing  with  you  as  we  deal  with  all 
men  ?  Communities  of  men  do  what  individuals  dare 
not  think  of  doing.  Do  we  not  know  in  political  affairs 
that  communities  do  what  no  single  individual  of  that 
community  would  dare  to  even  think,  much  less  do  ? 


294 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


It  is  by  that  feeling,  and  from  that  feeling,  that  we  are 
disposed  to  guard  ourselves  and  our  interests. 

I  feel  exceedingly  obliged  to  this  committee  for  lis- 
tening with  so  much  attention  to  one  so  inexperienced 
in  debate  as  I  am.  I  owe  to  this  committee  an  apology  be- 
cause of  my  want  of  preparation.  While  I  had  thought 
over  this  subject  somewhat,  still  I  feel  the  want  of  due 
preparation  for  this  discussion.  I  owe  the  apology,  be- 
cause I  say  in  sincerity  I  was  brought  to  my  feet  by 
the  remark  which  dropped  from  my  worthy  friend  from 
the  county  of  Greenbrier. 

Mr.  McCOMAS.  As  I  presume  that  no  one  desires 
to  address  us  at  this  late  hour,  I  move  that  the  com- 
mittee rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — ayes 
50,  noes  45,  and  the  committee  accordingly  rose. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  understand  that  the  gentleman  who 
was  not  ready  at  the  time  the  vote  was  taken,  is  now 
prepared  to  proceed  with  the  discussion.  I  move,  there- 
fore, that  the  Convention  again  resolve  itself  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to, 

And  the  Convention  accordingly  again  resolved  itself 
into  committee  of  the  whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair,) 
and  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Basis  and  Apportionment  of  Repre- 
sentation. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  confess  that,  so 
far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  this  debate  is,  to  some 
extent,  forced  upon  me.  I  do  not  deny  that  I  have 
given  some  attention  to  the  great  principles  involved  in 
this  question,  or  that  I  have  investigated  the  facts  con- 
nected with  it.  I  acknowledge,  however,  that  the  doc- 
uments on  which  I  wish  to  rely  are  not,  at  present,  at 
my  command.  Not  expecting  that  the  debate,  on  the 
part  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  to  begin  the  discussion, 
would  be  concluded  to-day,  I  did  not  come  armed  with 
those  facts  to  which  I  wish  to  refer.  But  I  can  make 
a  few  remarks  in  reply  to  some  of  those  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Greenesville,  (Mr.  Chambliss.)  That 
gentleman  and  myself  differ  toto  coelo,  in  respect  to  the 
great  starting  point  of  his  argument — of  all  argument 
on  this  subject — that  is.  that  in  this  great  machinery  of 
government — this  science  in  which  are  involved  all 
the  dearest  rights  and  privileges  of  men,  there  are  no 
principles — there  is  nothing  to  begin  an  argument  with  ; 
that  in  framing  the  organic  law  we  are  to  look  to  n© 
fundamental  principles  of  government;  that  our  fath- 
ers were  all  wrong  in  declaring  certain  rights  to  be 
the  basis  and  foundation  of  government;"  that  these 
are  mere  abstractions — a  succession  of  empty  abstrac- 
tions.   I  have  not  so  learned  the  theory  of  government. 

There  was  one  principle  conceded  here  a  few  days 
ago,  though  all  others  were  denied,  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton) — one  staple  left  on  which 
to  hang  the  frame-work  of  government.  It  was,  that  all 
power  rightfully  resides  in  the  people,  and  that  when- 
ever it  is  exercised  by  any  other  than  the  people,  it  is 
still  considered  their  power,  and  legitimately  derived 
from  them.  Yes,  sir,  it  belongs  to,  and  comes  from, 
the  people.  And  who  are  the  people  ?  The  people,  it 
is  said  by  some,  are  a  combination  of  sentient,  intelli- 
gent, responsible,  and  immortal  beings,  and — money. 
[Laughter.]  I  am  foolish  enough  to  believe  that  the 
people  are  a  community  of  men,  with  responsibilities  to 
themselves,  to  each  other  and  to  God ;  that  a  free  peo- 
ple have  a  high  and  holy  mission  confided  to  them,  and 
that  their  destiny  will  be  noble  and  exalted  if  they 
faithfully  observe  the  laws  of  their  intellectual  and 
moral  being !  The  power  derived  from  the  people  is 
to  be  exercised  for  their  benefit ;  but  the  gentleman 
from  Greenesville  says  it  is  to  be  exercised  for  the  ben- 
efit of  men  and  money,  and  that  in  the  declaration  of 
independence,  and  in  our  bill  of  rights,  the  rights  of 
property  stand  side  by  side  with  the  rights  of  persons. 
He  says  the  laws  are  made  rather  to  protect  property 
than  persons — that  the  courts  of  justice  and  the  exec- 
utive are  established  rather  to  expound  and  enforce 


laws  concerning  property  than  persons.  In  this  argu- 
ment lies  the  radical  error  of  the  gentleman :  it  is  in 
supposing  that  by  our  laws  property  is  regarded  as  a 
being  that  has  a  right  to  speak,  to  litigate  its  interests 
in  our  courts,  and  to  demand  for  itself  the  execution  of 
the  laws.  Property  is  no  separate  subject  or  source  of 
government  •  the  right  to  hold  it  is  a  mere  personal 
right,  just  as  the  right  to  life  and  liberty.  One  great 
cause  of  this  assumption  of  power  for  property  orig- 
inates, perhaps,  in  the  distinction  made  by  Blackstone 
and  others  between  the  rights  of  persons  and  the  rights 
of  things.  All  rights  that  appertain  to  men,  as  mem- 
bers of  a  community,  are  personal  rights,  and  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  right  of  property  independent  of 
the  right  of  persons.  In  the  convention  of  1829-'30, 
there  was  an  eloquent  man  who  came  from  the  county 
of  Northampton — I  refer  to  Mr.  Upshur — who,  in  a 
speech  that  reflected  immortal  honor  on  his  intellect — 
immortal  credit  on  his  ingenuity — spoke  of  this  matter 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  mystify  the  thoughts  of  the 
great  men  who  were  around  him.  But  what  did  he 
say?  He  admitted  that  property  was  a  creature  of 
society,  but  argued  to  show  that  "  a  feeling  of  prop- 
erty "  led  to  the  formation  of  society.  If  we  can  go 
back  to  those  dark  periods  of  the  past,  when  it  may 
be  supposed  man  was  in  a  state  of  nature,  I  would  ask 
what  probably  prompted  him  to  cease  roaming  over 
the  plains,  or  meeting  his  fellows,  by  chance,  in  the 
forest  to  form  a  social  compact  ?  It  would  seem  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  it  was  to  preserve  rights  which 
man  understood — the  value  of  which  he  realized. 
What  were  they?  The  answer  is — the  right  to  life, 
the  right  to  liberty — to  use  his  limbs  and  body  accord- 
ing to  his  pleasure.  These  are  clearly  natural  rights, 
and  to  preserve  them  intact,  it  would  seem,  men  were 
led — if  they  ever  were  in  a  state  of  nature — to  form 
the  social  compact.  Feeling  the  danger  to  life,  with 
regard  to  which  there  is  an  instinctive  and  innate  sense 
of  apprehension,  the  danger  to  liberty — an  impulsive, 
restless  love  of  which — a  love — a  passion  that  starts  in- 
stinctively from  every  human  heart,  men  would  band  to- 
gether to  protect  themselves  against  the  law  of  force, 
of  which  the  gentleman  spoke  awhile  ago — from  the  as- 
saults of  the  strong  against  the  weak,  from  attempts  to 
destroy  life,  to  curtail  liberty,  and  to  enslave  the  body. 
Self-preservation  was  the  first  impulse  to  society  ;  a 
spontaneous  impulse  to  protect  clearly  appreciated 
rights,  led  men  to  combine,  that  those  who  were  sepa- 
rately weak,  and  a  prey  to  violence,  might,  by  union, 
become  strong  to  resist  the  ruthless  and  the  violent. 
Out  of  such  an  association  sprung  the  concession  that 
he  who  should  expend  his  labor  on  any  work  should 
have  the  right  to  claim,  and  the  privelege  of  using  it 
as  his  own,  by  separate  title.  Prior  to  this,  all  proper- 
ty was  held  in  common,  as  nature  gave  the  means  of 
sustenance  to  man.  This  right  to  separate  property 
was  a  concession  of  society,  already  formed,  to  its  indi- 
vidual members.  How,  then,  is  property — to  use  the 
idea  of  Mr.  Upshur — the  offspring,  the  creature  of  socie- 
ty ?  And  now  what  is  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Greenesville  ?  (Mr.  Chambliss.)  Why,  that  the  crea- 
ture shall  become  the  ruler  of  the  creator — that  proper- 
ty, instead  of  being  an  interest,  recognized,  protected, 
and  allowed,  by  the  consent  of  society,  shall  have  pow- 
er to  countervail  that  consent  in  respect  to  life  and  lib- 
erty— to  control  the  original  purposes  that  brought  it 
into  being.  The  doctrine  that  property  ought  to  have 
power  to  control  government,  cannot  be  said  to  find  its 
origin  either  in  nature  or  in  the  original  institution  of 
society.  But  I  did  not  design  to  speak  on  these  abstract 
questions.  I  may  refer  to  them  to-morrow.  My  chief 
purpose,  indeed,  is  to  address  to  this  committee  argu- 
ments founded  on  facts.  Taking  the  principle,  which 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  will  concede,  that  if  we,  as 
a  people,  be  homogeneous,  and  possess  identity  of  in- 
terests, representation  should  be  so  based  as  to  give 
equal  power  to  equal  numbers  of  voters — I  wish  to 
show  that  we  may  safely  and  properly  adopt  the  suf- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


295 


frage  basis.  I  desire  to  prove,  by  the  statistics  that  have 
been  laid  before  us,  what  will  be  the  legitimate  effect 
of  the  principle  that  representation  should  be  appor- 
tioned according  to  the  number  of  qualified  voters.  I 
wish  to  satisfy  my  friend  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott) 
that  if  this  principle  be  carried  out — the  principle  of 
equality,  not  only  in  regard  to  suffrage,  but  representa- 
tion— his  apprehensions  of  danger  are  wholly  unfound- 
ed ;  and  that  if  there  is  to  be  any  plundering — if  there 
is  to  be  any  marauding — if  there  is  to  be  any  foray 
from  the  mountains  down  on  the  lowlands,  (as  in  for- 
mer times  was  the  case  in  Scotland,)  the  lowlanders 
themselves  must  invite  the  foray — must  open  the  way 
for  the  incursion.  And  I  will  endeavor  to  show  that 
my  friend  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has,  in  days  gone 
by,  been  heard  sounding  the  bugle  charge,  at  the  head 
of  the  mountaineers,  in  their  rush  to  plunder  the  treas- 
ury. [Laughter.]  I  wish,  also,  to  intimate  to  tide 
water  that  she  has,  perhaps,  as  much  to  fear  from  the 
Piedmont  district  as  from  the  Valley  and  the  West.  I 
wish  to  show  that,  if  oppressions  are  anticipated,  they 
have  already  been  inflicted,  and  that  if  tide  water  has 
any  right  to  complain  of  burdens  on  its  purse,  those 
complaints  must  be  directed  against  the  Piedmontese  as 
well  as  western  men. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  will  not  pre- 
fer to  conclude  his  remarks  to-morrow,  and  give  way 
for  a  motion  that  the  committee  rise  ? 

Mr.  SHEFFEY".    It  would,  perhaps,  be  better. 

Mr.  CHA^BLISS.  I  never  interrupt  while  speak- 
ing, and  I  desire  now  to  correct  a  misapprehension  of 
the  gentleman.  In  the  course  of  the  remarks  which  I 
had  the  honor  to  submit,  I  did  not  say,  as  he  seems  to 
have  understood  me,  that  no  principles  of  government 
were  to  be  referred  to.  My  remark  was,  that  it  was 
useless  to  refer  to  fundamental  abstract  principles,  be- 
cause we  had  to  form  a  government  from  materials  al- 
ready furnished  to  us,  and  that  it  was  out  of  those  ma- 
terials that  the  government  was  to  be  formed. 

Mr.  PRICE.    I  now  move  that  the  committee  rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  find  that  it  still  lacks  a  quarter 
of  2  o'clock,  and  as  I  hope  the  Convention  will  not  ad- 
journ at  so  early  an  hour,  I  move  that  we  now  go  into 
committee  of  the  whole  on  the  report  of  the  executive 
department. 

Mr.  LETCHER.  I  move  that  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and 

The  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  11  o'clock. 

WEDNESDAY,  February  19,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hoge,  of  the  Presbyterian 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  that  there  was  a  matter  of 
unfinished  business,  being  the  motion  of  Mr.  Anderson, 
to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  the  executive  department,  pending  which 
the  Convention  adjourned  on  yesterday,  but  as  the  oc- 
casion to  which  the  motion  applied  had  passed,  it  would 
be  considered  as  having  fallen.  Such  he  understood 
was  the  desire  of  the  gentleman  who  offered  the  motion, 
himself. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  Ac. 

The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  PURKINS, 
resumed  the  consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
(Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,)  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee on  the  basis  of  representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  trust  I  shall  be  pardoned  if  I  re- 
peat to-day  some  things  uttered  by  me  in  the  desultory 


remarks  I  submitted  to  the  committee  on  yesterday. 
And  now,  permit  me  to  say,  that  I  approach  again  the 
discussion  of  the  question  under  consideration,  with  un- 
affected distrust  of  my  own  ability  to  cope  with  the  mo- 
mentous issue  it  presents.  It  is  indeed  a  great  question, 
profoundly  interesting  to  all  portions  of  the  Common- 
wealth ;  affecting  the  hearts  of  the  people ;  and  stirring 
in  their  lowest  depths  the  feelings  and  prejudices  of  our 
constituents.  I  tremble  lest  1  be  unable  to  rise  to  the 
summit  of  the  lofty  theme.  J  shall  be  sustained,  how- 
ever, by  two  considerations  which,  I  trust,  will  give  me 
power  to  discharge  my  duty — the  first  is,  that  with  all 
my  heart,  I  believe  in  the  virtue  of  the  cause  and  in  the 
truth  of  the  principles  I  advocate  ;  and  the  second  is, 
that  I  am  cheered  on  by  the  cordial  approval  of  the  gen- 
ereus  freemen  whom  I  represent.  It  is  no  new-born 
zeal  for  the  principle  of  equality  which  animates  my 
constituents,  and  I  will  add,  it  is  no  selfish  feeling  that 
prompts  them  to  demand  for  themselves  and  their  breth- 
ren of  the  West  an  equal  participation  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Commonwealth.  The  district  from  which 
I  come  contains  a  white  population  of  34,309 ;  a  slave 
population  of  9,617  ;  and  pays  annually  into  the  treasury 
$21,898.  My  constituents  are  no  seekers  after  mere 
power  ;  they  are  no  mendicants  praying  for  a  higher  rank 
in  the  sisterhood  of  counties.  Whatever  be  the  decision 
of  this  question,  their  political  power  will  not  be  di- 
minished. May  I  not  be  justly  proud  of  the  position  I 
am  permitted  to  occupy,  as  the  representative  of  a  peo- 
ple abounding  in  all  the  elements  of  prosperity,  and 
contending  for  a  great  principle  with  no  interest  to  be 
promoted  by  the  result  ?  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  has  ventured  to  declare  that  if  the  suffrage 
basis  be  adopted,  the  door  now  closed  against  the  plun- 
derers of  property,  will  be  thrown  wide  open — that  the 
people  of  the  West  are  struggling  for  the  purse-strings 
and  not  for  principle — and  that  the  clamors  of  the  west 
for  equal  representation  vex  his  patience.  Should  pro- 
perty be  assailed,  "  the  plunderers "  will  never  come 
irom  the  Augusta  district.  The  people  of  that  commu- 
nity have  interests  too  vast  at  stake  to  tolerate  a  threat 
against  the  institution  of  property,  much  less  to  become 
its  plunderers;  they  have  purses  too  capacious  and  well- 
filled  to  be  found  clutching  at  those  of  their  neighbors  ; 
but  in  respect  to  the  principle  of  equal  representation, 
their  unceasing  clamors  must  continue  to  vex  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier.  I  have  said  that  the  devotion 
of  my  constituents  to  this  principle  is  no  new-born  feel- 
ing, called  into  active  energy  by  appeals  to  their  self- 
interest.  If  the  scales  of  the  heartless  calculator  were 
to  be  suspended  and  men's  interests  estimated  by  the 
standard  of  dollars  and  cents  were  to  be  coldly  weighed, 
it  might  be  found  that  our  interests  would  bear  down 
our  principles.  The  time  has  been  when  the  people  of 
Augusta  were  urged  to  espouse  the  doctrines  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  and  were  told  that  it  was 
their  interest  to  do  so.  Could  you  have  witnessed  the 
manner  in  which  that  appeal  was  met,  and  however 
ably  pressed,  indignantly  rejected,  you  would  be  satis- 
fied that  it  were  vain  to  renew  the  attempt  to  pervert 
their  principles  in  order  to  promote  their  interest. 
They  believe  from  the  heart  and  with  the  understand- 
ing, that  suffrage  should  be  uniform,  and  that  represen- 
tation should  be  equal ;  and  their  faith  in  these  doctrines 
is  strengthened  by  the  memories  of  the  past.  They  re- 
member well  the  events  which  occurred  twenty-five 
years  ago — how  they,  in  common  with  the  people  in  the 
Valley  and  the  Piedmont  district,  groaned,  being  heavi- 
ly burdened  by  the  oppression  of  unequal  representa- 
tion— how  cordially  the  trans-Alleghany  district  co-op- 
erated with  them  to  secure  political  equality,  though 
at  the  time  to  its  own  detriment.  I  need  not  remind 
you  that  the  Valley  and  the  Piedmont  district  gained, 
whilst  the  trans-Alleghany  lost  political  power  in  the 
Convention  of  1829-30 — lost  it  under  a  stern  and  arbi- 
trary apportionment — by  a  constitutional  provision, 
which,  like  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  changes 
not.    Mr.  Doddridge,  with  prophetic  eye,  foresaw  that 


296 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  time  might  come  when  the  Valley  and  the  Piedmont 
would  cast  off  their  faithful  associates  and  turn  their 
backs  upon  them.  Awed,  as  it  were,  by  this  apprehen- 
sion, how  eloquently  did  he  appeal  to  the  people  of 
those  districts,  to  cherish,  to  keep  alive  the  memory  of 
common  struggles  for  great  principles,  and  never  to  de- 
sert their  glorious  standard.  The  memory  of  that  ap- 
peal, which  twenty-one  years  ago  was  answered  by  the 
Valley  and  the  Piedmont  with  a  vow  of  fidelity,  still 
thrills  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  my  district — its 
echoes  still  linger  in  our  beautiful  valley,  and  I  am  here 
to  redeem  the  plighted  faith  of  days  gone  by — to  de- 
clare now  the  opinions — to  advocate  now  the  principles 
so  dear  to  the  hearts,  so  cordially  approved  by  the  judg- 
ments of  our  people  twenty-one  years  ago.  I  do  indeed 
take  pride  in  their  position — feel  proud  of  their  consis- 
tency, and  honored  by  their  confidence.  And  Loudoun 
— who,  if  I  mistake  not,  in  1825,  called  her  sister  coun- 
ties into  convention  at  Staunton — who,  at  least,  united 
in  the  great  purposes  of  that  convention,  which  were 
to  secure  thorough  reform  of  the  old  constitution  in  re- 
spect to  suffrage  and  representation — noble  old  Loudoun! 
have  the  impressions,  the  principles  of  the  past  been  ef- 
faced from  her  mind  by  the  progress  of  time  or  by  a 
change  of  circumstances  ?  No,  I  believe  not ;  and  I 
would  fain  hope  that  her  voice,  always  on  the  side  of 
liberty  and  equality,  may  yet  be  heard  on  this  floor 
without  one  discordant  tone.  And  is  it — can  it  be,  that 
Albemarle,  Nelson,  Amherst,  Bedford,  Campbell  and 
other  counties  in  the  east,  once  keenly  alive  to  the  elo- 
quent appeal  of  the  orator  of  the  west,  are  now  pre- 
pared to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  theory  for  justice  once  uttered 
by  themselves,  simply  because  their  cry  has  been  an- 
swered, and  they  are  content  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr  Scott)  has  denom- 
inated the  proposition  we  advocate  as  new  and  extraor- 
dinary, and  that  this  eternal  clamor  of  the  people  of 
the  west  for  the  white  basis  vexes  his  patience ;  and  has 
declared  that  the  mixed  basis  being  the  foundation  of 
the  existing  state  of  things,  we  must  give  reasons  for  a 
change.  I  beg  leave  to  give  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  his- 
tory of  representation  in  this  Commonwealth ;  this  his- 
tory, I  think,  will  establish  two  facts — first,  that  the 
people  of  Virginia,  as  a  people,  have  never  had  an  op- 
portunity to  vote  upon  and  determine  for  themselves 
the  just  principle  of  representation ;  and  second,  that 
property  has  never  been  recognized  as  an  element  in 
representation,  except  in  the  case  of  the  bill  calling  this 
convention,  the  precedents,  so  far  as  they  go,  being 
against  such  a  doctrine.  The  colonial  government  was 
established  in  July,  1621.  Two  burgesses  were  author- 
ized to  be  elected  from  each  town,  hundred  and  partic- 
ular plantation  by  the  inhabitants ;  afterwards  they 
were  permitted  to  send  a  larger  number  of  burgesses. 
In  1634  counties  were  formed;  in  1660  each  county  was 
authorized  to  elect  two  delegates,  and  so  it  continued, 
irrespective  of  the  wealth  of  the  counties,  through  the 
revolution  and  under  the  old  constitution,  to  the  year 
1830.  In  1776  the  ordinance  of  government  was  adopt- 
ed —it  was  established  under  the  authority  of  an  ordi- 
nary legislative  body,  and  was  never  submitted  for  rat- 
ification or  rejection  to  the  people.  The  circumstances 
were  urgent — the  war  for  liberty  was  raging — the  old 
government  was  just  thrown  off — the  reasons  for  that 
act  and  the  principles  on  which  freemen  fought  to  erect 
the  structure  of  government  were  announced  in  the  bill 
of  rights — a  new  government  was  to  be  organized,  in 
the  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  "  for  purposes  of  resistance 
and  temporary  self-protection,"  and  therefore  the  free- 
hold suffrage,  which  had  been  imposed  on  the  colony  by 
the  King  of  Great  Britain  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet, 
and  the  county  representation,  were  permitted  to  re- 
main as  they  were.  It  will  be  seen  that  property  re- 
presentation wa,s  not  thought  of  in  1776.  There  were 
twenty-four  senatorial  districts  named  in  the  constitu- 
tion— twenty  east  and  four  west  of  the  blue  ridge  ;  as 
nearly  as  we  can  judge,  this  was,  at  the  time,  a  fair  ap- 
portionment of  representation  according  to  white  popu- 


lation. But  in  1790  each  eastern  senator  represented 
15.726,  and  each  western  senator  31,898  white  persons; 
in  1800  the  numbers  were  16,819  east,  and  44,369  west ; 
in  1810  there  were  16,941  east,  and  53,181  west ;  and 
in  1815,  it  was  estimated  that  the  four  western  senators 
represented  two-fifths  of  the  white  population  of  the 
State,  These  developments  aroused  the  west,  and  they 
began  to  vex  the  ears  of  eastern  men  with  their  clamors 
for  equal  representation.  They  did  not  at  that  time 
complain  so  much  of  inequality  in  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, because,  as  population  increased,  new  counties 
were  formed,  and  each  new  county  became  entitled  to 
two  delegates.  In  1815,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the 
house  of  delegates  to  equalize  representation  in  the  sen- 
ate ;  the  love  of  power  is  strong  in  man's  heart — so 
strong  that  his  grasp  of  the  sceptre  is  always  reluctant- 
ly relaxed.  Then,  as  now,  the  demand  for  equal  repre- 
sentation was  regarded  as  a  selfish  clamor  for  power  on 
account  of  its  emoluments,  and  not  as  the  assertion  of 
a  right  to  the  loss  of  which  freemen  cannot  tamely  sub- 
mit. To  this  reluctance  to  give  up  the  power  the  east 
had  been  wont  to  wield,  and  to  a  certain  opinion  given 
by  constitutional  lawyers,  the  bill  was  rejected.  That 
opinion  was,  that  the  constitution  having  defined  the 
limits  of  the  senatorial  districts,  the  general  assembly 
could  not  alter  them.  This  repulse  created  profound 
excitement  in  the  west,  and  led  to  the  great  convention 
at  Staunton  in  1816.  That  convention  preferred  a  peti- 
tion to  the  general  assembly,  praying  for  the  call  of  a 
convention  to  equalize  representation,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses. A  bill  was  reported  and  passed  the  house  of 
delegates,  which  provided  for  the  call  of  a  convention 
for  three  purposes :  first,  to  enlarge  the  right  of  suf- 
frage ;  second,  to  equalize  representation  on  the  basis  of 
the  white  population ;  and  third,  to  equalize  the  land 
tax.  This  bill  announced  three  great  principles  of  a 
free  republican  government,  viz :  enlarged  suffrage  ; 
equality  of  representation,  and  taxation  in  proportion  to 
the  ability  to  pay.  The  combined  or  mixed  basis  was 
still  unheard  of  in  Virginia,  although  as  early  as  1808, 
it  had  been  engrafted  on  the  constitution  of  South  Car- 
olina, whose  example  we  are  now  invited  to  follow.  The 
bill  thus  adopted  by  the  house  of  delegates,  and  so  fa- 
tally dangerous  to  eastern  power,  went  to  the  senate 
and  was  about  to  pass  that  body,  when  the  constitution- 
al lawyers  were  again  consulted,  who,  after  due  and 
careful  consideration,  came  to  the  same  conclusion,  at 
which  Mr.  Jefferson  had  arrived  as  early  as  1783 — 
namely  :  that  as  the  constitution  itself  was  a  creature  of 
legislative  power,  the  same  power  might  change  the 
senatorial  districts.  Accordingly,  to  avoid  the  immi- 
nent peril  of  a  convention,  a  bill  was  prepared  and 
passed,  February,  1817,  re-apportioning  representation 
in  the  senate  on  the  basis  of  white  population  and  for 
re-assessing  the  lands.  Nine  senators  were  givtn  to  the 
west,  each  representing  23,636  white  persons,  and  fif- 
teen to  the  east,  each  representing  22,589  white  persons, 
as  near  an  approximation  to  justice  as  could  have  been 
expected.  It  was  of  this  act  that  Mr.  Leigh  said  in 
1829,  "to  avoid  the  call  of  a  convention,  the  bill  for 
equalizing  the  representation  in  the  senate  on  the  basis 
of  the  white  population  was  in  an  evil  hour  passed ;  I 
had  no  share  in  it ;  I  thank  Heaven  for  all  its  mercies, 
none."  I  beg  to  know  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier, 
whether  there  is  any  authority  thus  far  in  the  history 
of  Virginia  for  the  doctrine  that  property  is  entitled  to 
control  government — that  representation  should  be  made 
to  quadrate  with  wealth?  In  the  Convention  of  1829-30, 
although  there  was  a  majority  of  twenty-four  members 
from  the  east,  the  resolution  of  the  legislative  commit- 
tee, which  declared  that  "in  apportioning  representation 
in  the  house  of  delegates,  regard  should  be  had  to  white 
population  exclusively,"  at  one  time  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  49  to  47,  and  no  substitute  for  the  resolution 
asserting  any  other  principle  could  be  carried.  The 
difficulty  of  agreeing  to  a  principle  of  apportionment 
for  the  senate  finally  opened  the  way  for  Gordon'scom- 
promise,  which  has  settled  down  upon  the  energies  of 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


297 


Virginia,  with  an  unyielding  arbitrary  power  that  has 
chafed  her  people  to  the  present  moment. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  relies  upon  the  call 
of  the  present  Convention  as  a  sufficient  justification  of 
his  position,  that  the  mixed  basis  is  the  existing  princi- 
ple of  representation,  and  that  therefore  we  must  show, 
reasons  for  a  change.  What  was  the  condition  of  things 
which  led  to  the  passage  of  the  act  calling  the  Conven- 
tion, and  to  the  adoption  of  that  act  by  the  people  ? 
The  cry  for  reform,  had  for  years  been  heard  in  the 
house  of  delegates.  Winter  after  winter  the  petitions 
for  a  Convention  had  been  either  rejected  or  cooly  passed 
by.  At  length  the  east  began  to  feel  the  burden  of 
grievances  as  well  as  the  west,  and  then  it  was  thought 
expedient  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  people.  I  had  the 
honor  of  preparing  the  original  bill  which  was  reported 
to  the  house  of  delegates :  it  proposed  to  submit  to  a 
majority  of  the  people  two  questions,  1st,  "  whether 
they  would  have  a  Convention,"  and  2nd,  "  whether  it 
should  be  based  upon  the  white  population  or  upon  the 
white  population  and  taxation  combined.  I  wished  to 
tender  to  the  freemen  of  Virginia  a  choice  of  principles. 
But  the  original  bill,  so  truly  republican  in  its  provis- 
ions, was  defeated,  and  the  substitute  ©f  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax  (Mr.  Stovall)  which  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple substantially  this  question :  "  will  you  have  a  Con- 
vention organized  as  this  is,  or  none?"  was  adopted, 
And  in  voting  for  a  Convention  thus  organized,  it  is  al- 
leged there  was  freedom  of  choice  in  respect  to  the 
principle  on  which  it  ought  to  have  been  organized. 
The  body  politic  was,  as  it  were,  starving  for  reform — 
we  tendered  to  the  fettered  and  emaciated  prisoner  the 
choice  between  starvation  and  a  parched  and  wretched 
diet,  which,  if  the  principles  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  prevail,  I  fear  will  only  serve  to  keep  alive  a 
feverish  and  fretful  vitality.  And  now,  we  are  told 
that  a  free  choice  was  made,  and  the  diet  was  relished 
and  approved,  and  has  become  the  staff  of  political  life. 
In  replying  affirmatively  to  the  question,  "will  you  have 
this  Convention  or  none  ?"  the  people  acted  under  the 
impulse  of  two  common  incentives  to  human  action — 
discontent  with  present  ills,  and  an  eager,  oft  times, 
a  too  sanguine  hope  of  blessings  in  the  future,  which 
will  result  from  change.  The  people  from  the  West, 
too,  looked  with  strong  hope,  almost  confidence,  to  the 
constituent  body  in  eastern  Virginia,  to  send,  at  least, 
some  delegates  to  the  Convention  who  would  advocate 
the  cause  so  ably  and  eloquently  defended  by  Monroe, 
Mercer,  Cordon  and  Fitzhugh,  in  1829  ;  and  although 
their  hopes  have  not  been  fully  realized,  I  am  gratified 
in  being  able  to  say  they  have  not  been  wholly  disap- 
pointed. 

And  now,  we  are  here  assembled  to  perform  the  most 
solemnly  important  functions  freemen  can  delegate  to 
representatives.  We  are  here  convened  to  re-organize 
every  department  of  our  government — to  infuse  efficien- 
cy and  to  create  responsibility  in  all  the  branches  of  our 
polity — to  build  anew  the  structure  of  our  institutions, 
and  to  render  the  results  of  our  labors  acceptable  to 
the  popular  mind,  so  that  it  may  rest  contented  with 
the  organic  law.  The  executive,  legislative  and  judi- 
ciary departments  are  to  be  remodeled,  and  improved 
by  us — the  county  court  system,  and  county  organiza- 
tion— the  functions  of  the  justices  of  the  peace — the 
cause  of  education — every  power  of  government  from 
that  which  from  the  centre  of  influence  at  the  capital, 
pervades  the  whole  State,  down  to  that  which  comes 
home  to  the  people  in  their  daily  walk  and  intercourse 
with  their  fellows — all  these  subjects  of  reform  are  en- 
trusted to  our  hands.  And  who  are  we  ?  It  is  said  we 
are  the  representatives  of  the  people — that  this  body  is 
the  organ  by  which  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people  is 
to  be  expressed  in  respect  to  all  these  momentous 
concerns.  Would  that  this  were  such  a  representative 
body !  But  it  is  far  otherwise.  What  is  the  fact  ? 
There  are  seventy-six  delegates  on  this  floor  represent- 
ing 402,771,  and  only  fifty-nine  delegates  representing 
26 


494,763  white  persons.    And  why  is  this?    Why  is  it 
that  so  small  a  minority  of  the  people  has  so  large  a 
majority  of  power  ?    Is  the  minority  more  exalted  in 
virtue,  in  character  and  in  wisdom  ? — has  God  impressed 
upon  them  the  stamp  of  superiority,  that  they  should 
so  wield  the  power  of  the  State  ?    Suppose  a  stranger 
were  to  appear  in  our  midst — one  who  had  read  our  bill 
of  rights  and  learned  to  value  its  sacred  principles — 
suppose  him  to  question  us  concerning  the  theory  and 
practice  of  our  government — how  astonished  would  he 
not  be  by  the  contrast !    You  declare  he  would  say  in 
your  bill  of  rights  "that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally 
free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights, 
of  which  when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society  they 
cannot,  by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their  poster- 
ity, namely:  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the 
means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  pursu- 
ing and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety."    Why  should 
not  those  who  are  equally  free  and  independent  and  who 
are  equally  entitled  to  those  inherent  rights  which  are 
to  be  guarded  by  this  government,  who  are  equally  in- 
terested in  the  preservation  of  those  rights,  be  equally 
represented  here  ?"    Our  answer  to  the  inquiry  would 
be,  that  all  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth  are  equal- 
ly free  and  independent,  and  equally  entitled  to  the  en- 
joyment of  life  and  liberty — together  with  the  means  of 
acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  of  pursuing  and 
obtaining  happiness — they  are  all  equals  in  right  and 
by  going  into  society  they  cannot  destroy  that  equality; 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  1776  the  provisional 
government  was  so  organized  as  in  the  course  of  years 
to  concentrate  power  in  the  hands  of  the  minority — that 
the  minority  possesses  at  present  a  greater  amount  of 
property  than  the  majority — that  this  property  is  here 
represented  as  well  as  persons,  and  that  is  the  reason 
for  this  apparent,  not  actual,  inequality — in  a  word,  that 
the  interests  of  society  are  equally  represented.  Again, 
the  perplexed  stranger  inquires,  "  What  means  the 
clause  of  your  bill  of  rights  which  declares  '  that  all 
power  is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived  from,  the 
people' — that  magistrates  are  their  trustees  and  ser- 
vants, and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them  ?"    Our  an- 
swer would  be,  "  that  in  that  clause,  the  phrase  '  the 
people,'  two  words  which  foolish  persons  have  much 
misunderstood,  does  not  mean  the  persons  who  hold  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State,  but  an  association  contrived 
in  the  laboratory  of  political  metaphysics,  compounded 
of  men  and  their  interests  in  money ;  and  that  the  re- 
sponsibility of  public  servants  is  to  this  compound  cor- 
poration, and  not  '  to  the  people'  as  ordinary  persons  un- 
derstand the  term  ;  and  this  is  proven  by  the  use  of  the 
word  'trustee'  in  the  latter  clause,  because,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Greenesville  (Mr.  Chambliss)  has  Baid, 
"  why  use  the  word  '  trustee'  unless  there  was  property 
to  be  managed — funds  to  be  accounted  for  ?" 

But,  the  stranger  still  filled  "  with  obstinate  question- 
ings" referring  to  another  clause  in  the  bill  of  rights, 
that  "  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubitable, 
unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter,  or 
abolish  "  their  form  of  government,  asks  how  does  it 
happen  that  a  "majority  of  the  community"  are  not 
here  by  their  representatives  to  perform  this  highest 
work  of  sovereignty  ?  Our  answer  would  be  "  that  out 
of  897,534,  the  whole  white  population  of  the  State, 
402,771  do  constitute  a  large  "  majority  of  the  communi- 
ty," so  large  as  to  entitle  them  to  76  out  of  135  dele- 
gates on  this  floor ;  and  the  reason  of  this  is,  that  the 
word  "  community"  does  not  mean  "  people"  just  as 
"  people"  does  not  mean  an  aggregate  of  "  persons  ;"  but 
in  truth  means  "interest,"  so  that  "a  majority  of  the 
community"  means  "  a  majority  of  the  interests  of  socie- 
ty." "  You  submitted  then,  I  suppose,"  remarks  the  puz- 
zled stranger,  "  the  question  of  the  call  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  be  decided  by  'the  majority  of  the  interests  of 
society,'  scaling  the  votes  of  men  so  as  to  make  their 
value  correspond  with  the  combined  ratio  of  men  and 
money  ?"    By  no  means,  is  the  reply.    That  question 


298 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


was  submitted  to  the  sovereign  people,  and  if  there  had 
been  a  majority  of  one  against  the  call,  although  all  the 
monied  interests  of  society  had  been  in  its  favor,  this 
Convention  would  never  have  been  organized.  It  is 
presumed,  however,  that  as  "  the  majority  of  interests" 
is  to  control  the  government,  and  as  the  new  Constitu- 
tion is  vitally  to  affect  all  the  interests  in  the  Common- 
wealth, you  will  hardly  submit  to  a  mere  majority  of 
numbers  the  decision  of  a  question  so  momentous  as  the 
ratification  of  the  organic  law  ;  you  will  scale  the  votes 
of  the  people  so  that  if  the  entire  vote  be  regarded  as 
150,  that  of  the  Tidewater  district,  containing  189,314 
white  persons,  shall  be  counted  as  41,  that  of  the  Pied- 
mont district,  with  213,45*7  white  persons,  shall  be 
counted  as  41,  that  of  the  Valley,  with  163,177  white 
persons,  shall  be  counted  as  27,  and  that  of  the  trans- 
Alleghany  district,  with  331,586  white  persons,  shall  be 
counted  as  41  ;  so  that,  in  any  event,  the  Constitution 
may  be  rejected  if  "  the  interests  of  society"  require  it. 
Is  this  the  course  to  be  pursued  ?  By  no  means,  is  the 
reply.  It  is  proposed  to  submit  this  vital  question  also 
to  the  majority  of  numbers,  and  not  to  "  the  majority  of 
interests."  To  such  contradictions  are  gentlemen  driven 
who  contend  that  "  a  majority  of  interests"  should  gov- 
ern society.  They  declare  that  less  than  a  majority  of 
those,  who  under  the  present  constitution  are  entitled  to 
exercise  the  right  of  suffrage,  cannot  authorize  any 
change  in  the  existing  form  of  government,  and  that 
less  than  a  majority  of  those  who  are  hereafter  as  voters 
to  possess  and  exercise  the  sovereign  power  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, cannot  accept  the  new  Constitution,  so  as  to 
make  it  binding  on  the  community ;  and,  furthermore, 
that  if  accepted  and  ratified  even  by  a  small  majority, 
and  against  the  voice  of  "the  majority  of  interests,"  the 
Constitution  will  at  once  become  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States  ;  and  yet  they  argue  that  k<  a  majority  of 
the  community"  in  the  bill  of  rights  means  "a  majority 
of  the  interests  of  society,' 5  and  that  by  analogy  with 
this  principle  as  interpreted  and  explained  by  them- 
selves they  are  justified  in  providing  in  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government  that  "a  majority  of  in- 
terests" shall  be  clothed  with  the  power.  They  demand 
for  the  minority  a  majority  of  delegates  in  the  Conven- 
tion, and  also  in  the  legislature,  upon  the  ground  that 
"  a  majority  of  interests"  should  control  the  government, 
deriving  that  doctrine  from  a  principle  in  the  bill  of 
rights,  which  principle  when  applied  in  practice  by 
themselves  they  admit  means  nothing  but  a  majority  of 
the  units  of  sovereignty,  of  voters.  It  is  this  of  which  I 
complain.  It  is  the  inequality  of  our  positions  on  this 
floor.  It  is  the  iron-handed  tyranny  that  forces  me  here 
as  an  inferior,  against  which  my  heart — my  whole  soul — 
revolts.  Were  we  equal  representatives,  of  equal  con- 
stituencies— equals  in  virtue,  in  wisdom,  in  loyal  devo- 
tion to  our  Commonwealth — equals  in  right,  and  equal- 
ly to  be  heard  on  every  question  affecting  the  interests 
of  society,  I  could  listen  calmly  as  a  brother  to  a  brother 
to  the  reasonings  of  him  who  would  persuade  me  that 
the  safety  and  interests  of  society  required  a  surrender 
of  power  by  the  majority  to  the  minority.  I  would 
weigh  his  reasons ;  give  heed  to  his  apprehensions  ;  and, 
if  convinced  that  it  were  right,  would  voluntarily  re- 
sign power  for  the  common  good.  But  such  is  not  my 
position.  I  feel  like  one  to  whom  terms  are  to  be  dic- 
tated, and  who  is  to  be  told  that  he  must  take  what  the 
holders  of  power  choose  to  surrender  or  nothing.  The 
reins  of  government  are  safe  in  the  hands  of  the  minori- 
ty— they  cannot  be  wrested  from  it  except  by  revolu- 
tion or  violence,  and  the  long  suffering — patience  and 
patriotism  of  western  men  are  relied  on — and,  it  is 
thought,  safely  relied  on — as  a  shield  against  danger,  or 
a  threat  of  danger,  from  that  quarter. 

But  we  are  assembled  once  more  in  council  to  consult 
for  the  common  weal,  to  remodel  our  organic  law.  Let 
us  forget — if  some  of  us  can — and  lay  aside  all  sense  of 
inferiority  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  that  natural  self  com- 
placency that  is  inherent  in  him  who  holds  power  on  the 


other ;  and  let  us  reason  together  as  brethren.  We  are 
to  build  the  structure  of  a  free  government — a  govern- 
ment which  shall  protect  life  and  liberty,  and  secure  to 
the  people  equally  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possess- 
ing property,  and  of  pursuing  and  obtainiug  happiness 
and  safety.  We  all  agree  that  these  are  the  great  pur- 
poses of  government.  The  question  which  first  presents 
itself  is,  shall  our  government  be  founded  on  principles 
or  expediency — on  the  solid  rock  foundation  of  fixed 
principles,  to  which  wise  and  patriotic  freemen  have 
every  where  assented,  or  on  the  shifting  quicksands  of 
expediency  ?  Expediency  !  how  often,  in  religion  and  in 
politics,  has  short- sighted  man,  abandoning  the  principles 
of  eternity,  been  led  astray  by  the  expediency  of  the  mo- 
ment ?  The  light  of  expediency  is  that  of  the  will-o'-the- 
wisp,  the  ignis-fatuus,  that  beguiles  the  deluded  sons  of 
men  from  the  ways  of  principle,  of  truth,  and  of  virtue, 
into  devious  paths  of  error,  falsehood  and  crim  e.  Untold 
are  the  evils  it  has  entailed  upon  the  human  race  ;  and 
he  who  surrenders  himself  to  its  guidance,  who  abandons 
the  principles  of  his  faith  for  the  expediency  of  the  mo- 
ment, will  ere  long  find  the  foundations  of  virtue,  the 
props  of  safety,  and  the  pillars  of  happiness,  crumbling 
and  giving  way.  And  the  government  that  is  founded 
upon  the  principle  that  the  people  may  not  be  trusted 
with  power  lest  they  abuse  it,  will  be  found  at  last  to  be 
built  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  The  rain  will  descend ; 
the  storm  will  come  ;  that  government  must  fall.  Let 
us  not  rest  our  government  on  the  unstable  foundation  of 
expediency,  but  choose  as  the  bright  corner-stones  the 
solid  principles  quarried  from  the  mines  once  explored 
by  Locke,  Hampden  and  Sydney.  The  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton)  said,  a  few  days  ago,  that  the 
principles  of  freedom  were  as  well  understood  two  hun- 
dred years  ago  by  the  grea.t  men  I  have  named,  as  they 
are  by  us.  Yes,  the  spirit  of  liberty  that  had  given  a 
sturdy  independence  to  the  fathers  of  our  race  in  the 
forests  of  Germany  —  that  followed  the  Saxon  to  the 
Island  of  Great  Britain — that  inspired  the  bold  barons 
to  wrest  from  the  hands  of  the  tyrant  John  the  great 
charter  of  freedom — that,  although  oftentimes  almost 
extinguished  beneath  the  pressure  of  arbitrary  power, 
ever  and  anon  burst  forth  with  a  fitful  glare  to  startle 
the  tyrant  from  his  security,  shone  forth  in  the  writings 
of  Locke,  and  in  the  acts  of  Hampden,  with  a  lustre  that 
has  never  grown  dim ;  a  light  which,  having  reached  this 
western  continent,  shall  at  last  be  diffused  over  the  world. 
The  great  men  of  1776  did,  indeed,  in  announcing  the 
rights  of  man,  and  the  principles  of  free  government,  do 
little  more  than  give  vital  energy  to  the  speculations  of 
Locke  and  Hampden.  They  announced  in  the  bill  of 
rights  of  Virginia,  tbe  first  declaration  of  rights  pro- 
mulged  in  America,  those  great  principles  which  I  in- 
voke this  committee  to  adopt,  and  to  act  upon  as  the  solid 
basis  and  foundation  of  our  government.  First,  that  all 
men  are  equally  free  and  independent,  and  equally  en- 
titled to  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the 
means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  of  pur- 
suing and  obtaining  happiness.  Second,  that  all  power 
is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived  from,  the  people ; 
and  third,  that  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  the 
right  to  control  its  government.  I  will  not  discuss  these 
propositions  at  large.  I  trust  they  will  be  elaborated 
by  others.  I  will  content  myself  with  remarking  that 
government  in  its  essence  is  a  compact  resulting  from 
the  consent  of  equals ;  of  men  who,  before  the  compact, 
were  equally  entitled  to  the  natural  rights  God  had  be- 
stowed upon  them,  to  the  free  air  and  light  of  Heaven, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and 
to  appropriate  to  their  own  use  the  bounties  of  nature 
for  the  support  of  life,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  free 
from  the  control  and  independent  of  the  authority  or  do- 
minion of  others.  And  in  entering  into  the  compact  of 
government  this  equality  is  not  destroyed ;  the  natural 
rights  of  all  are  equally  restrained,  but  to  the  extent  to 
which  they  exist  they  must  continue  equa],  otherwise 
some  of  the  parties  to  the  compact,  who  were  originally 
equals,  have  surrendered  more  of  their  natural  rights 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


299 


than  others,  and  deprived  and  divested  themselves  and 
their  posterity  of  a  certain  portion  of  those  inherent 
rights  to  which  the  bill  of  rights  declares  men  continue, 
under  all  circumstances,  to  be  equally  entitled.  I  am  to 
some  extent  a  skeptic  in  respect  to  a  state  of  nature.  It 
was  Aristotle  who  declared  he  could  not  imagine  man 
disconnected  from  a  state,  from  an  association  with  others 
by  consent.  But,  if  we  may  argue  from  the  postulate, 
that  man  was  once  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  came  out  of 
it  into  a  state  of  society  and  government,  what  may  we 
suppose  to  have  been  his  condition  ?  His  first  appre- 
hensions must  have  arisen  from  dangers  to  life  and  lib- 
erty, from  the  instinct  of  s<rlf-preservation ;  separate 
property  was  not  essential  to  the  support  of  life ;  the 
water  that  gushed  from  the  fountains ;  the  fruits  which 
grew  upon  the  trees  ;  the  herbs  and  grain  which  sprung 
out  of  the  ground,  were  the  common  property  of  all,  and 
furnished  the  sustenance  of  life.  The  hand  of  violence 
raised  against  the  life  of  man,  struck  the  first  blow  at 
the  safety  of  the  state  of  nature ;  the  dominion  of  the 
strong  over  the  weak,  leading  to  tyranny  on  the  one  hand, 
and  slavery  on  the  other,  spread  a  second  alarm  through 
the  ranks  of  men.  Association — a  combination  of  physi- 
cal forces  for  self-preservation  and  personal  protection, 
was  at  first  resorted  to — was  formed  to  guard  rights, 
natural,  inherent  and  readily  understood,  and,  the  fear  of 
losing  which  eprung  out  of  the  very  consciousness  of 
man's  nature.  1  cannot  but  think  that  society  was  form- 
ed at  first  to  preserve  men's  lives  from  violence,  their 
limbs  from  torture,  and  their  bodies  from  slavery.  These 
are  emphatically  natural  rights,  to  guard  which  men 
combined  in  society.  The  right  of  property,  the  right  of 
one  man  to  claim  as  his  own,  by  separate  title,  any  spe- 
cies of  property,  must  have  had  its  origin  in  the  consent 
of  society.  It  was  recognized,  sanctioned  and  guarded 
as  a  personal  right  founded  in  justice,  and  attaching  to 
him  who  had  worked  for  the  property.  Prior  to  society 
the  world  and  its  fruits  were  the  domain  of  the  race  •  to 
no  one  portion  of  which  could  any  individual  lay  claim, 
and  such  a  separate  claim  or  title  could  only  become  a 
right  by  common  consent,  which  itself  pre-supposes  the 
existence  of  a  consenting  society.  I  can  easily  imagine 
a  society  to  exist  for  many  years  without  any  separate 
right  in  the  individuals  composing  it  to  any  species  of 
property,  and  yet  that  the  means  of  subsistence  and  of 
comfort  should  be  abundant.  The  water,  air,  fishes, 
fowls,  fruits,  and  flesh,  given  by  nature  for  man's  sup- 
port, would  be,  to  such  a  society,  a  common  stock  out 
of  which  the  wants  of  each  member  of  it  would  be  sup- 
plied. The  right  to  hold  any  of  these  gifts  of  nature  to 
the  separate  use  of  an  individual  must  have  originated 
in  the  consent  of  those  equally  entitled  to  nature's 
bounties.  And  what,  I  ask,  would  have  been  thought  of 
that  man  who,  first  asking  the  consent  of  society  in  its 
earlier  stages  that  he  might  hold  property  separately  for 
his  own  use,  should  have  turned  round  and  claimed  as  a 
right,  a  preponderance  of  power,  by  reason  of  that  prop- 
erty ?  The  answer  to  such  a  claim  would  have  been 
prompt,  and  to  this  effect:  that  by  the  consent  of  all  it 
had  been  agreed  that  each  should  severally  hold  and  en- 
joy what  he  could  rightfully  acquire  as  property  ;  this 
privilege  had  been  accorded  to  every  member  of  society. 
It  was  supposed,  at  the  outset,  that  some  would  accu- 
mulate more  than  others,  but  that  each  would  acquire 
something  ;  and  it  was  solemnly  agreed  that  the  right 
of  each  to  his  all  should  be  equally  protected  ;  and  that 
the  expense  of  protection  should  be  borne  in  proportion 
to  the  ability  of*  each.  How  then  would  he  who  had, 
perhaps,  been  fortunate,  and  had  grown  rich,  whilst  his 
neighbor,  with  equal  virtue  and  industry,  had  remained 
poor,  how  could  he  claim,  not  only  protection  for  his 
property,  which  all  were  willing  to  give,  but,  in  addi- 
tion, the  power  to  dispose  of  his  neighbor's  property  at 
his  pleasure  ?  The  majority  of  such  an  infant  society 
would  have  replied  to  such  a  bold  demand  for  power, 
thus :  "  You  must  rest  for  the  safety  of  your  property 
upon  the  same  pledges,  the  same  guaranties  on  which  we 
all  rely  for  our  lives,  our  limbs,  our  liberties,  and  our 


property ;  for  you  must  remember  we  have  property  as 
well  as  you.  All  we  can  say  is,  that  we  will  bind  our- 
selves to  deal  with  your  property  as  with  our  own ; 
with  your  lives  and  liberties  as  with  our  own ;  and  that 
you  shall  ever  enjoy  equal  power  with  us  in  disposing  of 
our  common  interests."  I  think  then  it  must  be  ap- 
parent that  property  in  the  hands  of  individuals  held  by 
separate  titles  did  not  precede  but  sprung  out  of  socie- 
ty— was  not  an  element  in  forming  society,  but  its  crea- 
ture. That  the  right  to  hold  it  belongs  to  the  class  of 
mere  personal  rights  ;  a  right  recognized  and  sanctioned 
by  the  common  consent  of  society  after  men  had.  con- 
federated to  protect  life  and  liberty.  And  now  it  is  ar- 
gued that  an  institution  which  originally  owed  its  very 
existence  to  the  consent  of  persons  shall  control  per- 
sons; that  the  creature  shall  be  exalted  so  high  as  to 
command  the  submission  and  obedience  of  the  creator. 

And  now  what,  in  such  a  society  as  I  have  referred  to, 
would  be  the  rule  of  decision  in  matters  of  common  con- 
cern ?  I  answer,  the  will  of  the  majority — that,  in  my 
opinion,  is  the  natural  law  of  every  body  which  has 
adopted  no  other — and  no  other  can  be  adopted  except 
by  universal  consent,  or  by  the  will  of  a  majority.  It 
would  require  most  cogent  arguments  to  prove  that  by 
universal  consent  the  members  of  society  had  agreed 
that  a  minority  should  govern  the  majority ;  and  if  it  is 
argued  that  a  rule  differing  from  that  of  the  majority 
has  been  established  in  certain  cases,  by  the  consent  of 
the  majority,  the  very  exceptions  prove  the  rule  to  be 
as  I  have  indicated.  In  our  State  and  federal  constitu- 
tions it  is  no  where  said  that  a  majority  may  do  certain 
acts ;  that  rule  is  not  in  the  lex  scripta,  but  belongs  to 
the  unwritten,  common,  may  I  not  say,  natural  law  of 
associated  bodies.  But  when  less  than  a  majority  may 
do  a  certain  act,  or  more  than  a  majority  must  be  re- 
quired to  accomplish  a  certain  purpose,  the  particular 
limitations  upon  the  general  rule  are  plainly  set  down — 
because,  having  sprung  out  of  the  consent  of  the  majori- 
ty, they  shall  restrain  its  will  only  according  to  that 
consent.  Upon  this  point  I  beg  leave  to  quote  a  passage 
from  Locke's  Essay  on  Government — an  authority  so  elo- 
quently and  emphatically  approved  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Chilton)  some  days  ago.  Locke 
says :  "  When  any  number  of  men  have,  by  the  consent 
of  every  individual  made  a  community,  they  have  there- 
by made  that  community  one  body,  with  a  power  to  act 
as  one  body,  which  i3  only  by  the  will  and  determina- 
tion of  the  majority.  For  that  which  acts  in  a  commu- 
nity, being  only  the  consent  of  the  individuals  of  it,  and 
it  being  necessary  to  that  which  is  one  body  to  move  one 
way,  it  is  necessary  the  body  should  move  that  way 
whither  the  greater  force  carries  it,  which  is  the  con- 
sent of  the  majority ;  or  else  it  is  impossible  it  should 
act  or  continue  one  body,  one  community,  which  the 
consent  of  every  one  who  united  in  it  agreed  it  should  ; 
and  so  every  one  is  bound  by  that  consent  to  be  concluded 
by  the  majority.  And,  therefore,  we  see  that  in  assem- 
blies empowered  to  act  by  positive  laws,  where  no  num- 
ber is  set  by  that  positive  law  which  empowers  them,  the 
act  of  the  majority  passes  for  the  act  of  the  whole ;  and 
thus  every  man,  by  consenting  with  others  to  make  one 
body  politic  under  one  government,  puts  himself  under 
an  obligation  to  every  one  of  that  society  to  submit  to 
the  determination  of  the  majority,  and  to  be  concluded 
by  it."  This  is  the  authority  on  which  our  fathers  de- 
clared that  "  a  majority  of  the  community"  hath  the 
right  to  govern  ;  and  yet  it  is  now  contended  that  the 
rule  of  the  majority  is  the  dominion  of  mere  numbers — 
is  a  tyranny  not  to  be  borne.  It  is  called  sneeringly 
"  king  numbers,"  and  is  regarded  as  an  unrestrained  op- 
pressor— a  lawless  despot — more  terrible  than  an  abso- 
lute monarch.  It  is  obvious,  too,  that  the  community  of 
which  we  speak  must  be  regarded  as  one  community, 
one  body,  governed  by  a  preponderating  will,  and  that 
will,  the  aggregate  of  the  wishes  of  a  majority  in  the 
community.  If  the  community  cannot  be  regarded  as 
one — as  homogeneous — of  the  same  kind  of  persons,  (that 
is  the  definition  of  "homogeneous") — as  possessing  the 


300 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


same  patriotism,  intelligence,  morality,  and  virtue — the 
argument  proves  that  the  community  should  not  be  to- 
gether, but  should  form  such  new  communities  out  of  the 
original  whole  as  would  be  homogeneous.  In  respect  to 
Virginia  I  resist  all  such  arguments  as  tend  to  show 
that  her  people  are  unlike  in  patriotism  or  dissimilar  in 
interest ;  I  resist  them  as  at  war  with  my  own  convic- 
tions and  with  the  true  glory  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Let  us  then,  regarding  Virginia  as  one  community, 
proceed  in  detail  to  consider  the  various  propositions 
before  the  committee,  and  the  arguments  for  and  against 
each.  Proposition  A  (the  original  proposition  before  the 
committee)  contains  the  mixed  basis  after  the  model  of 
the  South  Carolina  constitution,  and  an  apportionment 
in  accordance  with  this  principle.  It  proposes  that  in 
the  house  of  delegates,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty  delegates,  seventy-five  shall  represent  the  taxes 
and  seventy-five  the  white  population  of  the  Common- 
wealth, thereby  making  taxes  an  equal  element  with 
persons  in  representation.  The  taxes  so  to  be  estimated 
are  all  the  taxes  paid  except  those  on  merchants'  licenses, 
law  process,  and  deeds.  In  speaking  in  this  argument 
of  the  grand  divisions  of  the  Commonwealth,  I  shall  be- 
gin with  the  tide-water,  as  number  one,  and  proceed  from 
east  to  west  to  number  four,  the  trans- Alleghany  dis- 
trict. Including  the  increased  land  tax  then,  the  white 
population  and  taxation  of  the  Commonwealth  will  stand 
as  follows: 


Districts. 
1st, 
2d, 
3d, 
4th, 

Total 


White  population. 
189,3  L4 
213,457 
163,177 
331,586 


897,534 


Taxes. 
$179,744.52 
167,742.95 
92,392.05 
94,893.40 

$534,772.92 


Upon  the  mixed  or  combined  basis  I  have  said  taxes 
will  send  seventy-five  and  white  population  seventy -five 
delegates.  If  the  whole  population  be  divided  by  sev- 
enty-five, we  will  have  11,967  as  the  common  ratio  for  a 
population  delegate.  If  the  whole  taxes  be  divided  by 
seventy-five,  we  will  have  $7,130.30as  the  common  ratio 
for  a  tax  delegate ;  or,  blending  them  together,  each 
delegate  should  represent  5,983  white  persons  who  pay 
$3,565.15  taxes.  Apply  these  ratios  to  the  population 
and  taxation  of  the  four  divisions  and  the  result  will  be 
as  follows : 

Taxes  give 

1st  dist.  25  2-10  del.,  population  15  8-10—41  delegates 
2d    "     23  5-10   "  "        17  8-10—41  3-10  del. 

3d    "     13  «  "        13  7-10—26  7-10  " 

4th  "     13  3-10   "  "        27  7-10—41  delegates 

75  75  150 

In  the  Senate  it  is  proposed  there  shall  be  51  mem- 
bers :  The  ratio  for  a  tax  Senator  will  be  $20,971,  and 
for  a  population  Senator  35,196  white  persons  :  in  other 
words,  each  Senator  should  represent  17,598  white  per- 
sons who  pay  $10,485.50 — apply  these  ratios  to  the  east 
and  the  west,  and  the  results  will  be  as  follows  : 
East ,  taxes  give  16.57  Senators  :  pop.  11.43 — 28  Sen. 
"West:       "        14.05        "  "     8.95—23  " 

It  will  be  observed,  and  I  desire  it  to  be  remember- 
ed, that  in  the  Valley,  the  number  of  delegates  on  taxes 
falls  short  of  that  on  population  only  7-10  of  one  dele- 
gate. 

I  will  follow  this  mixed  basis  scheme  in  some  of  its 
details  and  effects,  before  I  proceed  to  consider  propo- 
sition B,  and  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, (Mr.  Scott.)  I  will  show  what  number  of  per- 
sons each  delegate  from  the  four  divisions  will  repre- 
sent, and  applying  the  smallest  number  as  a  ratio  to  the 
other  divisions,  what  effect  will  be  produced. 

1st  dis.  ratio  for  a  delegate,  4,617  white  persons 

2d    «      «  "  5,206 

3d    "      "  "  6,043 

4th  "     "  "  8,087 


Apply  the  ratio  in  the  1st  district,  4,617,  (being  the 
smallest,)  to  the  four  grand  divisions  :  It  gives: 
1st  district  41  delegates,  and  leaves  no  excess. 
2d       "     41       "        and  leaves  an  excess  of 

24,160  white  persons. 
3d       "     27       "        and  leaves  an  excess  of 

38,318  white  persons. 
4th     "     41       "        and  leaves  an  excess  of 

142,299  white  persons. 

150  204,777! 

So  that  if  the  white  persons  in  the  1st  district  have 
only  their  due  weight  in  the  government,  the  citizens  of 
the  other  districts,  when  compared  with  them,  fall 
greatly  short  of  a  proper  participation  in  the  legislative 
power  ;  and  it  appears  in  fact,  the  inequality  is  so  great 
that  there  are  204,771  out  of  708,220,  (the  whole  white 
population,  excluding  that  of  the  1st  district,)  who  may 
be  said  to  be  disfranchised. 

Eegard  it  in  another  aspect,  and  it  will  appear  equal- 
ly astounding  in  its  developments.  Apply  5,983,  the 
average  ratio  for  a  delegate,  throughout  the  State,  to 
the  white  population  of  each  of  the  grand  divisions,  and 
it  shows  that  in  allowing  41  delegates  to  the  1st  district, 
representation  is  given  to  55,989  white  persons  too  ma- 
ny :  in  allowing  41  delegates  to  the  2d  district,  repre- 
sentation is  given  to  31,846  white  persons  too  many, 
making  an  aggregate  of  87,835  white  persons  who  ought 
to  be  in  eastern  Virginia  to  entitle  her  to  82  delegates , 
but  who  are  not  there  :  and  in  applying  the  same  ratio 
to  the  3d  district,  it  will  be  found  that  in  allowing  it  27 
delegates,  there  are  1,636  white  persons  not  represent- 
ed, and  that  in  allowing  the  4th  district  only  41  dele- 
gates, there  are  86,283  white  persons  not  represented, 
making  an  aggregate  of  87,919  white  persons  more  than 
the  number  which  would  entitle  western  Virginia,  on 
principles  of  equality,  to  68  delegates. 

Proposition  B,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, as  a  substitue  to  proposition  A,  declares  first 
that  "  as  individual  suffrage  should  be  equal  without  re- 
spect to  the  difference  of  individual  wealth,  so  an  equal 
number  of  qualified  voters  shall  be  entitled  to  an  equal 
representation  without  regard  to  their  aggregate 
wealth  ;"  and  second,  "that  representation  shall  be 
equal  and  uniform  in  this  commonwealth,  and  shall  al- 
ways be  regulated  and  ascertained  by  the  number  of  the 
qualified  voters  ;  "  and  then  proceeds  to  apportion  re- 
presentation as  nearly  in  accordance  with  this  principle 
for  the  present  as  practicable  ;  and  provides  that  in 
1855,  and  every  ten  years  thereafter,  there  shall  be  an 
enumeration  of  the  qualified  voters,  and  apportionments 
made  according  to  their  number.  This  proposition  be- 
gins with  suffrage  and  declares  that  "  the  qualifications 
necessary  to  confer  the  right  shall  be  uniform  through- 
out the  commonwealth.  "  I  understand  the  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side  to  agree  to  this  proposition.  We  be- 
gin the  argument  at  the  same  point  with  our  opponents, 
that  is,  that  the  sovereign  or  elective  power  should  be 
lodged  in  the  hands  of  voters — electors — who  are  to  be 
qualified  as  we  may  hereafter  prescribe,  to  wield  the 
power  of  the  State.  We  go  a  step  further  and  say,  the 
members  of  this  great  elective  body,  these  electors — 
— are  to  be  equally  trusted  and  in  equal  proportions- — 
as  individuals — as  hundreds,  as  thousands.  Our  oppo- 
nents say  they  are  not  to  be  trused  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers  ;  but  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  and  taxes 
combined.  And  to  test  this  question,  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has  offered  a  substitute,  de- 
claring that  representation  shall  be  apportioned  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  the  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  any  election  dis- 
trict, deducting  therefrom  taxes  on  licenses  and  law 
process,  and  that  "  in  making  such  apportionment,  there 

shall  be  allowed  one  delegate  for  every  part  of 

said  inhabitants,  and  one  delegate  for  every  part 

of  said  taxes.  "  The  gentleman's  substitute  does  not 
enter  into  the  perplexing  and  embarrassing  details  of 
apportionment,  but  reserves  that  matter  until  the  prin- 
ciple is  settled.    Neither  does  it  declare  in  what  pro- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


301 


portion  taxes  and  persons  are  to  be  blended.  I  object;  participation  in  the  conduct  of  affairs,  and  at  the  polls, 
to  the  substitute  for  this  reason  :  it  is  calculated  to  de- 1  are  to  stand  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  rich  ;  they  hes- 
ceive,  and  although  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  I  itate  to  drop  the  aristocratic  poison  into  the  fountain — 
Scott)  declares  he  will  more  to  fill  the  blanks,  so  astoi  they  will  not  pollute  the  pure  gushing  stream  of  repre- 
give  half  the  delegates  on  taxes,  and  half  on  persons  ;  sentation  at  its  spring — but  propose  to  turn  into  it  below 
others  may  not  agree  with  him,  and  may  hope  to  fill  the  j  its  source,  the  turbid  tide  of  taxation,  which  will  ever 
blanks  in  a  different  way.    Suppose  the  first  blank  be  I  after  discolor  its  beauty,  and  destroy  its  health-giving 


filled  with  the  word  "  tenth 

word  "  ninetieth  "it  would  be  equivalent  to  surren- 
dering the  government  to  the  almost  unadulterated  prin- 
ciple, that  power  should  be  graduated  solely  by  taxa- 
tion. But  accepting  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  as  conveying  the  intentions  and  purpo- 
ses of  all  his  friends,  I  come  now  to  the  question  first 
presented  for  our  determination  :  Ought  the  substitute  to 
be  adopted  ?  I  think  not,  and  will  undertake  to  show 
that  it  violates  the  great  principles  I  have  before  de- 
fended, will  be  unjust  and  oppressive  in  its  operations, 
and  is  not  necessary  to  secure,  and  will  not  secure,  what 
gentlemen  desire  by  its  adoption. 

I  declare  at  the  outset  that  the  substitute  must  be  sus- 


and  the  second  with  the]  qualities 

I  propose  now,  to  consider  on  what  grounds  our  op- 
ponents rest  the  claim  of  property  to  be  equal  with  per- 
sons as  an  element  of  power.  What,  I  ask,  is  it  that 
creates  a  representative  body?  It  is  suffrage.  And 
what  is  suffrage  \  It  is  the  expression  of  individual  will 
in  delegating  power  to  a  representative.  Here,  as  I 
have  said,  gentlemen  ought  to  begin  their  system  of  pro- 
perty protection  if  they  desire  it  to  be  effectual,  bv  dy- 
ing A,  who  is  worth  $10,000,  ten  votes,  and  B,  who  is 
worth  $1000,  one  vote.  And  I  will  remark  that  in  1829, 
this  practice  of  double  voting  was  in  vogue  in  France — 
the  value  of  men's  votes  was  graduated'by  the  length  of 
their  purses — a  principle  which  was  resisted  by  La  Fay- 


tained  by  the  arguments  of  its  friends — that  its  justice!  ette,  with  the  same  love  of  liberty  and  equality  which 
must  be  made  manifest,  and  that  its  necessity  must  bej  brought  him  to  the  side  of  Washington  in  the  darkest 
proven  to  our  entire  satisfaction,  and  to  that  of  the  j  hour  of  the  revolution.  There  are  some  things  which 
country  ;  and  that  the  burden  of  showing  these  things  |  have  been  borrowed  from  aristocratic  France,  as  well  as 
rests  on  those  who  announce  that  the  majority  ought]  the  ideas  of  proscription,  infidelity,  licentiousness,  law- 


not,  in  Virginia,  to  be  entrusted  with  the  political  pow- 
er.   In  1829,  in  a  speech  which  immortalized  his  name. 


less  disregard  of  the  honor  of  God,  and  the  rights  of 
man,  the  mockery  of  justice  and  the  glittering  guillo- 


Mr.  Upshur  ^aid,  "  I  admit  as  a  general  proposition,  that  j  tine,  which  gentlemen  would  fain  have  us  believe  will 


in  free  governments  power  ought  to  be  given  to  the  ma- 
jority :  and  whv?    The  rule  is  founded  in  the  idea  that  j 


be  transferred  to  our  midst  from  republican  France,  if 
e  entrust  power  to  the  people  in  Virginia.    Our  oppo- 


there  is  an  identity,  though  not  an  equality  of  interests!  nents  borrow  the  principle,  but  reject  the  French  mode 
in  the  several  members  of  the  body  politic,  in  which  j  of  apply  it  as  odious  and  aristocratic.     But  I  proceed  to 


case  the  presumption  naturally  arise 
number  possesses  the  greater  interest.  "  It  will  not  be 
enough  then,  to  show  that  there  are  inequalities  of  in- 
terests in  Virginia — those  inequalities  exist  everywhere, 
and  under  all  t^ie  diversified  circumstances  of  human 
fortune.  The  minority  must  demonstrate  in  such  man- 
ner as  ought  to  satisfy  the  majority,  that  the  power  to 


that  the  greater;  inquire  what  is  representation  ?  It  is  the  result — the  ef- 
fect of  suffrage.  It  is  the  concentration  of  the  general 
will  in  one  body — it  is  the  organ  by  which  the  public 
will  controls  and  directs  public  affairs,  and  ought  to  be 
apportioned  with  a  view  of  fairly  embodying  that  will. 
Under  the  mixed  basis,  the  will  of  one  portion  of  the 
community,  though  expressed  in  suffrage,  is  palsied  in 


one  community,  the  general  safety,  the  common  good, 
demand  that  the  will  of  the  smaller  portion  of  the  com- 
munity should  control  its  actions.  And  what 
ground  of  this  claim  of  power  by  the  minority, 


pass  all  laws  affecting  life,  liberty  and  property — the ;  representation  by  the  power  of  money  paid  as  taxes  by 
property  of  the  majority  as  well  as  that  of  the  minori-  the  other  portion.  And  what  are  taxes?  They  are 
ty — ought  justly  and  rightfully  to  be  given  up  by  the :  contributions  to  the  support  of  government,  given  in 
many  to  the  few — because  there  is  such  a  want  of  iden- '  consideration  of  the  protection  of  property — and  com- 
tity  of'"  interests  in  the  several  members  "  of  our  body!  mon  sense  declares  they  should  be  levied  in  proportion 
politic,  as  that  whilst  we  should  continue  as  one  body,  to  the  amount  of  property  to  be  protected,  that  is.  to  the 

ability  to  pay.  The  two  great  duties  men  owe  their  go- 
vernment are — first,  the  payment  of  taxes  in  considera- 
5  the!  tion  of  the  protection  of  property;  second,  the  discharge 
It  is  ]  of  military  duty,  in  return  for  the  protection  of  per- 
the  protection  of  property.  It  is  argued  that  persons  sons.  These  are  duties  men  are  bound  to  discharge, 
and  property  are  the  essential  elements  of  society — that!  And  yet  it  is  argued  that  the  faithful  performance  of  the 
without  property  society  cannot  exist — that  in  its  wel- 
fare are  involved  all  the  rights  of  persons — that  legisla- 
tion is  chiefly  concerned  in  making  laws  to  regulate  pro- 
perty and  its  interests — that  the  laws  concerning  per- 
sons are  few  and  simple — that  public  opinion  is  their 
best  sanction  ;  but  that  the  laws  which  affect  property 
are  various  and  almost  infinitely  ramified  ;  and  the  ques- 
tion is  then  asked,  ought  not  property  to  enjoy  a  pro- 
tection above  all  suspicion,  and  free  from  every  haz- 
ard ?  Yes,  property  should  enjoy  just  such  protection 
as  gentlemen  ask  for  it — a  protection  as  sacred  and  as 
sure  as  the  habeas  corpus  affords  to  persons.  But  how 
ought  it  to  be  protected  ?  It  might  be  protected  effi- 
ciently at  the  very  fountain  of  political  power,  by  pre- 
scribing strong  property  qualifications  of  suffrage,  or  by 
graduating  the  value  of  votes  according  to  the  amount 
of  property  owned  by  the  voter — so  that  the  intelligent 
self-interest  of  individuals,  ever  alive  to  assaults  upon 
the  rights  of  property,  might  be  armed  with  the  ballot 
box  to  protect  it.  But  gentlemen  shrink  back  with  just 
horror  from  the  idea  of  establishing  a  moneyed  aristoc- 
racy of  this  sort.  Rich  and  lordly  Mr.  A  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  thrust  aside  poor  Mr.  B  from  the  polls,  and 
deposite  ten  times  as  many  votes  as  he  !    Oh,  no — the 

very  thought  of  such  inequality  is  revolting  to  their  feel- !  perform  military  duty  three  days  in  a  year.  The  loss  of 
ings.  Gentlemen  advocate  enlarged  and  uniform  suf-  time  and  the  actual  outlay  of  money  in  discharging  this 
frage  ;  the  poor  men  are  to  be  admitted  to  a  greater'  duty,  make  a  tax  of  at  least  three  dollars  a  year  on  each 


duty  of  tax  paying  is  a  ground  on  which  power  may  be 
asserted — that  those  who  do  their  duty  in  one  particular 
shall  have  power  over  those  who  do  their  duties  equal- 
ly well  in  other  respects.  The  claim  to  power  by  rea- 
son of  peculiar  sanctity,  leads  to  spiritual  despotism. 
Rigid  morality  becomes  the  foundation  for  pharisaical 
domination — wealth  opens  the  way  to  a  monied  aristoc- 
racy— and  the  assumption  of  extraordinary  talents  or  vir- 
tue results  in  the  formation  of  an  oligarchy.  God  re- 
cognizes no  power  in  his  creatures  over  their  fellows, 
because  they  do  their  duty  to  him — neither  should  man 
be  allowed  power  for  discharging  his  duty  to  his  govern- 
ment. And,  I  ask,  if  the  duty  of  tax  paying  gives  title 
to  power,  why  not  the  duties  of  public  defence  and  of 
working  on  the  highways?  There  were  reported  the 
present  year  to  the  adjutant  general  123,733  officers  and 
privates  belonging  to  the  militia — and  he  says  in  his  re- 
port that  the  rolls  are  deficient  by  many  thousands.  This 
must  be  so,  because  I  perceive  there  are  in  the  State 
200,958  white  tithes,  and  I  think  it  fair  to  estimate  the 
militia  at  150,000.  According  to  the  ratio  of  white  pop- 
ulation, there  would  be  in  the  west  82,688,  and  in  the 
east  07,312  men  subject  to  military  duty,  showing  an 
excess  west  of  15,376.    These  men  are  compelled  to 


302 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


officer  and  private.  Here  then  is  a  total  tax  of  $450,000, 
of  which  the  west  bears  the  greater  burden  by  $46,128. 
Why  not  give — on  the  principle  contended  for — power 
to  the  west,  in  consideration  of  this  discharge  of  duty? 
But  no — the  discharge  of  the  money  duty  entitles  the 
few  to  prescribe  laws  and  duties  to  all  others. 

Abandoning  the  idea  of  protecting  property  by  con- 
ferring the  power  to  do  so  on  those  who  own  it,  gentle- 
men proceed  to  comunities  and  propose  to  confer  this 
power  on  the  aggregates  of  individuals,  which  they  deny 
to  individuals.  I  presume  the  scheme  is  founded  on  one 
of  two  ideas,  either  that  the  poor  men  in  the  rich  man's 
neighborhood  know  better  how  to  manage  and  protect 
his  property  than  himself,  or  that  the  rich  man,  by  the 
power  of  his  wealth,  will  so  control  the  opinions  and 
votes  of  his  humbler  neighbors  as  to  make  them  think 
with  and  act  for  him.  What  is  the  argument  ?  Let  me 
illustrate  it  :  County  A  has  five  hundred  voters  and 
pays  $2,000  taxes — county  B  has  five  hundred  voters  and 
pays  $500  taxes.  In  county  A,  one  hundred  of  the  vo- 
ters pays  $1,600  and  four  hundred  pay  $400.  The  four 
hundred  in  A,  and  the  five  hundred  in  B,  pay  each  one 
dollar  ;  and  ought,  on  any  just  principle,  to  have  equal 
weight  in  the  government.  According  to  the  mixed  ba- 
sis ,  in  a  council  often  delegates,  county  A  would  send 
six  and  a  half  delegates,  and  county  B  would  send  three 
and  a  half  delegates.  Legitimately,  the  one  hundred 
rich  men  in  A  ought  to  send  three  delegates  on  account 
of  their  taxes  and  a  half  delegate  on  their  own  account 
— but  this  is  not  allowed — the  one  hundred  rich  men  in 
A  have  no  more  potential  voice  than  the  four  hundred 
poor  men  ;  but  the  four  hundred,  because  they  are  near 
the  palaces  of  the  rich,  gazing  at  them  perhaps  with 
envious  eyes,  are  thereby  converted  into  aristocrats 
themselves  ;  and  are  exalted  in  power  abore  their  equals 
in  county  B.  This  is  indeed  a  moneyed  aristocracy  on 
the  very  worst  principle — that  of  the  credit  system — the 
the  poor  borrowing  the  wealth  of  their  rich  neighbors 
to  lift  themselves  above  their  equals  elsewhere. 

As  I  have  before  said,  it  is  conceded  as  a  general  rule 
that  the  majority  should  govern,  and  that  this  rule  ought 
not  to  be  departed  from,  except,  to  use  the  language  of 
the  eloquent  gentleman  from  Marion,  (Mr.  Neeson,) 
"  to  avert  some  great  mischief,  or  to  promote  some 
great  public  good.  "  Now,  what  is  the  good  to  be  se- 
cured— what  the  mischief  to  be  shunned  by  the  mixed 
basis?  The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr  Scott)  de- 
clares that  the  mixed  basis  is  necessary  to  secure  good 
government,  to  guard  against  abuses  of  legislative  pow- 
er, and  to  protect  property  as  well  as  persons.  The  dan- 
gers ahead  then,  are  bad  government,  abuse  of  legisla- 
tive power,  and  the  destruction  of  property.  1  can  im- 
agine that  gentleman  standing  on  the  deck  of  the  gallant 
ship  of  State  as  it  ploughs  its  way  through  the  waters, 
guided  by  the  chart  of  science  and  the  needle  that  ever 
points  to  the  star  of  principle  ;  and  as  he  strains  his  eyes 
to  gaze  through  the  mists  ahead,  and  fancies  he  hears 
the  roar  of  the  surf  upon  the  rocks,  I  can  hear  his  clear 
ringing  voice  proclaim  l£  breakers  ahead  !  the  ship  is  in 
danger.  "  If  the  suffrage  basis  will  result  in  bad  go- 
vernment, in  abuses  of  legislative  power,  and  in  the  de- 
struction of  property,  we  ought  to  abandon  it  and  to  give 
heed  to  the  warning  cries  of  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier. We  are  here  to  avert  dangers,  to  secure  good  go- 
vernment, to  guard  against  public  abuses,  and  to  pro- 
tect property  ;  but  let  us  beware,  lest  in  shunning  im- 
aginary rocks  we  be  not  swallowed  in  a  vortex  of  de- 
struction. 

The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  would  hardly  deny  that 
a  government  based  upon  qualified  voters,  might  manage 
the  trifling  concerns  of  life  and  liberty,  and  the  means 
of  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness;  he  would  not  con- 
trovert this  proposition  without  at  the  same  time  deny- 
ing a  doctrine  I  know  he  cherishes,  the  doctrine  of  the 
capacity  ef  the  people  for  self-government ;  but  I  under- 
stand him  to  say  that  property  would  not  be  safe  with 
such  a  basis  of  representation,  and  that  in  the  interests 
of  property  are  involved  all  other  interests.  Let  us  con- 
sider seriously  and  in  order,  the  modes  in  which  proper- 


ty may  be  imperiled,  and  calmly  determine  whether 
Virginia,  like  South  Carolina,  is  in  such  a  condition  as 
to  demand  the  adoption  of  that  political  expedient  to 
protect  property — the  mixed  basis.  Dangers  to  proper- 
ty are  apprehended  as  the  results  of  legislative  acts  ; 
one  would  suppose  that  to  guard  against  such  dangers, 
restraints  should  be  imposed  on  legislative  power.  This 
is  the  first  suggestion  of  common  sense — of  ordinary  pru- 
dence. Desiring  to  extend  suffrage,  to  make  voters  at 
the  polls  equal,  one  with  another,  having  as  much  con- 
fidence in  one  portion  of  the  community  as  in  another, 
in  respect  to  virtue,  intelligence  and  patriotism,  one 
would  suppose  that  to  avoid  legislative  acts  which 
would  in  any  way  impair  the  rights  or  value  of  proper- 
ty, it  would  be  enough  to  restrain  and  limit  the  legis- 
lative power — the  power  of  the  agents  of  the  people  ; 
and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  whatever  principle  of  repre- 
sentation be  adopted,  some  limitations  and  restraints 
are  necessary,  and  that  no  more  are  required  to  prevent 
abuses  under  the  suffrage  than  under  the  mixed  basis,  it 
will  follow  that  there  is  no  political  necessity  for  the 
adoption  of  the  latter  principle,  and  that  it  ought  to  be 
discarded.  I  think  this  conclusion  will  follow  from  the 
remarks  I  propose  to  make. 

I  concede  that  property  may  be  imperiled ;  first,  by 
attacking  the  right  to  hold  it ;  second,  by  excessive  tax- 
ation so  as  to  impair  its  value  in  the  hands  of  all  who 
hold  it ;  and  third,  by  discriminations  in  laying  taxes  so 
as  to  impose  the  burdens  of  supporting  government  on 
one  sort  of  property  to  the  relief  of  another  sort.  I  wish 
to  meet  the  arguments  fairly,  and  to  answer  them  by 
such  reasons  derived  from  principles  and  facts,  as  have 
satisfied  my  mind  that  the  fears  of  eastern  gentlemen 
are  groundless — that  their  conclusions  are  unsound  and 
untenable.  First,  do  gentlemen  seriously  fear  that  if 
the  suffrage  basis  be  adopted,  the  right  to  hold  proper- 
ty of  any  kind  will  be  impaired  ?  Do  they  apprehend 
that  a  western  majority  will  strike  at  the  right  of  any 
member  of  the  community  to  acquire  property  and  to 
hold  for  his  separate  enjoyment,  the  fruits  of  his  own 
toil  ?  Do  not  the  western  people  love  property  ?  Are 
they  not  eager  to  procure — are  they  not  untiring  in  their 
struggles  to  gather  around  them  the  goods  of  this  life  ? 
Is  not  the  west  like  a  busy  hive  in  which  all  are  indus- 
triously employed  in  laying  up  stores  for  support  and 
enjoyment  in  the  future  ?  Are  they  not  jealous  of  their 
rights — are  they  not  careful  of  their  interests  in  proper- 
ty— do  they  not  guard  those  interests  and  defend  those 
rights  in  the  courts  of  justice  with  as  much  resolute  ob- 
stinacy and  firmness  of  purpose,  as  mark  the  conduct  of 
eastern  property  holders  ?  It  is  true  they  have  not  as 
much  as  their  more  favored  eastern  brethren,  but  they 
are  equally  vigilant  in  protecting  it,  equally  anxious  in 
increasing  it,  and  equally  desirous  that  when  acquired, 
it  shall  continue  to  be  protected  by  equal  and  uniform 
laws.  De  Tocqueville,  the  distinguished  author  of  "  De- 
mocracy in  America,  "  says,  that  "  in  no  country  in 
the  world  is  the  love  of  property  more  active  and  more 
anxious  than  in  the  United  States;  nowhere  does  the 
majority  display  less  inclination  for  those  principles 
which  threaten  to  alter,  in  whatever  manner,  the  laws 
of  property. "  This  is  a  tribute  paid  to  our  entire  coun- 
try ;  and  will  gentlemen  say  it  is  justly  bestowed  on  all 
parts  of  our  Union  but  western  Virginia?  De  Tocque- 
ville says  "  the  love  of  property"  is  "  active  " — it  is  ear- 
nest and  untiring  in  the  pursuit ;  it  is  also  "  anxious  " 
— it  is  jealous  and  vigilant  in  guarding  the  treasure  in 
possession ;  and  it  is  ever  respectful  and  regardful  of 
the  rights  of  others,  because  that  spirit  alone  can  pro- 
tect its  own  rights.  It  is  the  love  of  freedom  and  the 
love  of  property — the  love  of  liberty,  which  can  only 
be  enjoyed  when  subject  to  law,  and  the  love  of  proper- 
ty, which  can  only  exist  when  protected  by  law,  that 
are  the  prominent  characteristics  of  the  anglo-saxon 
race ;  and  it  is  the  blended  influence  of  these  two  prin- 
ciples, creating  as  they  advance  an  all  controlling  public 
opinion,  that  on  the  one  hand  will  brook  no  restraints 
on  the  social,  civil  and  political  equality  of  man,  andou 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


303 


the  other,  will  frown  down  all  lawless  licentiousness —  with  the  white  basis,  was  alluded  to  in  the  convention  of 
that  on  the  one  hand  will  tolerate  no  concentration  of  j  1829-30,  by  several  aistinguished  members  of  that  body 
the  money  power  in  the  hands  of  the  few  and  of  their  ! — I  remember  the  names  of  Mr.  Morris,  of  Hanover,  and 
descendants  ;  and  on  the  other  will  crush  to  the  earth  'of  Judge  Scott — a  man  whose  genius  we  have  all  been 
every  effort  to  invade  the  sacred  rights  of  property — it '  accustomed  to  admire,  the  memory  of  whose  virtues  we 
is  the  influence  of  these  principles,  and  of  this  public  \  will  ever  cherish  and  revere.  And  it  was  then  argued 
opinion,  which  is  destined  to  encircle  the  globe  with  the  jthat  a  heavy  debt  for  internal  improvements  would  be 
institutions  of  that  race — which  is  destined  to  spread  !  avoided  by  the  mixed  basis — that  all  other  restraints 
knowledge,  civilization  and  Christianity  over  the  world,  jwere  mere  "paper  guaranties,  "  and  worthless,  but  that 
Let  it  not  be  said  that  western  Virginians  are  unworthy  [the  white  basis  would  lead  to  an  enormous  public  debt 
to  participate  in  this  glorious  work.  I  and  a  wasteful  expenditure  of  public  money.  Chapman 

Again  :  property  may  be  imperiled  by  excessive  tax-  i  Johnson  and  others  replied,  and  predicted  that  the  com- 
ation.  It  is  conceded  that  a  taxing  agency  in  the  shape  i  pound  or  mixed  basis  would  produce  the  very  results 
of  a  legislature  may  be  organized  so  as  to  impose  bur-  which  have  flowed  from  the  provisions  of  the  existing 
dens  on  the  entire  property  of  the  State,  that  will  im-  j  constitution,  although  it  secures  to  the  east  more  power 
pair  its  value  and  endanger  its  existence.  This legisla-  [than  the  mixed  basis.  They  predicted  (and  their  pre- 
ture,  organized  on  the  suffrage  basis,  would  be  composed  dictions  have  become  prophecies  fulfilled)  that  the  mix- 
of  agents  reflecting  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  equal  j  ed  basis  would  give  to  the  concert  of  the  western  vote, 
numbers  of  tax -payers  ;  and  on  the  mixed  basis,  it  would  I  more  power  in  respect  to  internal  improvements  than 
consist  of  agents  representing  unequal  numbers  of  tax-!  was  taken  from  their  numbers — that  western  members 


payers,  not  in  the  exact  proportion  of  the  amount  they 
were  to  pay,  but  in  a  ratio  approximating  that  princi- 
ple— that  is,  in  the  proportion  of  the  number  of  tax 


would  move  in  solid  phalanx,  and  that,  by  combinations 
with  eastern  interests,  they  would  secure  their  own  pur- 
poses, whilst,  at  the  same  time,  the  public  debt  would 


payers  and  the  amount  paid  combined.  And  it  is  argued  I  be  much  more  swelled  and  increased  than  if  they  had 
that,  without  any  restraints  on  legislative  power,  the  re-  the  power  to  carry  through  the  State  those  great  schemes 
presentatives  of 'the  smaller  number  of  tax-payers  are  |  which  would  connect  its  eastern  and  western  interests 


safely  to  be  entrusted  with  the  power  to  pass  laws  af- 
fecting life  and  liberty,  and  also  to  tax  the  majority  of 
tax-payers  at  their  pleasure,  because  their  responsibili- 
ties to  their  constituents  will  be  such  as  to  secure  mode- 
rate public  expenditures  and  low  rates  of  taxes  ;  where- 
as, if  the  suffrage  basis  be  adopted,  those  who  levy  the 


together  and  make  them  one.  Such  was  the  prophecy. 
What  has  been  the  fulfilment  ?  Why,  we  have  witness- 
ed, under  this  unnatural  and  unjust  apportionment  of 
power,  the  growth  and  development  of  a  system  of  pub- 
lic improvement  and  expenditure  well  calculated  to 
alarm  the  judicious  and  the  prudent.    The  condition  of 


taxes  will  not  be  responsible  to  those  who  pay  them  ;  i  parties  has  been  this  :  Seventy-nine  delegates  and  nine- 
and  that,  whatever  restraints  may  be  imposed  on  the  teen  senators  from  the  east,  and  fifty-six  delegates  and 
legislative  power,  the  majority  of  the  tax  payers  will  j  thirteen  senators  from  the  west :  the  western  members 
ultimately  throw  off  those  restraints  and  destroy  proper-  representing  a  majority,  and  the  eastern  a  minority  of 
ty  by  excessive  taxation.    And  here  allow  me  to  say  |  the  people  :  the  western  members  feeling  no  responsi- 


that  I  am  surprised  at  the  sneers  of  eastern  gentlemen 
at  "  paper  guaranties, "  as  they  are  pleased  to  call  all 
limitations  on  legislative  power.  And  what,  I  ask,  is 
your  bill  of  rights — declared  by  your  courts  to  be  a  part 
of  the  constitution  ?    What  is  vour  constitution  itself, 


bility  resting  upon  them  for  the  general  course  of  legis- 
lation— remembering  that  they  were  put  under  the  ban 
in  1829,  on  account  of  internal  improvements,  and  see- 
ing, for  a  long  time,  in  the  members  from  eastern  Vir- 
ginia an  obstinate  determination  to  deny  the  west  all 


with  all  its  fences  against  the  encroachments  of  power,  j  improvements,  and  to  close  their  ears  to  all  appeals  for 
but  "  paper  guaranties  ?"  And  permit  me  to  say,  that  {the  development  of  its  resources.  Thus  situated,  how 
he  who  succeeds  in  creating  the  impression  on  the  pub-  ;  natural  was  it  that  the  fifty -six  votes  of  the  west  should 
lie  mind  that  there  is  nothing  sacred,  nothing  enduring  stand  ready  to  combine  with  any  twelve  members  who 
in  the  "  paper  guaranties  "  of  the  American  republics,  might  desire  an  improvement  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge, 
will  succeed  in  unsettling  the  very  foundation  of  our  How  natural  that  the  internal  improvement  party 
institutions,  which  rests  upon  faith — faith  in  the  people  should  understand  that  in  union  alone  there  was  strength 
— faith  in  then:  respect  for  the  rights  of  all,  from  the  — that  thev  must  combine  to  carry  their  schemes  against 


humblest  to  the  highest — faith  in  their  capacity  to  go- 
vern themselves,  and  to  secure  their  own  safety  and  hap- 
piness— to  provide  for  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest 
number,  and  for  all  possible  good  to  the  smallest  num- 
ber. The  rock  upon  which  the  American  institutions 
rests  is  faith  in  the  people.  The  argus-eyed  guardian 
of  the  people's  rights  is  jealousy  of  public  agents.  But, 
it  is  said  that  if  the  legislature  be  restrained  from  con- 
tracting a  large  public  debt  by  a  constitutional  limita- 
tion upon  its  power,  the  wants  of  the  west  are  such  that 
with  a  majority  of  votes  it  will  be  induced,  will  be  tempt- 
ed to  call  another  convention  for  the  purposes  of  remov- 
ing the  limitations — of  increasing  the  debt — of  accumu- 
lating burdens  upon  property  and  rendering  it  valueless 
by  excessive  taxation.  The  evil  to  be  avoided  is  exces- 
sive taxation  ;  and  reasonable  limitations  on  the  power 
to  create  a  debt,  and  to  oppress  by  heavy  taxes,  are  to 
be  discarded,  not  because  the  public  interest  would  be 
unsafe  whilst  the  limitations  exist,  but  because  the  peo- 
ple may  hereafter  be  so  eager  to  swell  their  public  debt 
as  to  throw  off  the  restraints  imposed  on  their  agents 
and  expose  themselves  to  be  borne  down  by  the  intolera- 
ble weight  of  taxation  !  And  to  what  do  gentlemen  in- 
vite us  to  look  as  in  itself  a  perfect  safeguard  against 
a  public  debt  and  excessive  taxes  ?  The  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  says,  to  the  mixed  basis  :  It  will  secure  pro- 
perty, good  government,  and  will  save  the  people  from 
heavy  taxes.  The  danger  of  a  public  debt  in  connection 


the  unyielding  and  united  vote  of  a  large  majority  from 
eastern  Virginia.  The  eastern  internal  improvement 
party  took  its  origin  in  the  Piedmont  district,  and  in 
those  cities  at  the  head  of  tide  water  that  derive  their 
trade  from  the  Piedmont  and  western  districts.  They 
were  led  on  by  such  gallant  leaders  as  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  whose  clarion  voice  has 
always  been  heard  in  the  front  of  the  battle.  Often 
have  I  heard  him  rallying,  with  cheering  cries,  the 
sometimes  broken  and  scattered  forces  of  the  internal 
improvement  party  in  the  house  of  delegates — acting 
then  as  the  bold  leader  of  the  ''plunderers,*'  and  now 
as  the  gallant  defender  of  the  saving,  treasury  protect- 
ing, mixed  basis  faith  !  This  region  of  the  common- 
wealth, therefore,  occupied  the  vantage  ground.  With 
a  united  anti-internal  improvement  vote  in  the  tide  wa- 
ter district,  the  Piedmont  vote  could  defeat  any  Wes- 
tern scheme ;  and  no  bill  could  pass  without  its  co-ope- 
ration. Occupying  this  position  then,  it  could  dictate 
its  own  terms  to  the  west  and  secure  such  improve- 
ments as  would  best  promote  its  own  interests.  And 
what  has  been  the  result  of  this  condition  of  things  ? 
Look  abroad  over  the  face  of  Virginia,  and  you  will 
find  the  east  intersected  with  railroads  and  other  im- 
provements, most  of  them  tending  towards  the  west, 
but  "  dragging  their  slow  length  along"  with  tedious 
tardiness,  whilst  beyond  the  Blue  Ridge  there  are  but 
thirty-two  miles  of  railroad,  and  not  yet  has  a  fixed 


304 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


policy  of  improvement  marked  the  legislation  of  the  I 
State.     No   great  thoroughfares  heve    been  forced 
through  to  the  Ohio  river  and  the  Tennessee  line.  Such 
I  conscientiously  believe  would  have  been  the  case  had 
power  been  yielded  to  principle  in  1829-30.    The  im- 
provements of  the  State  are  impulsive  and  short-sighted 
and  lead  to  no  grand  results.    From  Richmond  four 
railroads  and  a  canal  diverge;  from  Petersburg  three 
railroads  and  a  river  improvement ;  from  Alexandria 
two  railroads  and  a  canal ;  and  what  are  they  all  ? 
Mere  sickly  shoots,  starting  from  insufficient  trunks. 
The  public  mind  of  the  State,  east  and  west,  is  now 
becoming  fixed  in  the  opinion  that  the  improvements 
must  be  carried  through  the  State  before  they  cease  to 
be  burdens  on  the  public  treasury.    And  I  ask  eastern 
gentlemen  whether  it  would  not  have  been  better  for 
them,  as  tax  payers  and  as  Virginians,  that  this  had 
been  done  long  ago  ?    The  income  of  these  grand  works 
would  now  have  been  filling  our  treasury,  and  our 
noble  old  State,  with  renewed  energy  and  vigor,  would 
have  been  running  the  race  of  successful  competion 
for  the  immense  and  wealth-giving  trade  of  the  great 
west  with  her  bold  and  intrepid  rivals  north  and  south. 
Virginia  feels  the  despondency  of  the  racer  who  is 
thrown  behind ;  but  still  realizes  the  absolute  necessity 
of  stimulating  her  exhausted  energies  to  reach  the  goal. 
But,  I  return  to  the  question,  has  the  mixed  basis 
saved  the  State  from  a  public  debt,  and  from  in- 
creased taxes  ?    And  has  the  principle  that  they  who 
lay  should  be  responsible  to  those  who  pay  the  taxes 
availed  to  protect  tide  water  Virginia,  or  been  carried 
into  practice  by  Piedmont  Virginia?    By  the  report  of 
the  finance  committee  at  the  present  session  of  the 
general  assembly,  it  appears  that  the  aggregate  debt 
of  the  State  is  $10,516,658,  that  the  productive  stocks 
and  funds  owned  by  the  State  are  $6,70§,100,  leaving 
an  apparent  debt  of  $3,808,557  ;  to  which  must  be  add- 
ed $4,632,868  of  certain  liabilities,  and  $4,791,894  of 
contingent  liabilities  in  the  shape  of  guarantees,  &c, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  made  chargeable  on  the  trea- 
sury.   A  convulsion  in  the  money  affairs  of  the  Union 
might  throw  upon  the  treasury  the  burden  of  a  debt  of 
$19,097,420.    And  all  men  agree  that  the  taxes  must 
be  raised.    This  state  of  things  has  grown  up  under 
the  system  of  combination,  or  log-rolling,  spoken  of 
before.    A  distinguished  member  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, (Mr.  Bur  well  from  Bedford,)  described  this  system 
thus  :  Log  rolling  is  a  necessity  in  the  legislation  of 
Virginia.    At  each  session  some  great  scheme  of  im- 
provement is  started,  and  around  it  congregate  many 
smaller  projects,  all  of  which  are  to  go  through  or  to 
fail  together.    He  likened  the  system  to  the  progress 
of  a  whale  through  a  narrow  frith,  followed  and  pushed 
ahead  by  a  hundred  fishes  of  the  smaller  tribes ;  if  the 
the  whale  be  stopped,  the  way  becomes  blocked  up, 
and  the  small  followers  of  his  mightiness  are  stopped 
with  him.    I  now  proceed  to  show  that  "  the  whales  " 
have    generally   been  found   in    the   Piedmont  and 
upper  tide   water   districts,  and   that   the  principle 
that  those  who  lay  ought  to  be  responsible  to  those 
who  pay  the  taxes  has  been  repudiated  in  practice  by 
those  who  now  contend  for  it  as  the  only  safeguard 
against  oppression  and  the  plundering  of  property.  The 
following  table  shows  the  amounts  expended  by  the 
State  in  the  four  grand  divisions  :  1st.  $795,723.78  ; 
2d.  $7,449,185.77  ;n  3d.  $2,119,363.85,  and 4th.  $1,504,- 
098.60,  making  a  total  of  $11,864,371,  of  which  the  first 
district  has  received  6  7-10  per  cent,  whilst  it  is  now 
paying  at  the  rate  of  33  6-10  per  cent,  of  the  public  rev- 
enue ;  2d  district  has  received  62  7-10  per  cent,  and  is 
paying  31  3-10  per  cent ;  3d  district  has  received  17  6-10 
per  cent.,  and  is  paying  17  3-10  per  cent,  and  the  4th  dis- 
trict has  received  12  6-10  per  cent,  and  is  paying  17  7-10 
per  cent.    In  addition  to  the  above  amounts  $480,000 
have  been  appropriated  to  the  South  Side  Railroad,  and 
$480,000  to  the  Manassa  Gap  Railroad,  at  the  present 
session  of  the  General  Assembly — the  one  terminating 
in  Petersburg,  and  the  other  in  Alexandria.    (The  Cen- 


tral Railroad  bill,  though  advocated  by  my  friend  from 
Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  has  failed.    The  waters  beyond 
the  Alleghany  are  too  shallow  to  float  such  a  whale.) 
Alexandria,  Heaven  bless  her  !  she  is  indeed  a  favored 
daughter  of  the  old  mother — she  was  lost  and  has  been 
found — she  had  wandered  to  a  strange  jurisdiction  and 
has  returned  to  the  bosom  of  her  mother — most  cordial- 
ly has  see  been  welcomed — most  gorgeously  has  she 
been  clothed  with  costly  apparel !  I  do  not  object  to  her 
prosperity  and  to  the  favoring  smiles  she  has  received. 
I  rejoice,  indeed,  that  she  is  so  near  the  vantage  ground 
of  the  Piedmont  district.    It  is  a  little  remarkable  that 
the  balance  on  the  above  exhibit  is  $1,000,000  at  least, 
in  favor  of  the  west — that  the  valley  has  been  kept  to 
the  ratio  of  her  contributions,  whilst  the  trans-Allegha- 
ny  district,  filled  as  it  has  been  said  with  "  out-side  bar- 
barians, "  and  always  crying  "  give  !  give  !  "  has  not  by 
a  great  deal,  received  of  the  fund  of  internal  improve- 
ment, a  sum  equal  to  what  she  will  have  to  pay.  I  have 
made  this  calculation  upon  the  basis  of  the  present  rate 
of  contribution.    I  consider  this  fair,  because  the  inter- 
nal improvements  have  not  been  paid  for  out  of  the  pub- 
lic treasury,  but  by  the  creation  of  a  public  debt  which 
is  yet  to  be  paid,  and  the  youthful  energies  of  the  grow- 
ing west  are  to  be  taxed  to  pay  for  her  education  and 
development ;  and  also  to  relieve  her  mother  from  her 
own  burdens  in  a  ratio  greater  than  the  benefits  the  west 
has  received.    Is  it  not  obvious  too  that  the  practice  of 
the  Piedmont  members  in  the  halls  of  legislation  has 
differed  much  from  the  theories  of  some  of  them  here  ? 
A  heavy  amount  of  taxes  has  been  levied  by  their  votes 
on  tidewater  against  the  consent  and  remonstrances  of 
the  delegates  from  that  district,  who  declared  they  did 
not  desire  the  accomplishment  of  these  schemes  of  im- 
provement, and  who  protested  against  being  taxed  for 
purposes  in  which  they  had  no  interest — that  they  were 
plundered  of  their  property,  and  that  the  Piedmont  and 
the  west  were  clutching  at  their  purse  strings.    The  an- 
swer was,  the  majority  must  govern — it  is  true  you  have 
no  identity  in  interest  with  us  in  respect  to  internal  im- 
provements— but  why  clamor  in  our  ears  ?    You  are  pro- 
tected by  the  mixed  basis,  be  content.    Every  time  a 
Piedmont  delegate  has  voted  a  tax  for  a  Piedmont  im- 
provement, he  has  imposed  a  tax  of  one  dollar  on  his 
own  constituents  for  his  own  benefit,  and  one  dollar  and 
ten  cents  on  the  tidewater  district,  still  for  his  own  ben- 
efit, and  against  the  protestations  of  the  delegates  from 
the  tidewater.    I  say  that  if  there  be  any  soundness  in 
the  rule,  that  where  there  are  peculiar  interests  in  the 
community  not  identified  with  the  general  interests,  re- 
presentation should  be  so  arranged  as  to  give  those  in- 
terests the  power  of  self-protection,  in  defiance  of  the 
rule  that  the  majority  should  govern,  then  the  tidewater 
district  ought  still  to  control  the  power  of  the  State.  I 
hold  to  no  such  doctrine.    I  am  a  firm  friend  of  internal 
improvements,  and  believe  they  ought  to  be  directed  by 
the  will  and  sustained  by  the  purse  of  the  community  ; 
and  I  argue  that  in  all  fairness  and  justice,  it  is  just  as 
safe  and  right  in  respect  to  this  vital  question,  that  the 
will  of  the  majority,  even  if  it  should  be  confined  to  the 
valley    and  the  trans-AUeghany,   should   be  heard 
as  against  the  Piedmont  and  the  tidewater  districts,  as 
that  the  will  of  the  Piedmont  and  of  the  west  combined, 
should  be  enforced  against  the  tidewater  district — that 
it  is  just  as  fair  and  right  that  the  representatives  of  a 
majority  of  the  people  should  assess  and  expend  the 
taxes  for  the  general  benefit,  in  which  Piedmont,  from 
her  peculiar  and  advantageous  position,  must  partici- 
pate, as  that  taxes  should  be  levied  and  distributed  by 
agents  elected  on  the  mixed  basis  principle,  for  purpo- 
ses in  which  the  tide  water  district  can  feel  no  interest 
and  can  never  participate  so  long  as  power  remains 
where  it  is.    I  think  it  is  apparent  that  the  mixed  basis 
is  itself  no  guard  against  a  public  debt,  or  high  taxes, 
and  that  it  will  not  alone  secure  a  judicious  administra- 
tion of  public  affairs.    And  I  think  the  sentiment  is  be- 
coming general  throughout  the  east — that  other  guaran- 
ties must  be  sought  than  that  which  has  heretofore  been 
relied  on — the  guarantee  of  property  representation. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


305 


And  now,  if  other  guaranties  are  to  be  introduced, 
which  will  limit  legislative  power,  not  according  to  the 
whim,  caprice,  or  fickle  purpose  of  the  delegate  author- 
ized to  act  at  his  discretion,  and  subject  only  to  the 
vague  responsibility  of  the  representative  to  his  consti- 
tuents, (greatly  impaired  often  times  by  a  temporary 
self-interest  in  the  constituent  body,)  why  may  not  such 
wholesome  restraints  be  wholly  relied  on  ?  Act  on  the 
principle  that  a  majority  of  the  people  shall  be  repre- 
sented by  a  majority  of  the  delegates,  and  you  throw 
upon  the  majority,  in  and  out  of  your  legislative  halls, 
the  full  responsibility  of  public  affairs.  You  elevate  the 
people  to  a  sense  of  their  responsibilities  ;  you  make 
them  watchful  of  the  conduct  of  their  public  agents,  and 
you  will  develop  and  carry  out  a  public  policy  approved 
by  a  majority,  and  calculated  (if  mankind  be  capable  of 
self-government,)  to  promote  the  general  good.  But,  at 
the  same  time  this  general  will,  by  common  consent, 
will  be  subject  to  such  wholesome  limitations  and  re- 
strictions as  will  secure  order,  safety,  and  a  general 
sense  of  security,  which  the  people  of  this  State,  both 
east  and  west,  have  not  felt  for  the  last  five  years. 

I  proceed  now  to  show  that,  upon  the  ordinary  prin- 
ciples of  human  conduct,  the  State  would  be  as  little 
subject  t®  excessive  taxation — indeed,  less  liable  to  it 
— with  the  suffrage  basis  as  with  the  mixed  basis.  In 
the  first  place,  I  argue  that  the  responsibility  of  the  re- 
presentative, in  voting  an  assessment  of  taxes,  is  pro- 
portioned not  to  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  his  constitu- 
ents, but  to  the  burden  he  is  about  to  impose  on  them, 
which  burden  consists  chiefly  in  the  difficulty  of  paying 
the  tax.  And  I  ask  gentlemen  whether  it  be  not  a  con- 
ceded truth  that  the  rich  bear  taxes  more  kindly  and 
contentedly  thamthe  poor  communities.  I  refer  not  to 
Great  Britain,  who  bears  her  enormous  public  debt  on 
her  shoulders  with  the  apparent  ease  and  light-hearted- 
ness  with  which  a  young  girl  trips  along  with  the  eider 
down  upon  her  neck. 

New  York  city,  with  a'population  of  500,364,  expends 
annually  $2,578,325,  about  three  times  the  expenditures 
of  the  entire  State  of  Virginia — an  average  of  about  $5 
a  head.  Boston,  with  a  population  of  145,150,  expend- 
ed during  the  years  1849-'50,  about  $3, 169,850,  a  large 
portion  of  which  was  borrowed  to  supply  her  people 
with  water.  Her  annual  expenditures  amount  to 
$1, 266,030,  Philadelphia  pays  into  the  public  treasury 
of  Pennsylvania  $602,944,  being  30  per  cent,  of  the 
whole  taxes  of  the  State,  besides,  at  least,  three-fourths 
of  $441,000  raised  by  the  State  by  tax  on  corporations, 
auctions,  &c.  The  population  of  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia proper,  excluding  the  suburbs,  is  150,000;  her  pub- 
lic debt  is  $4,311,184,  and  her  liabilities  $795,238.  The 
population  of  Baltimore  is  167,000.  Baltimore  pays 
more  than  30  per  cent,  of  the  public  revenue  of  Mary- 
land. Out  of  $1,315,439  raised  in  1849,  $432,650  were 
collected  in  Baltimore,  whilst  the  annual  expenditures 
of  the  city  were  $819,622.  The  rate  of  taxation  on  the 
$100  worth  of  real  estate  are— in  New  York,  $1.18£  ; 
Philadelphia,  $1.56  ;  Baltimore,  93  cents ;  Boston,  68 
cents.  And  in  Virginia,  Norfolk,  with  a  white  popu- 
lation of  9,068,  has  incurred  a  debt  of  $270,000,  Ports- 
mouth, with  a  white  population  of  four  or  five  thousand, 
has  a  debt  of  $180,000,  Richmond,  with  a  white  popula- 
tion of  15,307,  has  a  debt  of  $1,000,000.  I  need  not  refer 
to  the  heavy  liabilities  assumed  by  Wheeling,  Lynchburg, 
and  other  towns  in  the  State.  These  liabilities  have  been 
voluntarily  assumed  and  the  burden  is  cheerfully  borne  by 
such  rich  communities.  The  rate  of  tax  on  real  estate, 
even  here  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  imposed  for  city 
purposes,  would,  if  extended  to  the  lands  of  the  State, 
produce  an  income  of  $1,373,401,  or  the  interest  on  a 
debt  of  $23,000,000.  If  entrusted  with  the  power,  it 
may  suit  the  purposes  of  the  richer  portions  of  the  State 
to  increase  the  rate  of  taxes,  and  if  the  ratio  be  uni- 
form throughout  the  State,  what  would  be  the  effect? — 
on  whom  would  the  burden  fall  most  heavily  ? — and  who 
would  hold  their  representatives  to  the  sternest  respon- 
sibility ?  I  ask,  would  not  the  burden  fall  least  oppres- 
sively on  the  rich,  and  with  the  most  crushing  weight 


on  the  poor  portions  of  the  State  ?  Go  to  the  cottage  of 
the  poor  man,  and  then  to  the  counting  house,  the  farm, 
or  the  sumptuous  mansion  of  the  rich,  and  ask  which 
will  complain  most  of  a  rateable  increase  of  taxes  ;  the 
latter,  of  their  abundance,  will  cast  into  the  treasury  : 
the  former,  of  their  penury,  will  cast  in  their  all ;  the 
one  will  curtail  his  luxuries,  perhaps,  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  State  ;  he  does  not  complain  of  a  scale  of 
public  expenditure  proportioned  somewhat  to  his  own 
outlays  ;  but  the  other,  stinted  by  penury  in  his  person- 
al indulgencies  to  the  most  ordinary  comforts,  will  find 
the  tax  gatherer  laying  his  hand  on  those  comforts  ;  aye ! 
on  the  very  necessaries  of  his  wife  and  of  his  children, 
to  sustain  the  extravagances  of  the  government.  Who 
will  complain  most?  Who  will  go  out  from  his  home 
to  the  polls  most  firmly  resolved  to  question  his  public 
servants  as  to  the  necessity,  the  propriety  of  an  increase 
of  taxes  ?  The  experience  and  common  sense  of  all 
who  hear  me,  will  respond  that  the  poor  man,  the  poor 
community,  will  feel  most  heavily,  and  resist  most 
promptly  the  burden  of  excessive  taxation.  And  I  stand 
here  now  to  demand  power  for  the  moderate  in  circum- 
stances, whether  east  or  west,  to  protect  themselves 
from  excessive  taxation,  to  guard  their  humble  means 
from  the  oppression  of  wealth  armed  with  power.  I 
stand  here  to  protest  against  the  assumed  right  of  the 
minority  to  judge  of  the  ability  of  the  majority  to  pay, 
to  measure  that  ability  by  the  standard  of  their  own 
abundance,  instead  of  by  the  scale  of  our  poverty.  We 
resist  the  claim  of  eastern  men  who,  upon  the  ground 
that  they  must  have  power  to  protect  their  own  proper- 
ty, seek  a  power  which  may  destroy  ours  ;  who,  to  guard 
against  taxes  imposed  by  the  majority,  demand  the 
right  to  tax  that  majority  ;  who,  rather  than  yield  their 
contributions  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  general  will,  as- 
serts right,  not  only  to  govern  the  majority,  but  to  tax 
the  majority,  and  afterwards  to  dispose  of  the  taxes  as- 
sessed at  their  discretion.  Such  claims  of  power  are 
enough  to  make  the  blood  of  freedom  boil  with  indig- 
nant resistance  to  its  assumptions  ;  enough  to  make  the 
young  giant  of  the  west  struggle  to  snap  the  bonds 
which  bind  him.  Poverty  is  a  hard  lot  ;  it  is  a  weari- 
some toil,  this  struggle  with  adverse  fortune  ;  and 
whether  men  are  regarded  singly  or  in  communities,  the 
doom  of  the  poor  is  cheerless  and  depressed  ;  but  for  the 
humble  poor,  with  equal  love  of  life,  liberty,  property, 
and  happiness,  with  an  unconquerable  yearing  for  every 
birthright  of  freemen,  to  be  oppressed,  put  down,  de- 
graded, and  kept  down  by  the  strong,  the  prosperous, 
and  the  wealthy ;  and  to  be  told  by  the  strong  man, 
armed  with  power,  as  he  stands  over  them,  that  all  this 
is  necessary  for  his  protection,  is  adding  the  bitterness 
of  insult  to  the  wrong  of  injury. 

Here  Mr.  Sheffey,  being  much  exhausted,  gave  way 
to  a  motion  that  the  committee  rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  ac- 
cordingly rose. 

STATE  AGRICULTURAL  SOCIETT. 

The  PRESIDENT  submitted  to  the  Convention  a 
communication  from  A.  Robinson,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of 
the  Virginia  State  Agricultural  Society,  which  was 
read,  as  follows  : 

Richmond,  February  19,  1851. 

Hon.  Jno.  Y.  Mason, 

President  of  the  Virginia  Convention — 
Dear  Sir  :  The  Virginia  State  Agricultural  Society 
has  made  it  my  duty,  in  this  form,  to  solicit  the  general 
attendance  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  at  an  ad- 
journed meeting  of  the  Society,  to  be  held  this  evening, 
at  half -past  7  o'clock. 

Desiring  that  this  request  may  be  announced,  and 
that  the  members  of  the  Convention  may  find  it  agree- 
able to  attend, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  respect, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  Robinson,  Jr., 
Recording  Secretary  of  the  Virginia 
State  Agricultural  Society, 


306 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


On  motion  of  Mr.  TAYLOR,  the  communication 
was  laid  on  the  table. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  11  o'clock. 


THURSDAY,  February  20,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Reed,  of  the  Presbyterian 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

PUBLIC  MEETING  IN  HARRISON  COUNTY. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  I  rise  to  present  to  the  Convention 
the  proceedings  of  a  public  meeting  held  by  a  portion 
of  the  people  represented  here  by  my  worthy  colleagues 
and  myself,  at  the  courthouse  of  my  county,  on  the  5th 
of  the  present  month,  to  consider  the  weighty  and  im- 
portant matters  that  this  body  has  assembled  to  delib- 
erate upon.  The  meeting  was  large,  being  fully  attend- 
ed by  the  people  of  the  county,  and  from  my  knowl- 
edge of  those  who  appear  to  have  participated  in  its  de- 
liberations, highly  respectable,  many  of  whom  I  am 
proud  to  say  are  my  friends  and  associates.  They  are 
not  only  intelligent,  but  in  every  respect  devoted  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  commonwealth,  and  anxious  that 
her  constitution  should  be  of  the  most  liberal  and 
perfect  form,  and  that  her  whole  internal  affairs  should 
be  so  arranged  as  to  advance  her  to  that  high  state  of 
prosperity  to  which  her  great  natural  advantages  entitle 
her. 

The  meeting  fully,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  maturely  con- 
sidered the  most  important  reforms  expected  at  our 
hands,  and  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions,  laying  down 
great  and  incontrovertible  principles — principles  upon 
which  true  republicanism  alone  can  exist,  in  which  my 
colleagues  and  myself  fully  concur,  and  which  will  aid 
me  very  much  in  discharging  the  weighty  duties  that 
my  place  here  devolves  upon  me. 

The  important  question  of  the  basis  of  representation 
in  both  houses  of  the  general  assembly,  which  is  under 
discussion  in  this  body  from  day  to  day  in  committee  of 
the  whole,  occupied  a  prominent  place  in  their  deliber- 
ations. It  is  regarded  by  them  as  of  vital  importance, 
and  they  look  to  the  result  of  our  deliberations  with 
intense  interest.  Should  our  action  result  favorably 
with  their  views,  it  will  be  hailed  with  the  highest  sat- 
isfaction— if  otherwise,  with  the  deepest  mortification 
and  sorrow.  The  meeting  acted  for  itself,  but  truly 
spoke  the  sentiments  of  that  whole  region.  I  assure 
gentlemen  that  but  one  sentiment  prevails  among  us, 
and  that  is,  a  fixed  and  settled  determination  to  be  placed 
upon  an  equality  with  the  other  portions  of  the  State. 
In  case  their  just  expectations  are  not  realized,  it  would 
seem  to  be  the  desire  of  those  composing  the  meeting, 
that  the  labors  here  of  my  colleagues  and  myself  should 
terminate.  I  have  not  permitted  myself  to  look  for- 
ward to  such  a  result,  for  I  have  great  confidence  in  the 
justice  and  wisdom  of  this  body,  but  if  it  must  come, 
we  are  prepared  to  meet  that  crisis.  What  our  course 
will  be,  it  is  unnecessary  at  this  time  to  state,  but  I 
trust  that  my  colleagues  and  myself  will  have  the  firm- 
ness and  discretion  to  adopt  the  course  that  becomes  us 
under  the  circumstances,  giving  to  the  views  and 
wishes  of  those  who  composed  the  meeting  that  consid- 
eration which  their  high  character  and  intelligence  en- 
titled them  to.  That  my  colleagues  will  so  act,  I  do 
not  doubt  for  a  moment — and  aided  and  supported  as  I 
shall  be  by  their  wise  counsel  and  example,  I  will  not 
too  much  distrust  myself.  I  will  present  the  proceed- 
ings I  have  referred  to,  and  ask  that  they  may  be  read 
and  laid  on  the  table. 

The  proceedings  were  then  read  by  the  Secretary  as 
follows : 

At  a  large  and  respectable  meeting  of  the  citizens  of 
Harrison  county,  held  in  the  court  house  at  Clarksburg 
on  the  6th  cf  February,  1851,  in  pursuance  of  a  pre- 
viously published  call,  to  take  into  consideration  the  va-  j 


rious  reforms  which  it  is  deemed  essential  should  be 
made  in  the  organic  law  of  the  State  by  the  Convention 
now  sitting  in  Richmond  ;  On  motion  of  Wm.  A.  Har- 
rison, Esq.,  Dr.  Benj.  Dolbeare  was  called  to  the  chair, 
and  Sam'l  McP.  Y6st  appointed  secretary.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  meeting  was  explained  by  Mr.  Harrison  ; 
and,  then,  upon  his  motion,  the  chair  appointed  the  fol- 
lowing named  gentlemen  to  constitute  a  committee  to 
prepare,  and  report  to  the  meeting  appropriate  resolu- 
tions :  U.  M.  Turner,  Wm.  Johnson,  E.  Marsh,  Dr. 
James  McCalley,  Sam'l  Ogden,  J.  B.  Shinn,  W.  J. 
Wilkinson,  J.  B.  Lowe,  Jesse  Flowers,  Caleb  Boggess, 
Sen..,  W.  E.  Hall,  Andrew  Radcliff,  Benj.  Bassell,  Sen., 
Sam'l.  Sheets,  Eli  Vanhorn,  Alex.  L.  Patton,  Jno. 
Huff,  H.  J.  Lynch,  Stephen  Bassel,  Elmore  Hart,  Pe- 
ter Randolph,  Jesse  Randolph,  G.  G.  Davidson,  W.  A. 
Harrison,  Luther  Haymond,  Abiah  Minor,  J.  J.  Winter, 
Jno.  Gothrop,  Jas.  McCan,  D.  C.  Coplin,  N.Davisson, 
and  Benj.  Radcliff.  After  retiring  a  short  time,  the 
committee  returned  and  reported  through  their  chair- 
man, U.  M.  Turner,  Esq.,  the  following  resolutions, 
which  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

1.  Resolved,  That  all  governments  have  their  proper 
foundation  in,  and  derive  their  just  powers  from,  the 
consent  of  the  governed  ;  that  their  legitimate  functions 
and  aim  are  to  promote  the  true  interest  and  substan- 
tial happiness  of  all  the  members  of  the  community  ; 
and  that  these  can  only  be  attained  by  the  recognition 
of  equal  political  rights  in,  and  the  dispensation  of,  ex- 
act and  equal  justice  to  all,  without  exclusive  privileges, 
and  without  discrimination  in  favor  of  classes,  sections 
or  individuals. 

2.  Resolved,  That,  as  from  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  in  the  organization  and  the  administration  of 
government,  unanimity  of  opinion  upon  the  many  and 
multifarious  questions  and  subjects  which  necessarily 
present  themselves,  is  impossible  upon  plain  principles 
and  for  obvious  reasons — from  the  necessity  of  the 
case — the  will  of  the  majority  must  prevail  and  pre- 
scribe the  rule  of  conduct  for  the  whole,  and  that  of 
the  "  minority,  "  wherever  in  conflict,  they  must  be 
yielded. 

3.  Resolved,  That  the  "  majority,"  whose  will  must 
thus  prevail  in  the  government  of  a  free  people,  is  the 
majority  of  numbers  in  the  community,  and  not  the 
"majority  of  property  interests,"  nor  the  "  majority  of 
numbers  and  that  of  interest  combined,"  and  that  its 
operation  and  effect  are  not  to  be  controlled  or  modi- 
fied by  the  particular  form  or  distribution  of  thej)rop- 
erty  interest  in  the  State,  or  by  any  such  extraneous  in- 
fluence whatever. 

4.  Resolved,  That  in  every  free  government  property 
is  the  legitimate  subject  of"  protection  by  all  due  and 
needful  legislation,  and  entitled  to  all  proper  safeguards 
and  defences ;  but  that  it  cannot  vote,  or  be  voted  for  ; 
nor  can  it  possess,  or,  without  departure  from  plain 
principles  of  equality  and  justice,  be  made  to  confer  po- 
litical power  upon  its  possessors  either  in  bodily  pre- 
sence or  by  representation. 

5.  Resolved,  That  the  distinctive  feature  of  demo- 
cratic republican  institutions,  is  the  government  of  a 
free  people  by  laws  of  their  own  making,  either  in  per- 
son or  by  representation  ;  and  that  where  such  people 
shall  delegate  to  representatives  the  power  of  enacting 
laws  for  their  government,  instead  of  exercising  it 
themselves  directly,  such  representation  should  be  fair 
and  equal  with  reference  only  to  the  number  of  mem- 
bers composing  the  community  who  shall  have  the  same 
or  an  equal  voice  in  the  representative  assembly  that 
they  would  be  entitled  to  claim  if  personally  present  in 
general  convention. 

6.  Resolved,  That  the  only  just,  true  and  rightful 
principle  upon  which  the  representation  of  the  people 
of  Virginia  in  the  legislative  councils  of  the  State 
should  be  established,  is  that  prescribed  by  the  white 
population  thereof  numerically  considered,  and  not 
modified  by  property  or  any  other  disturbiag  influence 
whatever  ;  and  that  as  such,  it  should  be  recognized  by 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


307 


the  Convention  now  in  session  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
modeling the  organic  law  of  the  State. 

7.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  in  said  convention  be 
and  they  are  hereby  instructed  (to  the  extent  of  the 
voice  of  this  meeting,  which,  however,  we  are  well 
assured,  expresses  the  sentiment  of  their  entire  consti- 
tuency) to  demand  and  insist  that  white  population,  and 
it  alone,  be  adopted  as  the  basis  of  representation  in 
the  legislative  assembly  provided  for  in  the  constitution 
proposed  to  be  framed  ;  and  that  upon  this  subject  they 
make  no  concession,  nor  consent  to  any  compromise, 
nor  accept  any  substitute  which  shall  fail  to  secure  to 
the  western  people  their  full  share  and  equal  weight 
in  the  legislative  councils  of  the  State  now  and  at  all 
times  hereafter. 

Jno.  S.  Duncan,  Esq.,  then  moved  that  the  following 
resolutions  be  added  to  the  committee's  report,  which 
motion  was  agreed  to,  after  a  spirited  debate,  in 
which  Messrs.  Duncan,  Harrison,  Wilkeson,  Jackson, 
Haymond,  and  Kinchloe  participated,  and  an  ineffec- 
tual attempt  to  amend  the  14th  resolution  by  Jas.  M. 
Jackson,  Esq. 

8.  Resolved,  That  the  sessions  of  the  legislature 
should  be  biennial. 

9.  Resolved,  That  the  right  of  suffrage  should  be  ex- 
tended to  every  free  white  male  citizen,  with  restric- 
tions only  as  to  age,  residence  and  local  disability. 

10.  Resolved,  That  all  offices — legislative,  executive 
and  judicial — should  be  conferred  by  the  direct  suf- 
rages  of  the  people. 

11.  Resolved,  That  the  county  courts  as  judicial  tri- 
bunals, ought  to  be  abolished,  and  in  some  other  form 


12.  Resolved,  That  the  present  establishment  of  the 
general  and  circuit  courts  ought  to  be  retained,  and 
that  the  court  of  appeals  should  be  so  constituted  as  to 
insure  the  most  speedy  and  satisfactory  adjudication  of 
the  business  of  said  court. 

13.  Resolved,  That  office^  are  created  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  people,  and  that  all  offices  should  be  abol- 
ished which  the  interest  of  the  whole  do  not  absolutely 
require  should  be  retained. 

14.  Resolved,  That  the  principle  of  representation 
based  upon  white  population  alone,  is  one  that  cannot 
in  any  wise  be  yielded  or  compromised,  and  that  if  said 
principle  is  not  incorporated  in  the  constitution  which 
may  be  framed  by  the  convention,  in  that  event  our  re- 
presentatives are  requested  to  use  their  endeavors  to 
induce  all  the  members  favorable  to  said  basis  to  with- 
draw from  the  convention. 

15.  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  proceedings  be 
forwarded  by  the  chairman  to  our  representatives  in 
the  Convention,  and  that  they  be  requested  to  lay  them 
before  that  body  and  respectfully  ask  that  they  be  con- 
sidered by  it.  Ordered,  also,  that  these  proceedings  be 
published  in  the  newspapers  of  this  town,  and  that  oth- 
er papers  be  requested  to  copy  the  same. 

On  motion,  the  meeting  adjourned. 

Benj.  Dolbeare,  Chairman. 
J.  McP.  Yost,  Secretary. 
The  paper  was  then  laid  on  the  table. 
THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &c. 

The  Convention,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BEALE,  resumed 
the  consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole,  (Mr.  Mil- 
ler in  the  chair,)  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
basis  and  apportionment  of  representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 

MR.  SHEFFEY.  I  regret  very  much  that  indisposi- 
tion, under  which  I  have  been  laboring  for  some  days, 
prevented  me  from  concluding  my  remarks  on  yester- 
day. I  shall  hasten  to  the  conclusion  of  what  I  have  to 
say. 

I  was  yesterday  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  mixed 
basis  was,  in  itself,  no  safeguard  against  excessive  taxes, 
and  that  its  friends,  its  peculiar  advocates  on  this  floor, 
who  are  opposed  to  "paper  guaranties  "  with  the  suf- 


frage basis,  cannot  rely  on  the  mixed  basis  as  a  sufficient 
protection  to  property,  without  "paper  guaranties  ;  " 
and  I  argued  to  prove  that  proper  restrictions  upon  leg- 
islative power  might  be  efficient  in  preventing  abuses, 
and  would  prove  to  be  as  necessary  to  the  mixed  as  to 
the  suffrage  basis  ;  and,  if  as  necessary,  then  that  the 
mixed  basis,  as  an  all-sufficient  protection  against  ex- 
cessive taxation,  was  not  sustained  by  such  a  political 
necessity  as,  even  in  the  eyes  of  our  opponents,  would 
justify  a  departure  from  the  fundamental  principles  of 
republican  equality.  I  then  undertook  to  prove  that 
the  suffrage  basis  would  be  as  safe  without  any  consti- 
tutional restrictions  as  the  mixed  basis,  inasmuch  as  the 
responsibility  of  the  representative  in  voting  taxes 
would  be  measured,  not  by  the  amount  his  constituents 
would  have  to  pay,  but  by  the  burden  of  the  tax  im- 
posed— by  the  difficulty  of  paying  it ;  and  that  those 
who  possess  most  means  impose  taxes  on  themselves, 
and  others  connected  with  them,  more  freely  and  with 
fewer  complaints,  than  those  who  are  less  abundantly 
blessed  with  the  means  of  contributing  to  the  support 
of  government ;  and  I  declared  myself  the  advocate  of 
equal  power,  in  the  administration  of  the  government, 
for  the  moderate  in  circumstances,  as  a  means  ©f  self- 
proteotion  to  those  who  were  otherwise  powerless.  If 
government  be  designed  for  the  protection  of  one  class 
above  another,  it  is  for  the  protection  of  the  weak 
against  the  strong — the  humble  against  the  great — the 
poor  against  the  rich  ;  and  whence,  then,  comes  this 
claim  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  rich,  the  prosperous, 
and  the  great  ?  What  is  wealth  ?  It  is  defined  to  be 
"  the  power  by  which  one  man  commands  the  labor  of 
another.  "  By  itself  it  commands  men — it  controls 
and  directs  the  muscles  and  sinews  of  the  world.  Its 
tendency  is  constantly  to  involve  the  many  in  the  iron 
grasp  of  its  power  ;  and  it  is  a  cruel  despot  when  it  is 
endowed  with  supreme  authority.  Shall  we  not  only 
protect  it  by  law — by  constitutional  guards  from  the 
assaults  of  the  many — declare  it  to  be  safe,  whilst  we 
acknowledge  it  to  be  strong  ;  but,  in  addition,  exalting 
it  to  the  dignity  of  an  idol,  clothe  it  with  the  powers  of 
government,  and  surrender  everything  to  its  control  ? 
But  gentlemen  say  it  is  not  wealth  they  seek  to  have 
represented,  but  "  the  interests  and  rights  which  spring 
from  the  possession  of  money,  "  and  which  are  impair- 
ed by  excessive  taxes.  I  reply  that  if  taxes  be  uni- 
form, the  interests  of  the  tax-payers  will  be  identical, 
and  the  amount  may  be  safely  left  to  the  will  of  the 
majority— those  who  pay  less  having  less  to  pay  with, 
and  finding  it  harder  to  pay  their  rateable  share  than 
the  rich.  I  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  mixed  basia 
gives  the  majority  of  delegates  to  eastern  Virginia, 
whilst  the  majority  of  tax-payers  reside  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge.  There  are  very  few  slave  owners  who 
are  not  landholders  ;  the  exceptions  are  principally 
women  and  minors.  The  following  table  shows  the 
number  of  persons  assessed  with  tax  on  lands,  slaves, 
and  other  property,  in  the  four  divisions  of  the  State  : 
Land.  Slaves.  Other  Property. 

1  35,629  19,425  28,857 

2  34,195         20,513  35,197 

3  22,775  5,993  24,782 

4  41,874  4,169  47,281 


Total  134,464         50,200  136,117 

From  this  table  it  appears  that,  admitting  every 
slave  owner  to  be  a  landholder,  there  are  84,364  land- 
holders in  the  Commonwealth  who  are  not  slave  own- 
ers, and  that  the  owners  of  land  and  of  other  property 
east,  are  133,869  ;  west,  136,712— showing  a  majority 
of  2,843  in  favor  of  the  west.  The  great  principle  of 
the  Revolution  was,  that  "  taxation  and  representation 
were  inseparable — that  taxation  without  representation 
was  tyranny.  "  I  ask,  when  a  minority  of  tax-payers 
govern  and  tax  the  majority  of  tax-payers,  whether 
this  principle  be  not  violated  ?  It  never  was  dreamed 
or  thought  of  by  our  fathers,  that  representation  should 
be  in  proportion  to  the  amount  paid,  but  that  no  man, 
however  humble,  should  be  taxed,  however  little,  ex- 


308 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


cept  by  his  own  consent,  or  that  of  his  representative 
who  should  speak  for  him,  and  possess  the  same  power 
to  protect  him  as  the  representative  of  any  other  tax- 
payer. And  I  charge  the  minority  with  trampling 
under  foot  this  great  principle  of  the  Revolution — a 
minority  who,  aiming  at  self  protection,  demand  the 
power  to  oppress  the  majority  ;  who,  whilst  seeking  to 
retain  the  control  of  their  own  property,  require  the 
majority  to  give  up  to  them  theirs  also ;  who,  in  order 
to  shield  the  few  who  pay  much,  ask  for  all  power  over 
the  many,  who  pay  as  much  in  proportion  as  God  has 
blessed  them  with  the  means. 

I  proceed  now  to  show  that  if  representation  be  ap- 
portioned according  to  the  number  of  the  qualified  voters, 
the  legislative  power  will  be  in  the  hands  of  those  whose 
interests  will  forbid  the  imposition  of  excessive  taxes 
The  basis  of  qualified  voters  would  give  to  the  east  sev- 
enty votes  in  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  mem- 
bers ;  to  the  valley  twenty-eight  and  to  the  trans-alle- 
ghany  fifty-eight  votes  ;  the  valley  and  the  east  com- 
bined would  cast  ninety-eight  votes  against  the  fifty-eight 
votes  of  the  trans-alleghany  district ;  and  could  protect 
property  if  the  entire  far  west  were  filled  with  plunder- 
ers. I  lay  it  down  as  a  proposition  not  to  be  controvert- 
ed, that  (even  if  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  be  the  crite- 
rion of  safety,)  power  maybe  safely  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  pay  an  average  amount  of  the  taxes  levied  ; 
and  if  I  show  that  the  valley  is  identified  in  interest  with 
the  east,  measuring  that  interest  by  the  amount  of  her 
contributions  to  the  treasury,  and  that  the  valley  and  the 
east  combined  will  have  the  power  to  protect  property 
from  plunder  or  excessive  taxation,  I  demonstrate  that 
there  is  no  political  necessity  for  the  mixed  basis  and 
that,  according  to  Mr,  Upshur's  admission,  the  rule  of 
free  governments — the  rule  of  the  majority — should  be 
adhered  to.  The  taxes  as  I  have  stated  are  $534,772.82  : 
the  average  to  each  white  person  is  59  cents  5  mills  ;  1st 
district  94  cents  9  mills  :  2nd  district  78  cents  1  mill  : 
3rd  district  56  cents  6  mills  :  and  4th  district  28  cents  6 
mills.  The  white  population  of  Richmond,  Norfolk,  Pe- 
tersburg and  Alexandria  is  38,248,  and  the  taxes  paid 
by  them  are  $57,169.30.  Exclude  these  towns  and  the 
average  to  each  white  person  in  the  State  is  55  cents,  5 
mills  :  1st  district,  81  cents  1  mill  :  2d  district,  78  cents, 
1  mill  :  3d  district,  56  cents  6  mills  :  4th  district  28  cents 
6  mills  :  and  in  the  four  towns  named,  the  average  is  149 
cents  4  mills.  There  are  270,581  persons  charged  with 
land  and  other  property,  (slaves  excepted)  the  average  to 
each  tax-payer  is  $1.97  ;  1st  district  $2.78  ;  2nd  district 
$2.41  ;  3rd  district  $1.94  and  4th  district  $1.06.  There 
are  134,464  persons  charged  with  tax  on  lands  and  lots  ; 
the  general  average  is  $2.22 :  1st  district  $2.56  ;  2nd 
district  $2  36  ;  3rd  district  $2.68,  and  4th  district  $1.56  ; 
there  are  50,100  persons  charged  with  tax  on  slaves  ;  the 
general  average  is  $1.62  : 1st  district  $1.54  ;  2nd  district 
$1.91  ;  3rd  district  $1.14,  and  4th  district  $1.03  :  there 
are  136,117  persons  charged  with  tax  on  property,  oth- 
er than  lands  and  slaves  :  the  general  average  is  $1.13  : 
1st  district  $1.98  ;  2nd  district  $1.34  ;  3rd  district  98 
cents,  and  4th  district  53  cents.  These  general  aver- 
ages show  that  upon  the  entire  tax  the  valley  falls 
short  of  the  average  only  2  cents  9  mills  to  each  white 
person  :  that  excluding  the  four  towns  named  before 
the  valley  exceeds  the  general  average  1  cent  1  mill  ; 
that  in  respect  to  the  tax  on  lands  and  other  property, 
it  falls  short  of  the  average  3  cents  to  each  tax  payer  : 
that  it  exceeds  the  average  of  the  land  tax  46  cents, 
and  stands  in  the  front  rank  in  this  regard  ;  that  it  falls 
short  of  the  average  in  the  slave  tax  only  48  cents  to 
each  tax-payer — that  the  tidewater  district  also  falls 
below  this  average,  there  being  a  remarkable  approxi- 
mation to  equality  in  the  amount  paid  by  the  owners  of 
slaves.  I  submit  the  following  statements  further  to 
show  that  on  the  score  of  self-interest,  power  may  be 
safely  apportioned  according  to  the  number  of  qualified 
voters  :  Lot  tax  :  general  average  to  each  white  person 
in  the  commonwealth  is  7  cents  3  mills  :  1st  district 
22  cents  2  mills  ;  2nd  district  3  cents  6  mills  ;3rd  district 
3  cents  8  mills,  and  4th  district  2  cents  8  mills  :  Land 


tax  :  general  average  25  cents  9  mil  s  ;  1st  nstrLt  26 
eents  2  mills  ;  2nd  district  34  cents  8  mills  ;  3rd  distrif  t 
33  cents  8  mills,  and  4th  district  17  cents  1  mill :  Horse 
tax  :  /general  average  is  3  cents  5  mills  :  1st  district  2 
cents  8  mills  ;  2nd  district  4  cents  4  mills  ;  3rd  district  4 
cents,  and  4th  district  3  cents  :  Watch  tax  :  the  gene- 
ral average  is  1  cent  9  mills  :  1st  district  3  cents  7  mills  ; 
2nd  district  2  cents  3  mills  ;  3rd  district  1  cent  7  mills, 
and  4th  district  7  mills  :  Clock  tax  :  general  average 
is  1  cent  5  mills  :  1st  district  1  cent  5  mills  ;  2nd  distrkt 
]  cent  4  mills  ;  3rd  district  1  cent  9  mills,  and  4th  dis- 
trict 1  cent  3  mills.  These  items,  including  the  slave 
tax  already  considered,  yield  a  revenue  of  $443,597.  I 
have  not  alluded  to  the  taxes  on  coaches,  pianos,  harps> 
plate,  gold,  silver,  interest,  income,  attorneys,  physi- 
cians and  collateral  inheritances  which  yield  a  revenue 
of  $82,569.  This  revenue  comes  principally  from  the 
cities  and  from  property  not  diffused  over  the  east  ;  and 
in  respect  to  which  I  suggest  that  the  west  may  be  as 
safely  trusted  as  ?he  county  delegates  from  the  east, 
very  few  of  whom  feel  as  much  interest  in  the  gro-vs  th 
and  prosperity  of  the  cities  as  the  people  of  the  valley. 
But  even  in  regard  to  this  tax  the  valley  does  not  fall 
very  far  short  of  the  general  average.  To  each  white 
person  the  average  is  nine  cents  six  mills  :  1st  district 
18  cents  9  mills  ;  2nd  district  15  cents  4  mills  ;  3rd  dis- 
trict 6  cents  6  mills,  and  4th  district  2  cents.  There  is 
one  tax  in  respect  to  which  the  west  cannot  hope  and 
will  not  desire  to  rival  the  east — I  allude  to  the  tax  on 
free  negroes — a  tax  which  amounts  to  $8,606,  and  of 
which  $7,363  are  paid  in  the  east,  and  $1,243  in  the 
west — the  difference  in  favor  of  the  east  being  $6,120, 
almost  enough  to  furnish  one  tax  delegate.  This  tax  is 
included  by  the  terms  of  the  substitute  as  well  as  in  the 
actual  apportionments  made  in  proposition  A,  and  gives 
the  east  one  delegate,  making  her  majority  14  instead 
of  12  in  the  house  of  delegates.  It  silences  the  voice  of 
upwards  of  17,000  white  persons  and  confers  power  on 
those  who  imposed  the  burden  on  the  free  negroes  to 
drive  them  from  the  Commonwealth.  I  mention  this 
particularly  to  show  how  uncertain,  fluctuating,  and 
really  unjust  the  mixed  basis  is,  and  how  power  may  be 
retained  by  it  in  the  hands  of  those  who  owe  power 
to  it. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  I  will  say  a  few  words  con- 
cerning the  progress  of  wealth  and  population  in  Vir- 
ginia. "Between  1819  and  1838  the  real  estate  decreased 
in  value  in  the  first  district  $10,792,943,  and  in  the  sec- 
ond district  $9,149,213,  showing  an  aggregate  decrease 
in  eastern  Virginia  of  $19,942,156,  whilst  in  the  third 
district  there  was  an  increase  of  $1,818,692,  and  in  the 
fourth  district  of  $23,159,994,  showing  an  aggregate  in- 
crease in  the  west  of  $24,978,686.  The  following  table 
will  show  the  value  of  the  real  estate  in  1850,  the  in- 
crease in  the  districts  since  1838,  and  the  increase  in 
taxes  resulting  therefrom  : 

Districts.        Value.  Increase.         Increase  tax 

1st,  $77,964,574  $17,260,521  $3,195.05 
2d,         77,786,477  8,769,771  5,541.02 

3d,         59,250,746  16,258,542  12,915.37 

4th,        61,527,769         22,310,224  16,995.05 


Total,     $299,529,566        $64,599,058  $38,646.49 

It  appears  from  this  table  that  whilst  the  real  estate 
ea  t  has  increased  in  value  since  1838  $26,030,292,  the 
taxes  of  the  east  will  be  increased  thereby  only  $8,736.17 
and  that  the  real  estate  west  has  increased  in  value 
$38,568,765,  and  the  taxes  $29,910.42.  The  reason  of 
this  apparent  inconsistency  is,  that  the  value  of  real 
estate  has  increased  chiefly  in  the  towns  in  eastern  Vir- 
ginia— the  town  property  having  been  already  entered 
on  the  commissioners'  books  and  charged  with  taxes. 
The  increase  in  the  value  of  lands  west  over  that  east 
will  be  seen  to  be  $12,537j473  ;  the  increase  in  the  towns 
east  over  that  in  the  towns  west  is  $8,635,778,  whilst 
the  increase  out  of  the  towns  west  over  that  east  is 
$20,274,250  I  desire  this  fact  to  be  remembered  when 
I  come  to  speak  of  the  mode  in  which  the  substitute 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


309 


proposes  te  distribute  the  surplus  population  and  taxes 
of  the  towns. 

I  will  mention  some  additional  facts  which  will  have 
an  important  bearing  on  what  I  have  to  say.  First,  that 
since  1830  the  slave  population  has  decreased  in  eastern 
Virginia  3,580,  whilst  it  has  increased  west  19,797.  Be- 
tween 1840  and  1850  the  slaves  increased  east  17,487, 
and  west  9,497,  showing  a  steady  increase  of  this  sort 
of  property  in  the  west,  an  increase  not  subject  to  those 
fluctuations  that  mark  its  progress  in  eastern  Virginia. 
Between  1830  and  1840  the  white  population  decreased 
cast  6,259  and  increased  west  52,925;  between  1840 
and  1850  it  increased  east  33,373  and  west  123,193. 
The  following  table  will  show  the  increase  of  revenue 
since  1845,  derived  from  subjects  on  which  the  taxes 
have  not  been  changed,  and  not  including  merchants5 
licenses,  law  process  and  deeds  : 

Taxes.  Increase.      Per  cent,  increase. 


1845 
1846 
1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 


$431,845  93 
439,444  04 
452,850  22 
461,967  66 
472,516  64 
495,626  33 


$7,598  11 
13,406  18 
9,117  44 
10,548  98 
23,109  69 


If 

n 

2 

n 

4f 


Increase  in  five  years,    $63,780  40  14f 

Thi3  table  shows  a  steady  increase  in  the  value  and 
amount  of  the  property  of  the  Commonwealth:  If  the 
per  centage  of  the  taxes  paid  respectively  by  the  east 
and  the  west  be  looked  to,  it  will  appear  that  the  ratio 
has  not  been  materially  altered  since  1840  ;  and  if  the 
explanation  of  this  be  sought,  it  will  be  found  in  the 
prosperity  and  increased  taxes  of  eastern  towns.  I  will 
be  indulged  whilst  I  shaw  the  per  centage  of  taxes 
paid  by  the  east  and  the  west  since  1840  In  1840  the 
east  paid  67  9-10  per  cent,  of  all  the  taxes,  and  the 
west  32  1-10  per  cent.  In  1848,  east  67  8-10,  west 
32  2-10  |  in  1849,  east  67  7-10,  west  32  3-10  ;  in  1850, 
east  68,  west  32,  and  including  the  new  land  tax  the 
ratio  would  now  be,  east  65,  west  35.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  west  lost  ground  in  1850;  that  was  owing  to 
the  free  negro  tax  of  which  I  have  already  spoken. 
The  real  estate,  then,  is  increasing  in  value  more  rapid- 
ly in  the  west  than  in  the  east,  but  the  capital  and  per- 
sonal property  in  the  east,  when  compared  with  that  in 
the  west,  increases  very  nearly  in  the  ratio  of  two  to 
one.  This  ratio  of  increase  is  not  kept  up  in  the  east 
by  the  land  tax,  by  the  tax  on  slaves  or  horses,  (sub- 
jects generally  held  by  eastern  property-holders,)  but, 
as  will  be  seen  by  the  tax,  on  a  class  of  subjects  enjoyed 
as  luxuries,  or  held  confessedly  by  a  few  persons,  and 
in  which  the  people  generally,  either  east  or  west,  are 
not  interested, 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that,  upon  any  question  of 
taxes,  if  the  burden  of  the  tax  is  to  be  estimated  by  its 
amount  and  not  by  the  ability  to  pay,  western  counties 
maybe  as  safely  trusted  as  eastern  counties.  The  ar- 
guments urged  on  this  floor  are,  that  danger  is  to  be 
apprehended  from  the  west.  The  east  may  be  relied 
on  to  resist  excessive  taxation.  I  propose  to  compare 
a  number  of  western  and  eastern  counties.  In  making 
my  calculations  I  have  used  a  statement  recently  fur- 
nished to  us  bv  the  auditor,  because  it  contains  the  new 
land  tax.  This  statement  also  includes  the  tax  on  law 
process  and  notarial  seals,  which  is  not  to  be  included 
in  making  apportions  under  the  mixed  basis.  But 
these  items  can  make  no  appreciable  difference,  as  the 
tax  on  them  east  is  $18,445.03,  and  west  $16, 718.34. 
According  to  this  statement  the  average  to  each  white 
person  in  the  Commonwealth  is  64  cents  6  mills  :  or  ex- 
cluding Richmond,  Norfolk,  Petersburg  and  Alexan- 
dria, 59  cents  2  mills  :  1st  district  107  cents,  including 
the  towns  named,  n>r  excluding  those  towns,  85  cents  5 
mills  ;  2d  district  82  cents  2  mills ;  3d  district  60  cents 
6  mills,  and  4th  district  31  cents  8  mills,  and  in  the  towns 
named  160  cents  3  mills.  It  will  be  seen,  the  valley  is 
still  above  the  average  excluding  the  towns.  The^er 


capita  contributions  of  the  counties  west  and  east  are 
as  follows  : 

West.  East. 

Cts.  ms.  Cts.  ms 

Brooke  49  4  Accomac  64  3 

Greenbrier  52  8   Matthews  44  5 

Kanawha  45  0   Elizabeth  City  72  8 

Ohio  .55  5   Gloucester  77  0 

Washington  40  5   Richmond  52  7 

Wythe  44  8    Westmorland  79  6 

Berkeley  70  1   Stafford  61  7 

Jefferson   106  5   Fluvanna  71  3 

Frederick  75  4   Greene  50  2 

Clarke  153  6   Rappahannock  63  5 

Warren  59  3   Prince  Wm  63  6 

Hardy  48  2   Fairfax  70  7 

Rockingham  58  5   Princess  Ann  58  0 

Augusta  •  72  7   Norfolk  68  0 

Rockbridge  54  8  Nansemond  66  1 

Botetourt  46  3   Isle  of  Wight  68  0 

Roanoke  54  0   Pittsylvania  54  1 

Brunswick  67  7 

Appomattox  64  6 

Nelson  62  6 

Patrick  24  0 

Henry  42  5 

Franklin  34  4 

Bedford  48  2 

Amherst  60  8 

I  ask  whether  these  western  counties,  altogether,  may 
not  be  as  safely  confided  in  as  the  eastern  counties  I 
have  named?  It  is  true,  there  are  many  western  coun- 
ties which  fall  far  below  the  average  standard,  but  if 
the  western  counties  named  above  are  willing  to  base 
representation  on  the  qualified  voters,  what  objection 
on  the  score  of  safety  can  the  eastern  counties  urge  ? 
Before  leaving  this  subject  I  will  remark,  that  it  is  a 
striking  fact  that  Pittsylvania,  Bedford,  and  Brunswick, 
which  pay  comparatively  small  per  capita  contributions 
are  large  slave  holding  counties.  Pittsylvania  has  13,- 
228,  Bedford  9,958,  and  Brunswick  7,528  slaves.  The 
argument  derived  from  the  per  capita  contributions 
which  our  opponents  press  upon  us  would  strip  those 
counties  of  power.  But  another  argument  urged  by 
some,  that  where  there  is  a  peculiar  property,  its  own- 
ers should  possess  legislative  power  to  protect  it,  would 
entitle  the  same  counties  to  a  great  increase  of  power. 
I  will  not  stop  to  reconcile  the  arguments. 

I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  last  danger  to  property, 
the  power  in  the  legislative  body  to  discriminate  in  im- 
posing taxes,  between  one  species  of  property  and  an- 
other. If  I  have  satisfied  any  gentleman  that  there  is 
no  danger  from  excessive  taxation,  but  he  still  dreads 
western  hostility  towards  slave  property,  his  fears  may 
at  once  be  quieted  by  the  ad  valorem  principle  of  taxa- 
tion. Strip  the  public  agents  of  all  power  to  discrimi- 
nate; fix  now  the  ratio  of  contribution  :  graduate  it  to 
suit  all  the  great  interests  of  the  State  ;  establish  a  scale 
of  taxes  which  may  not  be  changed ;  let  the  actual  or 
the  annual  value  be  the  test  as  maybe  deemed  best.  In 
my  opinion,  the  ad  valorem  mode  of  taxation  is  just,  equal 
and  uniform  ;  it  conforms  to  the  principle  that  the  obli- 
gation to  pay  taxes  is  proportioned  to  the  value  of  the 
property  to  be  protected — to  the  ability  to  payj  All  of 
us,  I  trust,  desire  to  do  our  whole  duty.  None  of  us 
wish  to  contribute  less  than  our  proper  share;  none  wish 
others  to  pay  more  than  what  is  just.  Let  us  limit  the 
legislative  power  so  as  to  secure  what  is  right  and  dis- 
pel the  fears  of  all.  But  I  am  met  again  with  the  ob- 
jection that  this  too  is  a  "paper  guarantee,"  which  the 
majority  may  at  some  future  day  throw  off  at  pleasure. 
What  temptation,  I  ask,  could  there  be  to  remove  such 
a  restriction  ?  What  could  the  west  gain  by  discarding 
a  just,  an  equal,  a  righteous  system  of  taxation  ?  Need 
I  say  that  the  spirit  of  the  age,  which  is  marked  by 
strong  distrust  of  public  agents,  is  against  any  such  ap- 
prehension.  But  what  could  the  west  gain  by  annulling 


310 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  ad  valorem  guarantee  ?  The  gentleman  from  Greenes- 
ville  intimated  that  we  wanted  power  in  order  that  we 
might  get  the  control  of  the  slave  property  of  the  east ; 
and  it  is,  I  suppose,  feared  that  the  ad  valorem  guaran- 
tee would  be  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the 
west  to  burden  slave  property  with  the  greater  portion 
of  taxes.  I  have  already  shown  that  that  speeies  of  pro- 
perty is  rapidly  increasing  in  the  west — increasing  in  a 
ratio  much  greater  than  in  the  east — that  we  are  every 
year  becoming  more  and  more  identified  with  the  east 
in  this  respect.  In  the  convention  of  1829,  Mr.  Joynes, 
the  distinguished  member  from  Accomac,  announced  it 
as  a  principle  to  be  relied  on,  that  where  the  number  of 
slaves  in  a  county,  when  compared  with  the  whole  pop- 
ulation, approximates  to  the  ratio  which  the  slave  pro- 
perty of  the  whole  State  bears  to  the  whole  population, 
the  slave  interest  in  that  county  may  be  considered  safe. 
Now  the  ratio  between  the  whole  population  in  Virginia 
(excluding  free  negroes)  and  the  slave  population  is  that 
of  one  hundred  to  thirty- three.  Those  counties  then  in 
which  the  number  of  slaves  approximates  thirty-three 
per  cent,  of  the  entire  population,  are  interested  in  pro- 
tecting slave  property.  The  entire  east,  it  is  said,  is  to 
be  relied  on,  but  the  west  has,  it  is  said,  no  interest  in 
slavery  and  is  not  to  be  trusted.  Permit  me  to  compare 
certain  counties  east  and  west — in  some  of  which  the 
number  of  slaves  exceeds,  and  in  others  it  falls  a  little 
short  of  thirty-three  per  cent,  of  the  whole  population. 
I  submit  the  following  table  : 


West.  Excess. 

Deficit. 

East.  Excess. 

Deficit. 
88 

Alleghany 

477 

Franklin 

Augusta 

3148 

Loudoun 

1685 

Bath 

196 

Patrick 

876 

Berkeley 

1968 

Henry 

370 

Kanawha 

1974 

Alexandria 

1950 

Botetourt 

1232 

Accomac 

966 

Clarke  1136 

Fairfax 

110 

Frederick 

3030 

Henrico 

989 

Jefferson 

778 

Isle  of  Wight  278 

Roanoke 

312 

Matthews 

690 

Wythe 

1813 

Nansemond 

147 

Rockbridge 

1150 

Prince  William 

212 

Pulaski 

334 

Norfolk  City 

478 

Warren 

454 

Montgomery 

1314 

I  beg  gentlemen  to  consider  this  list  and  then  ask 
themselves  whether  these  western  counties,  which  on 
the  basis  of  qualified  voters  would  cast  22  votes,  enough 
when  added  to  the  71  votes  east,  to  resist  all  assaults 
on  the  peculiar  institutions  of  Virginia — and  which  are 
so  eagerly  seeking  to  acquire  slare  property,  may  not  be 
trusted  to  resist  either  a  discriminating  tax  or  the  repeal 
of  the  ad  valorem  guarantee  ?  A  discriminating  tax  or 
the  repeal  of  the  ad  valorem  guarantee,  with  a  view  to  a 
discriminating  tax  on  slaves,  would,  in  the  first  place,  be 
an  act  of  gross  injustice,  and  I  respectfully  suggest  that 
western  men  have  some  moral  sense,  and  can  appreciate 
to  some  extent  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong; 
hut  if  they  did  not,  they  have  intelligence  enough  to  see 
and  understand  that  such  a  mode  of  taxation  would  de- 
stroy the  very  property  which  they  show  such  eagerness 
to  acquire.  There  are  917  slave-owners  in  Augusta, 
611  in  Rockbridge — most  of  them  voters — and  a  large 
portion  of  the  voting  population  in  each  of  the  counties 
named,  directly  interested  in  protecting  slave  property. 
And  for  what  purpose  would  the  slave  owners  of  the 
west  consent  to  tax  oppressively  the  slaves  they  are 
buying  to  work  their  lands  ?  The  answer  is,  to  relieve 
from  taxes  the  lands  to  be  worked  by  them.  Search  the 
aunals  of  civilized  man  and  no  such  instance  of  stupid 
wickedness  can  be  found.  And  it  is  the  fear  of  such  folly 
and  senseless  viciousness  that  deters  eastern  men  from 
trusting  their  western  brethren  ! 

I  now  desire  to  show  what  hereafter  may  be  the  atti- 
tude of  parties  in  the  house  of  delegates,  if  either  the 
substitute  or  proposition  A  be  adopted.  There  will  be 
sixty-eight  delegates  representing  494,763  white  per- 


sons, paying  according  to  the  last  statement  of  the  au- 
ditor $204,256  taxes  ;  and  eighty-two  delegates  repre- 
senting 402,771,  paying  $366,236  taxes.  The  votes  of 
Loudoun  and  Richmond  city  added,  upon  any  question, 
to  the  sixty-eight  western  votes,  would  produce  a  tie — 
seventy -five  to  seventy-five ;  deduct  the  population  and 
taxes  of  Loudoun  and  Richmond  from  the  east  and  add 
them  to  the  west,  and  this  result  will  follow,  that  sev- 
enty-five delegates  will  represent  525,136  white  persons 
and  $248,093  taxes,  aud  seventy-five  delegates  will  rep- 
resent 372.398  white  persons  and  $322,349  taxes  ;  the 
majority  of  white  persons  on  the  one  hand  being  152,- 
738,  and  of  taxes  on  the  other  being  $68,975  ;  that  is  to 
say  372,398  white  persons  will  have  equal  political  pow- 
er with  525,136,  because  they  pay  an  average  tax  of  18 
cents  5  mills  each  more  than  the  525,136,  or  rather  be- 
cause a  few  rich  men  amongst  the  372,398  pay  a  heavy 
amount  of  taxes  to  which  the  poor  amongst  them  be- 
come entitled  by  the  legerdemain  of  the  mixed  basis. 
In  this  profound  political  problem  the  ratio  between  the 
surplus  of  men  and  the  surplus  of  taxes,  is  that  of  one 
to  forty-five  one  hundredths,  that  is,  one  man  is  counted 
against  forty  -five  cents — a  high  price  indeed  does  the 
mixed  basis  set  upon  the  heads  of  freemen. 

View  the  subject  in  another  aspect  and  the  property 
feature  in  the  mixed  basis  will  appear  equally  offensive. 
The  argument  of  gentlemen  is  that  if  the  east  and  the 
west  were  equal  in  population  and  taxes  they  ought  to 
be  equal  in  representation,  but  that  the  minority  east 
paying  the  majority  of  taxes  should  have  the  greater 
power.  The  population  east  is  402,771,  and  the  taxes 
west  $204,256.  Now  if  the  population  west  were  only 
402,771,  and  the  taxes  east  only  $204,256,  then  the  two 
sections  would  be  equal  and  entitled  to  an  equal  number 
of  delegates,  say  sixty  eight  each  ;  but  it  is  found  that 
whilst  402,771  exhausts  the  white  population  east,  that 
number  deducted  from  the  white  population  west  leaves 
a  surplus  of  91,992  ;  and  that  $204,256,  which  exhausts 
the  taxes  west,  deducted  from  $366,236,  the  taxes  paid 
by  the  east,  leaves  a  surplus  of  $161,980.  The  east  and 
the  west  then  present  themselves  as  equals,  with  sixty- 
eight  delegates — the  west,  however,  with  a  surplus  of 
white  population  amounting  to  91,992,  and  the  east  with 
a  surplus  of  taxes  amounting  to  $161,980.  And  how  is 
this  surplus  on  each  side  disposed  of  by  the  mixed  basis  ? 
Why,  it  is  said  to  be  just  and  right  that  the  west  should 
remain  content  with  her  sixty- eight  delegates,  and  lose 
her  surplus  of  population.  Nay,  more,  that  the  east 
should  have  fourteen  additional  delegates.  Thus,  $161,- 
9S0  in  taxes,  annuls  the  representative  power  of  91,992 
free  white  persons;  and  after  accomplishing  this  whole 
sale  destruction,  confers  fourteen  additional  delegates  on 
the  east.  Such  a  process  of  "  clipping  the  sovereigns  " 
would  well  justify  a  prosecution  for  petty  treason  against 
the  offending  parties ! 

I  will  now  bring  to  your  notice,  a  provision  in  the  sub- 
stitute, which,  in  my  opinion  is  calculated  to  work  a 
three-fold  wrong.  1  allude  to  that  clause  which  declares 
that  "The  representation  in  no  town  or  city  shall  at  any 

time  exceed  delegates  and  Senators  ; 

but  the  surplus  fractions  thereof,  whether  of  population 
or  taxation,  shall  be  estimated  in  assigning  representa- 
tion to  the  sections  of  the  State  in  which  they  are  re- 
spectively situated."  In  the  first  place,  here  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  principle  on  which  alone  the  mixed  basis 
can  be  justified,  that,  the  community  possessing  wealth 
or  property,  which  may  be  injured  by  legislative  ,  acts, 
ought  to  have  representative  power  to  protect  its  inter- 
ests. This  proviso  of  the  substitute  declares  that  when 
the  wealth  shall  have  increased,  the  property  shall  have 
accumulated,  so  as  to  be  in  truth  a  temptation  to  plun- 
derers, the  power  of  protection  shall  be  cut  short,  and 
the  overgrown  mass  of  glittering  pelf  shall  lie  open  ^  to 
the  assaults  of  all  who  may  have  the  "itching  palm"— 
may  feel  a  propensity  to  seize  their  neighbors'  purse- 
strings.  But,  in  the  'second  place,  this  proviso  not  only 
declares  that  the  inhabitants,  by  whose  energy  _  aud  en- 
terprise, the  population  and  wealth  of  the  cities  have 


VIRGINIA  REB'ORM  CONVENTION. 


been  increased,  shall  cease  to  have  the  power  which  the 
payment  of  large  revenues  would  afford  for  self  protec- 
tion, but  that  at  a  certain  point  in  their  progress,  they 
themselves  shall  cease  to  be  counted  in  assigning  repre- 
sentation.   However  great  may  be  the  population,  the 
surplus  beyond  a  given  number  shall  be  silenced,  and 
the  freemen  of  the  cities  placed  upon  a  worse  footing 
of  degradation  than  those  even  of  the  west.    How  plea- 
sant to  the  people  of  Richmond  will  it  not  be,  at  some 
future  day,  when  suddenly  arrested  by  the  very  pros- 
perity they  once  sought  to  protect,  they  find  the  increase 
of  population  or  of  wealth  of  no  avail  to  give  them 
power.    How  pleasant  then  to  reflect  that  they  aided 
to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  mixed  basis — that  but  for 
their  own  votes  they  might  have  stood  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  their  fellow-citizens  throughout  the  State  ! 
But  in  the  third  place,  this  proviso  not  only  disfranchises 
the  population,  and  strips  the  property  of  the  cities  of 
the  power  of  self-protection,  but  with  an  unheard-of 
generosity  gives  the  surplus  fractions  to  the  sections  in 
which  the  cities  are  respectively  situated.    The  reser- 
voir of  city  power  shall  have  a  certain  capacity  and  no 
more,  and  the  bright  waters  that  flow  into  it,  shall  rise 
sparkling  to  the  brim,  and  then  fall  in  cool  refreshing 
currents  on  the  parched  and  exhausted  regions  around 
it !    The  picture  is  beautiful — the  idea  is  poetical  •  but 
is  the  principle  sound — is  the  thing  itself  just  and  right  ? 
What  attracts  population — what  brings  capital  to  your 
cities  ?    It  is  their  trade — it  is  their  commerce — it  is 
their  back  country  !    Without  the  last,  no  city  can  grow 
with  it,  and  with  ways  opened  to  it,  any  city  will  pros 
per.    And  what  is  the  effect  of  the  proviso  ?    Not  to 
give  the  back  country  of  a  city — that  country  from 
which  it  derives  its  strength  and  support — the  benefit  of 
its  surplus  population  and  wealth,  but  to  give  it  to  the 
lowlands  beyond  her — who  are  her  enemies  oftimes 
hostile  to  her  interests,  and  incapable  of  sympathising 
with  her  purposes.  Richmond,  whose  interests  and  sym- 
pathies all  bind  her  to  the  Piedmont  and  the  west,  is  to 
furnish  strength  to  tide-water,  which  trades  with  Balti- 
more, to  crush  all  those  schemes  of  improvement  in 
which  she  is  interested!    There  is  a  meaning  in  this 
proposition  which  I  call  on  you  and  the  country  to  mark. 
It  is  put  forth  by  the  far-seeing  and  sagacious  champion 
of  the  mixed  basis,  (Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier,)  and  dis- 
closes two  facts :  First,  that  the  mixed  basis  will  not 
work  as  a  principle — its  friends  are  afraid  to  trust  it — 
they  see  the  results  of  following  its  lead — and  they  are 
right.    The  mixed  basis  would  concentrate  immense 
power  in  the  cities.    Did  I  not  tell  you  yesterday  that 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  paid  forty  per  cent,  of  the 
revenues  of  their  respective  States  ?    It  will  not  do  to 
surrender  ourselves  altogether  to  the  money  power. 
The  second  fact  disclosed,  is,  that  although  the  cities 
are  to  be  deprived  of  their  surplus  wealth  and  popula- 
tion, that  surplus  is  still  necessary  to  sustain  the  ascen- 
dancy of  eastern  power,  and  must  be  so  used.    And  how 
used  ?    To  give  representation  to  people  and  money, 
(by  a  pleasant  fiction,)  as  belonging  to  Charles  City,  New 
Kent,  Matthews,  Middlesex,  <fec,  when,  in  fact,  they  be- 
long to  Richmond, — to  give  these  counties  not  only  the 
full  benefit  of  their  own  population  and  wealth,  but,  to 
make  assurance  doubly  sure,  lest  the  west  might  over- 
take and  beat  them  on  their  own  principles,  the  declining 
energies  of  eastern  counties  are*  to  be  propped  up  and 
sustained  by  the  power  of  the  cities — which  power  the 
cities  have  acquired  by  trading  with  the  west.    Oh  ! 
humiliating  picture  !    Sad  decline  of  eastern  pride — of 
eastern  independence  !    Stop  the  influence  on  power  of 
the  growth  of  the  cities,  and  the  scale  of  western  rep- 
resentation would  rise  rapidly,  even  on  the  mixed  basis  ; 
but  retain  that  influence,  and  I  almost  despair,  when  I 
look  forward  to  the  future !    I  have  already  shown  how 
rapidly  the  value  of  real  estate  is  increasing  in  the  cit- 
ies.   I  will  now  show  how  they  have  grown  in  taxable 
property.    In  1840,  the  land  and  property  tax  of  Rich- 
mond, Petersburg  and  Norfolk,  was  $28,374.22 ;  in  1848, 


it  was  §45,124.93  ;  and  in  1850,it  was  $53,802.17.  Add 
Alexandria  to  the  list,  and  the  aggregate  for  1848,  is 
§50,789.24  ;  and  for  1850,  $61,341.24.    The  increase  in 
these  four  towns,  in  two  years,  has  been  upwards  of 
$10,000.    And  what  is  the  prospect  before  us  ?  These 
very  towns  are  stretching  out  their  arms  for  western 
trade— opening  their  markets  for  western  products — 
straining  every  nerve  to  secure  the  wealth-giving  traffic 
of  their  back  country !    And  what  will  be  the  effect 
of  the  system  of  internal  improvements  Virginia  is  now 
executing  \    Suppose  the  central  railroad  and  canal,  or 
either  of  them,  extended  to  the  Ohio  river,  and  the 
south-western  road  extended  to  the  Tennessee  line,  and 
there  connecting  with  lines  of  improvement  reaching 
to  Memphis,  where  will  the  fertilizing  and  enriching 
streams  of  trade  and  travel,  which  will  flow  through 
these  channels,  be  chiefly  felt  ?    I  ask  gentlemen  to  con- 
sider this  matter.    Internal  improvements  can  produce 
no  other  effect  on  agriculture  within  the  State,  than  to 
enhance  the  value  of  its  products  in  proportion  as  the 
cost  of  transportation  is  diminished.    And  hence,  with 
equal  fertility  of  soil,  eastern  agriculture  must  always 
be  more  profitable  than  that  of  the  west,  because  the 
tax  on  transportion  must  be  less.    It  is  true  that  these 
improvements  will  develop  the  resources  and  increase 
the  wealth  of  the  west  •  but  every  increase  of  western 
production  will  proportionally  increase  eastern  trade, 
manufactures  and  commerce.    This  would  be  the  case 
if  the  lines  of  internal  improvement  should  give  vent 
only  to  the  productions  of  our  own  west ;  but  when 
those  lines  are  extended  into  the  great  valleys  of  the 
Ohio  and  the  Mississippi,  the  two  broad  and  deep  currents 
of  trade  which  will  flow  through  Virginia,  will  make 
their  golden  deposits  on  the  shores  of  the  east.  Com- 
merce, based  not  only  upon  the  trade  of  western  Vir- 
ginia, but  of  a  western  world,  will  be  found  in  the  east, 
— a  commerce  which  will  be  engaged  in  exporting  the 
vast  products  of  two  great  valleys,  watered  by  the  Ohio 
and  the  Mississippi,  and  likewise  in  importing  for  the 
millions  of  the  west  the  products  and  manufactures  of 
other  climes.    And  what  is  commerce  \    She  is  the  re- 
ceiver of  heavy  tolls  on  the  products  of  labor ;  and  the 
experience  of  the  world  has  shown  that  these  tolls  are 
greater  than  the  profits  of  labor.    Look  at  New  York 
and  Boston.    How  have  the  population  and  wealth  of 
those  cities  risen  or  fallen  according  as  they  have  felt  or 
lost  the  magic  power  of  western  trade?    In  1816,  the 
real  estate  of  New  York  was  valued  at  eighty -two  mil- 
lions; in  1825,  at  one  hundred  millions  ;  (in  1825  the 
Erie  canal  was  opened ;)  between  1825  and  1835,  her 
population  was  doubled,  and  her  real  estate  rose  in  val- 
ue to  two  hundred  and  eighteen  millions;  from  1835  to 
1841,  her  population  and  wealth  increased  9|-  per  cent, 
annually,  in  despite  of  the  great  fire  of  1837,  and  the 
financial  derangements  of  1836,  '37  and  '38.  In  1841,  the 
great  western  railway  was  opened  to  Boston.  Between 
1841  and  1846,  New  York  population  increased  only  1£ 
per  cent.,  and  her  wealth  decreased  \\  per  cent.  Du- 
ring the  same  period  Boston  increased  in  population  from 
93,000  to  115,000,  and  in  the  value  of  her  real  estate, 
from  ninety-eight  millions  to  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  millions.    Similar  will  be  the  developments  in  east- 
ern Virginia,  if  she  ever  taps  the  great  reservoirs  of 
western  trade.    Manufactures  will  also  spring  up  in  her 
midst  to  supply  the  great  consuming  west.    Capital  will 
be  centred  here  to  give  life  and  energy  to  commerce  and 
manufactures.    The  agriculture  of  the  east  will  be  im- 
proved— her  worn  out  soils  will  be  revived  and  made 
productive.    Her  white  population  is  already  increasing, 
and  the  future  will  disclose  a  new,  a  brighter  era  in 
eastern  prosperity.    Such  is  the  prospect  which  opens 
upon  the  fond  vision  of  every  Virginian.    Our  hearts 
leap  up  with  gladness  when  we  contemplate  the  rising 
glories  of  eastern  prosperity.    It  is  our  earnest  desire 
that  the  vision  shall  become  a  reality.    We  are  identified 
with  the  east  in  sympathy  and  feeling — we  take  pride 
in  her  glorious  memories — we,  love  her  high-toned,  hon- 


312 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


orable  character — we  cling  with  instinctive  affection  and 
veneration  to  Virginia,  the  beneficent  and  noble  mother 
of  us  all !  And  now,  I  ask,  I  appeal  to  eastern  gentle- 
men to  consider,  to  pause,  before  they  inflict  this  great 
wrong  on  the  west.  They  covet  our  trade,  and  become 
strong  on  the  food  that  grows  in  our  mountains.  Will 
they  use  that  strength  to  bind  us  with  cords  ?  They 
beckon  us  to  come  to  them — to  deal  with  them — to  ad- 
vance their  prosperity.  Will  they  make  this  very  pros- 
perity the  means  of  oppressing  us — of  destroying  our 
political  equality — of  degrading  us  so  that  our  freemen 
shall  be  stripped  of  political  power  by  the  hand  of  wealth 
we  ourselves  have  fostered  ?  Shall  the  eagle  of  the 
west  be  wounded,  and  see  upon  the  arrow  that  inflicted 
the  deadly  wound,  the  feathers  plucked  from  its  own 
wing  ?  Will  gentlemen  make  our  very  affections  fetters 
to  bind  us  faster  ?  It  may  be  that  if  you  smite  us,  we 
will  kiss  the  rod  and  submit — that  if  you  do  us  this 
great  wrong  we  will  love  you  still,  but  I  implore  you  do 
not  strain  the  bond  too  much,  lest  you  snap 

"        -the  golden  link,  the  silken  tie, 
That  heart  to  heart  and  mind  to  mind, 
In  body  and  in  soul  doth  bind." 

In  the  name  of  Augusta,  the  daughter  of  the  east — a 
a  loyal  and  devoted  daughter,  yearning  with  unuttera- 
ble affection  towards  her  mother — 1  speak  to  you  this 
day  on  behalf  of  the  great  west,  the  daughter  of  Au- 
gusta !  For  the  sake  of  the  harmony  and  concord  of  a 
common  people,  throw  not  this  apple  of  discord  into 
their  midst.  Bitter  will  be  the  fruits  of  your  acts,  if  you 
alienate  our  affections  from  you, — if  you  make  us  curse 
the  necessity  of  coming  to  your  markets, —  if  you  kindle 
in  our  midst  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  eastern  wealth  and 
eastern  prosperity.  Let  us,  oh  !  let  us  rather  stand  to- 
gether— be  one  people  in  heart  as  well  as  name — let  us 
trust  and  love  one  another,  and  build  now  upon  solid 
principles,  and  with  mutual  confidence,  the  fabric  of  a 
government  which  shall  be  founded  on  equality,  sus- 
tained by  justice,  and  guarded — yes,  against  a  world  in 
arms — by  patriotism! 

Here  let  us  "  raise  on  liberty's  broad  base, 

The  structure  of  a  wise  government,  and  show, 

In  this,  our  State,  a  glorious  spectacle 

Of  social  order.   Freemen  !    Equals  all ! 

Swayed  by  reason — self- governed— self-improved  ! 

And  the  electric  chain  of  public  good 

Twined  round  the  private  happiness  of  each, 

And  every  heart  thrilled  with  the  patriot  chord 

That  sounds  the  glory  of  Virginia ! 

A  free  Republic  !  where,  beneath  the  sway 

Of  mild  and  equal  laws,  framed  by  themselves, 

One  people  dwell,  and  own  no  Lord  but  God  !" 

Mr.  BEALE.  I  cannot  offer  to  the  committee,  as  an 
apology  for  the  embarrassment  under  which  I  labor,  the 
fact  that  now,  for  the  first  time,  I  am  in  the  exercise  of 
a  high  public  trust ;  yet,  though  it  be  true,  I  cannot 
plead  that  maidenly  modesty  which  we  have  seen  in 
younger  members,  so  gracefully  bending  under  the  first 
display  of  official  robes  ;  it  is  true  that,  never  in  my 
life  have  I  attempted  to  address  any  public  body 
without  a  feeling  of  nervous  excitement — constitution- 
al perhaps — which,  to  some  extent,  retards  the  free 
operation  of  my  mind.  Nor  should  I  now  depart  from 
the  characteristic  silence  which  has  marked  my  life, 
during  the  brief  period  of  my  public  service,  or  venture 
to  wield  a  lance  in  this  foray  of  debate  in  presence  of 
the  able  swordsmen  by  whom  I  am  surrounded,  were  it 
not  that  duty  seems  to  demand  the  expression  of  some 
of  those  reasons  which  influence  the  opinions  of  the 
constituency  I  here  in  part  represent,  and  which  must 
control  my  course  upon  this  great  question. 

I  feel  deeply  impressed  with  the  responsibility  which 
rests  upon  every  member  of  this  body,  in  approaching 
a  subject  of  such  high,  such  momentous  importance.  Its 
very  magnitude  is  calculated  to  awe  me,  whilst  the 
presence  of  this  body — the  unenviable  contrast  which 
I  must  bear,  following,  as  I  do,  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  who  has  exhibited  such  abil- 


ity, such  clearness,  such  eloquence  ;  and  the  fact  of  that 
wane  of  preparation  and  reflection  necessary  to  enable 
me  to  present  my  own  views  properly  to  this  commit- 
tee— all  concur  to  increase  the  embarrassment  which, 
under  circumstances  the  most  favorable,  I  should  sen- 
sibly feel. 

In  this,  our  great  family  council,  I  hold  that  it  is  pre- 
eminently proper  that  we  should  have  the  fullest,  freest 
interchange  of  opinion,  and,  while  I  come  to  the  discus- 
sion of  this  question  of  the  basis  with  feelings  of  unaf- 
fected and  sincere  kindness  towards  every  member  upon 
this  floor,  and,  I  trust,  with  feelings  of  enlarged  liberal- 
ity towards  every  section  of  this  commonwealth,  yet  I 
wish  to  speak  plainly  and  boldly,  nor  shall  I,  with  af- 
fected nicety  fail,  in  the  remarks  which  I  am  about  ta 
submit,  to  designate  things  by  their  true  names,  as  they 
may  present  themselves  to  my  mind.  I  regret  that  1 
cannot,  on  behalf  of  either  of  the  propositions  sub- 
mitted for  the  consideration  of  this  committee  by  the 
chairman  of  the  basis  committee,  emulate  the  fervor  of 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  in  his  advocacy  of  the 
one  contained  in  proposition  B.  Neither  embody  my 
own  views.  But  candor  requires  me  to  say,  that  if  I 
cannot  sustain,  with  a  becoming  devotion,  with  a  zeal 
which  knows  no  bound,  the  proposition  A,  it  is  because 
of  the  conviction  that  even  it  does  not  secure,  to  a  suf- 
ficient extent,  the  great  principle  for  which  I  am  here 
to  contend — adequate  protection  to  our  rights  in  proper- 
ty. I  am  one  of  those,  unfortunately  it  may  be,  not 
wholly  submerged  by  this  wave  of  innovation  which  is; 
rolling  over  our  country.  While  I  regard  this  grand 
experiment  of  republican  government  as  in  its  infancy, 
and  am  prepared  to  admit  progress,  great  and  benefi- 
cial progress  may  be  made  ;  yet  I  cannot  acknowl- 
edge the  wisdom  of  that  policy  which  would  require 
me  to  close  my  eyes  upon  the  past,  and  exclude  or  ex- 
tinguish from  my  pathway  the  "  dim  religious  ray " 
from  the  lamp  of  experience.  I  believe  there  is  much  of 
great  value  in  the  history  of  the  government  of  our 
own  commonwealth  ;  I  believe  there  is  much  of  great 
value  in  the  constitution,  which  came  from  the  hands  of 
the  convention  of  |  1829-30 ;  I  believe  of  the  distin- 
guished men  who  participated  in  its  counsels,  none  re- 
main to  us  their  equals  in  intellectual  endowment,  in 
chastened  purity,  in  lofty  wisdom.  Thus  believing,  I 
listened  with  wrapt  attention,  with  great  pleasure,  to 
the  eulogy  upon  Marshall,  Madison,  Monroe,  Upshur, 
and  others,  which  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  gentleman 
from  Greenbrier.  (Mr.  Smith.)  But  what  was  that  eu- 
logy ?  The  rainbow  which  spans  the  cataract,  bright — 
aye,  beautifully  bright — with  the  refracted  rays  of  the 
setting  sun,  but  placed  there  to  attract  the  eye,  and  chain 
the  attention,  that  he  might  more  securely  consign  to 
the  dark  abyss  of  waters,  which  roll  below,  the  memo- 
ries of  those  illustrious  men.  What  followed  his  eulo- 
gy ?  The  declaration  that  the  public  sentiment  of  this 
great  people  had  risen  like  a  mighty  wave,  to  wash 
out  those  principles  incorporated,  by  these  very  men, 
into  the  existing  constitution.  Their  action  was  charac- 
terised as  having  perpetuated  an  odious  aristocracy — as 
having  retained  somewhat  of  that  jus  divino  regum, 
against  which  every  element  of  republican  institutions 
was  warring. 

I  regretted  the  next  remark  which  fell  from  my  friend 
from  Greenbrier.  He  informed  us,  and  informed  us, 
seemingly,  with  the  view  to  give  his  opinions  more 
weight  with  the  Eastern  delegation,  that  he  was  born 
within  cannon  shot  of  this,  our  hall  of  assembly.  Aye, 
the  rosy  morn  of  his  boyhood  had  been  spent  in  and 
about  the  temple  of  rights,  in  which  our  fathers  learned 
their  faith.  He  had  gone  from  us ;  his  fortunes  had 
grown  with — to  us  on  this  question — a  stranger  people, 
and  he  comes  back,  in  the  strength  of  his  manhood,  to 
lead  their  embattled  cohorts  in  the  onset,  with  torch  in 
hand  already  lighted,  to  consume  this  temple  of  his 
fathers, 

I  have  here  a  word  for  the  gentleman  from  Augusta, 
(Mr.  Sheffey.)    It  is  to  thank  him,  in  the  name  of  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


313 


constituency  I  represent,  in  the  name  of  the  "  out-side 
row,"  for  the  high  compliment  which  he  has  paid  to  our 
intelligence,  and  our  integrity  !  And  what  was  this 
compliment  ?  In  the  gentleman's  opening  remarks,  he 
spoke,  with  a  feeling  and  eloquence  peculiar  to  himself, 
of  a  great  ground  swell  of  indignation  which  would  be 
heaved  up  from  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  Augusta, 
against  any  attempt  to  appeal,  through  their  interests 
to  their  principles.  Yet,  what  did  the  gentleman  do  ? 
On  the  first  occasion  when  he  occupied  the  floor,  at  the 
close  of  his  remarks  he  told  us  he  wished  to  submit 
some  remarks  relative  to  Tidewater  and  Piedmont  ; 
and  he  gravely,  on  the  second  day,  proceeded  to  ap- 
peal, through  her  interests,  to  the  principles  of  Tide- 
water. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    Not  so ;  no  such  thing. 

Mr.  BEALE.  I  am  glad  I  did  not  understand  the 
gentleman  correctly — glad  to  find  my  friend  from  Au- 
gusta would  be  unwilling  to  address  to  tidewater,  con- 
siderations which  he  thought  should  not — could  not — - 
be  addressed  to  the  constituency  which  he  himself  re- 
presented. I  do  not  propose  to  follow,  through  all  this 
wide  range,  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me.  It  was 
my  purpose  to  address  the  committee,  in  reply  to  the 
argument  submitted  by  the  member  from  Greenbrier, 
but,  in  so  doing,  I  find  it  necessary  to  notice  some  of 
the  positions  assumed  by  the  gentleman  from  Augusta. 
Each  has  directed  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  our 
bill  of  rights.  The  two  great  principles  first  submit- 
ted, for  our  consideration,  by  the  member  from  Green- 
brier, were  those  contained  in  the  second  article  of  that 
declaration  of  rights,  which  declares  that  all  power  is 
vested  in,  and  consequently  derived  from,  the  people  ; 
and  secondly,  that  magistrates  are  their  trustees  and 
servants,  and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them.  None  here 
question  the  force,  the  truth,  or  the  practical  appli- 
cability of  these  great  principles  ;  but,  so  far  as  the 
merits  of  the  issue,  now  pending  between  us,  are  con- 
cerned, the  expressive  commentary,  the  high  praises  ac- 
corded to  them,  by  the  member  were,  1  conceive,  be- 
side the  question.  They  do  not  affect  that  issue.  The 
third  principle  in  the  series  of  my  friend  from  Green- 
brier, was  drawn  from  the  second  member  of  the  third 
article  of  the  bill  of  rights,  which  declares  "  that  when 
any  government  shall  be  found  inadequate,  or  contrary 
to  these  purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an 
indubitable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  re- 
form, alter  or  abolish  it  in  such  manner  as  shall  be 
judged  most  conducive  to  the  public  weal."  This,  too, 
consti"  utes  the  second  great  principle  which  the  mem- 
ber from  Augusta  would  lay  down  as  a  corner-stone 
in  that  edifice  which  we  are  about  to  construet.  That 
principle — the  jus  mojoris — which  had  the  sanction  of 
ti  e  universalis  consensus  hominum  ominum.  To  this 
the  member  from  Augusta  added  another  sacred  princi- 
ple contained  in  the  first  member  of  the  first  article,  in 
which  it  is  asserted  that  "  all  men  are  by  nature  equally 
free  and  independent,"  and  this,  in  his  opinion,  forms 
the  corner-stone. 

From  these  two  principles,  each  of  the  gentlemen 
have  argued.  Upon  these  they  rely  to  sustain  the  doc- 
trine that  for  the  basis  of  representation,  white  popula- 
tion, and  white  population  only,  should  be  regarded. 
This  doctrine  of  mere  numbers  constituting  the  only 
proper  basis  of  representation,  originally  assumed  for 
the  protection  of  property,  or  the  rights  in  property ; 
the  truth  of  the  dogma  maintained  by  writers  upon  po- 
litical science,  that  population,  or  numbers,  furnished 
the  true  index  of  wealth  ;  that  a  given  number  of  peo- 
ple in  any  section  of  the  same  country,  would  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  represent  an  equality  of  interests  in  property ; 
but  since  governments  have  undertaken  to  collect  sta- 
tistics upon  this  subject,  that  dogma  has  proved  to  be 
unfounded,  and  now  the  doctrine  is  placed  upon  other 
principles.  The  declaration  of  the  natural  equality  and 
independence  of  men,  and  that  other  declaration  of  the 
right  of  the  majority  to  control,  are  declared  to  be 
great  principles — fundamental,  practical — and  to  be  ac- 


knowledged and  applied  in  the  structure  of  every  gov- 
ernment properly  organized.  This  done,  it  is  maintain- 
ed that  the  proposition  results,  that  to  each  member  of 
the  community  must  be  assigned  a  perfect  equality  of 
political  weight,  and  this  is  the  noble  end  for  which 
gentlemen  are  contending.  But  it  seems  this  reasoning 
will  even  carry  them  too  far.  The  very  advocates  of 
this  natural  equality  of  men — of  this  great  majority 
rule — shrink  back  from  the  legitimate  results  of  their 
own  principle. 

All  men  are  equally  free  and  independent,  and  the 
majority  of  the  community  has  the  unalienable,  indubi- 
table right  to  control,  and  each  member  of  the  commu- 
nity, being  all  free,  must  have  equal  political  weight ; 
the  doctrine  was  too  broad.  If  this  equality  be  a  natu- 
ral right — indefeasible  and  unalienable — the  communi- 
ty could  have  no  power  to  deprive  any  single  member 
of  this  his  natural  right,  and  this,  absurdity  necessarily 
resulted — the  incompetency  of  the  society  or  commu- 
nity to  fix  any  standard  of  suffrage  which  should  ex- 
clude women,  infants,  paupers,  or  felons.  How  is  this 
avoided  or  met ?  .By  a  change  of  front;  and  now  the 
advocates  of  these  great  natural  rights  place  before  us, 
as  the  true  basis  of  representation,  qualified  voters. 
Voters  qualified  !  How  qualified  ?  Are  these  qualifi- 
cations, too,  like  the  rights  of  man,  prescribed  hy  nature  ? 
Have  gentlemen,  in  all  their  abstract  reasoning,  been 
able  to  deduce  from  nature  the  qualifications  of  a  suf- 
fragan ?  Is  there  some  secret  law  of  nature  which 
points  to  the  conclusion,  that  an  institution  adopted  by 
men,  in  their  social  organization,  and  which  must  ex  neces- 
sitate rei  have  been  posterior  to  the  formation  of  that 
society,  when  established,  is  to  be  governed  by  natural 
law  ?  A  principle  which  admits  the  right  of  society  to 
prescribe  and  fix  the  qualifications  of  the  voter,  but 
when  so  prescribed  and  fixed,  asserts  the  natural  inde- 
pendence and  equality  of  all  voters,  assigning  to  each 
equal  weight.  This  right  of  suffrage,  I  maintain,  is 
purely  conventional.  I  hazard  nothing  in  the  assertion 
that  there  is  no  member  upon  this  floor,  howsoever  pro- 
found may  be  his  devotion  to  the  natural  rights  of  men, 
who  will  deny  the  right  of  the  community  to  say  in  its 
organic  law  who  shall  and  who  shall  not,  exercise  the 
elective  franchise.  Then  what  becomes  of  the  argument 
based  upon  the  great  principle  of  the  bill  of  rights,  de- 
duced from  natural  equality,  and  the  rule  of  a  majority 
as  fundamental  principles,  which  secures  to  every  one 
equality  in  suffrage  ?  I  submit  it  has,  in  statement  B, 
been  abandoned,  and  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  by 
their  own  admission,  confided  to  the  discretion — no,  I 
would  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Augusta — confided  to 
that,  to  him,  most  execrable  principle  of  expediency. 
The  discretion  of  the  community  prescribes  the  right  of 
suffrage,  and  that  discretion  acts  upon  considerations  of 
expediency. 

But  "  the  elective  franchise  is  a  necessary  part  of 
representative  administration,  and  that  franchise  is  two- 
fold— suffrage,  and  representation  ;  the  one  regarded 
as  the  cause,  and  the  other  the  effect."  Upon  this  sub- 
ject the  member  from  Augusta  thinks  the  eastern  dele- 
gation involve  themselves  in  singular  absurdity.  All 
admit,  he  alleges,  that  suffrage  shall  be  equal.  None 
are  so  hardy  as  to  infuse  the  fountain  with  this  poison 
of  an  odious  aristocracy  ;  but  the  advocates  of  proposi- 
tion A  propose  to  infuse  that  poison  in  the  stream  low- 
er down.  To  illustrate,  he  says,  all  admit  the  injustice 
of  allowing  the  man  worth  ten  thousand  dollars  to  cast 
ten  votes,  while  his  neighbor,  worth  but  one  thousand 
dollars,  shall  cast  but  one.  But  the  effect  of  the  mix- 
ed or  compound  basis,  is,  to  give  to  one  hundred  men, 
worth  one  million  of  dollars,  more  political  power  in 
the'  shape  of  representation,  than  to  two  hundred  men 
worth  five  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Further,  to  place 
this  absurdity  in  a  stronger  light,  the  gentleman  went 
on  to  show  that  fifty  men,  worth  the  million,  with  fifty 
poor  neighbors,  worth  nothing,  would  have  this  prepon- 
derance of  political  power,  over  one  hundred  worth  the 
five  hundred  thousand  with  one  hundred  worth  nothing ; 


314 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


thus  not  only  giving  to  the  property  of  eastern  Virginia 
undue  ascendancy,  but  actually  so  elevating  the  poor 
man  in  that  section  as  to  make  him  equal  to  two  equal- 
ly rich  as  himself  in  the  west ;  the  very  droppings  from 
the  houses  of  the  wealthy  effecting  such  result.  And 
these  illustrations  prove  the  monstrous  absurdity.  The 
gentleman  sterns  to  conclude  that  the  admission  that 
the  suffrage  shall  be  equal,  necessarily  carries  with  it 
the  further  admission  that  the  effect  of  that  sum-age — 
representation — shall  also  be  equal.    It  might  have  oc- 
curred to  that  gentleman — continuing  the  metaphor  so 
well  selected  by  himself — that  while  the  pure  stream 
issuing  from  the  fountain,  might  trace  its  course  through 
the  lands  of  the  farmer  living  near  the  source,  without 
any  detriment  whatever,  yet,  when  by  continual  contri- 
butions, from  many  fountains,  or  from  heavy  falls  of 
rain  it  becomes  swollen,  the  farmer,  lower  down,  might 
find  it  essential  to  construct  levees  to  dam  up  the  flood 
of  waters.    What  is  suffrage  but  political  power  in  the 
concrete  ?    "What  is  representation  but  political  power  in 
the  aggregate  ?    Inequality  in,  or  restrictions  upon,  suf- 
frage may  be  properly  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  property,  to  nomine,  against  the  indigence 
and  want  of"  individual  men.    And  the  necessity  for 
such  protection  should  be  the  measure  or  extent  to 
which  such  restrictions  should  go.    Inequality  in  rep- 
resentation finds  its  justification  in  the  necessity  of  pro- 
tecting masses  of  a  community  from  the  plundering 
propensities  of  other  masses.    Let  me  illustrate  by  sup- 
posing we  have  a  society  composed  of  ten  thousand  fam- 
ilies ;  five  thousand  of  which  own  every  species  of  pro- 
perty within  the  community ;  the  other  five  thousand 
own  not  a  dollar,  but  are  mendicants  upon  the  charity 
of  the  others.    Now,  in  such  a  condition  of  things  as 
this,  it  would  be  proper  that  your  suffrage  should  bere- 
strictedl  lest  by  placing  the  political  power  of  the  State 
in  the  hands  ot  men  owning  no  interest  in  property,  you 
enable  them  to  use  that  power,  when  acquired,  to  the 
oppression  of  the  five  thousand  who  own  the  entire  pro- 
perty. 

Again,  suppose  we  find  this  same  community  consist- 
ing of  ten  thousand  families,  four  thousand  of  whom, 
while  they  own  two-thirds  of  all  the  property  common 
to  the  whole,  lands,  stocks,  commercial  capital,  (fee,  own 
in  addition  to  this  two-thirds  of  the  property  common 
to  themselves,  and  the  remaining  six  thousand,  a  dis- 
tinct species  of  property — a  species  of  property'in  which 
the  six  thousand  families  have  no  interest — a  species  of 
property,  from  its  character,  such  as  might  be  made  to 
bear  most  of  the  burthens  of  government.  Then  arises 
the  necessity  for  an  inequality  in  your  representation  ; 
then  occurs  the  duty  of  protecting  in  the  organization  of 
your  government  this '  four  thousand  owning  this  pecu- 
liar property  from  the  aggressive  action  of  the  six  thou- 
sand owning  no  interest  in  that  property.  Restrictions 
upon  suffrage  are  designed  to  protect  capital  from  labor, 
inequality  of  representation  to  balance  and  harmonize 
the  conflicting  interests  in  property  itself.  But  just  in 
this  connection  it  occurs  to  me,  that  it  has  been  said 
that  the  ad  valorem  principle  of  taxation  would  afford 
this  perfect  protection  to  that  peculiar  kind  of  property 
which  may  be  owned  in  the  case  I  have  supposed  by  the 
four  thousand  ;  and  what  is  this  ad  valorem  principle  ? 
What  is  it  but  an  item  in  the  proposition  insisted  upon 
by  ^gentlemen  from  the  valley  region,  the  system  of 
parchment  guarantees — aye,  parchment  guarantees — 
for  whenever  you  place  the  political  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  six  thousand  men,  whose  interests  will  teach 
them  to  plunder  through  the  action  of  their  government 
the  four  thousand,  you  place  in  their  hands  at  the  same 
time  the  power  to  alter  this  organic  law,  whenever  the 
object  to  be  accomplished  shall  be  sufficiently  tempting 
to  induce  them  to  desire  it. 

But  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  for 
a  moment  to  the  practical  operation  of  this  great  prin- 
ciple of  political  equality,  which  the  gentlemen  profess 
to  embody  in  their  organization  of  the  legislative  de- 


partment of  this  government.    Let  us  see  what  progress 
in  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  end  of  their  princi- 
ple, practical  equality  in  political  weight  of  each  suffra- 
gan, they  have  achieved  by  the  scheme  submitted  for 
our  consideration.    The  report  (statement  B)  before  us, 
declares  "  that  the  qualification  necessary  to  confer  the 
right  of  suffrage  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  com- 
monwealth, so  that  in  all  elections  of  senators  and  dele- 
gates, the  same  qualification  shall  confer  the  same  right 
of  suffrage  ;  and  the  suffrage  of  one  qualified  voter  shall 
avail  as  much  as  that  of  another  qualified  voter,  what- 
ever may  be  the  difference  in  value  of  the  property 
owned  by  them  respectively."    This  idea  of  perfect  poli- 
tical equality  is  the  one  great  principle  for  which  gen- 
tlemen from  the  west  are  contending.    And  what  is  the 
result  of  this  their  own  principle  when  applied  to 
to    the   existing  state   of  things  in  this  common- 
wealth ?    We  shall  find  that  it  actually  disfranchises 
nearly  two  hundred  thousands  of  her  citizens.    I  trust, 
I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  without  a  violation  of 
the  rules  of   order,  it  was  my  fortune  to  be  part  - 
and  parcel  of  that  sub  committee,  whose  peculiar  duty 
it  was  to  apply  this  great  principle  of  white  population 
as  a  basis  of  representation  practically  to  the  State. 
I  was  an  eye  witness  to  the  entire  operation,  from  the 
first  electoral  district  which  was  selected,  to  the  last. 
I  believe  it  is  not  competent  for  any  man,  or  set  of  men, 
to  apply  this  basis  to  the  counties  of  the  State,  without 
producing  results  equally  as  objectionable  as  those  dis- 
closed in  this  table  of  apportionment  which  accompa- 
nies statement  B.    And  what  are  they  ?    How  near  to 
equality  of  voters  in  political  power  has  the  principle 
brought  its  advocates  ?    Norfolk  city,  with  a  population 
of  9,Q68  white  inhabitants,  with  a  taxation  of  §12,426, 
has  one  vote  in  the  house  of  delegates,  while  Morgan 
county  with  a  population  of  3,431,  and  a  taxation  of 
1912,  has  equally  with  Norfolk  one  vote  in  that  same 
house.    Is  this  not  a  fine  exemplification  of  your  equal  - 
ty  of  weight  in  suffrage  ?    By  what  legerdemain  can  you 
prove  to  me,  to  your  constituency,  that  upon  your  prin- 
ciple these  3,431  white  inhabitants  shall  have  one  dele- 
gate, while  9,068  equally  white  with  themselves,  shall 
be  entitled  to  no  more  than  one  ?    There  are  other  in- 
stances scattered  over  the  entire  State,  where  similar 
inequalities  exist.    Chesterfield  county  with  8,684  white 
inhabitants  has  one  delegate,  while  Clark  county  with 
3,600  has  one  also  ;  Hardy  county  with  8,020  white  in- 
habitants has  one  delegate,  Northampton  with  3,104 
has  one.    Nor  is  this  all — add  upon  the  face  of  these 
tables  of  apportionment,  which  are  presented  with  this 
statement  B,  the  excess  and  deficiency  columns  for  the 
house  of  delegates  and  the  senate,  and  we  find  190,182 
of  the  free  white  inhabitants  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Virginia,  totally,  effectually,  absolutely  disfranchised 
by  the  principle  which  we  are  told  is  to  elevate  every 
voter  to  an  exact  level!    Yet  in  the  face  of  these  facts, 
which  must  stand  prominently  forth  in  the  very  thresh- 
hold  of  every  effort  to  reduce  their  principles  to  prac- 
tice in  a  republican  government,  gentlemen  continue 
to  cry  hosannas  to  this  doctrine  of  natural  equality. 

These  are  unavoidable  results  of  a  representative 
government,  I  suppose  I  shall  be  informed.  I  deny  that 
such  consequences  are  either  the  necessary  or  the  un- 
avoidable results  of  such  a  form  of  government  as  the 
one  which  my  friend  here  from  Accomac,  and  other 
members  with  him,  advocate.  What  is  the  idea  they  en- 
tertain of  what  this  government  should  be  ?  A  pure 
representative  democracy  in  which  every  man  within 
the  commonwealth  of  Virginia  shall  have  one  vote ;  a 
representative  democracy  in  which  every  vote  which  is 
polled  shall  be  entitled  to  an  equal  amount  of  represen- 
tation. This  I  conceive  to  be  the  idea.  Then  strike 
from  your  constitution  every  electoral  district  in  the 
State  ;  blot  out  the  county  lines,  and  require  every 
man  who  occupies  a  seat  upon  the  floor  of  the  house  of 
delegates  or  senate  to  be  returned  there  by  this  pure 
majority  of  mere  numbers,  for  which  you  are  contend- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


315 


ing.  There  is  not  one  man  here  who  will  venture  to 
propose  to  this  body  a  scheme  like  this.  There  is  not 
one  man  here  who  will  venture  to  propose  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Virginia,  that  this,  their  great  principle,  shall  be 
carried  out  to  its  practical  results.  No,  not  one;  and, 
yet,  it  is  nothing  but  a  great  principle  for  which  gentle- 
men are  contending.  I  am  not  very  skeptical ;  my  con- 
fidence is  easily  won  ;  perhaps  it  is  a  weakness  of  my  na- 
ture that  that  confidence  is  too  easily  won  ;  but  do  not, 
though  this  be  the  disposition  of  the  man  before  you, 
ask  his  credence  to  the  tale  which  you  tell,  that  this  is 
a  great  principle  for  which  you  are  contending,  while 
your  acts  show  that  you  shrink  from  its  application. 
I  need  not  repeat  the  assurance,  I  hope,  that  no  consid- 
eration could  induce  me  knowingly  to  give  utterance  up- 
on this  floor  to  a  syllable  which  would  fall  unkindly  up- 
on the  ears  of  a  single  brother  member  from  the  west ; 
but  I  must  say  that  political  power  is  the  great  object 
for  which  gentlemen  contend.  Aye,  the  age  of  meta- 
physics is  gone.  The  clarion  voice  of  my  friend  from 
Accomac  has  been  heard  ringing  through  the  mountain 
recesses  of  the  west,  and  swelling  over  the  broad  plains 
of  eastern  Virginia,  proclaiming  in  its  shrill  and  clear 
tones  the  doctrine  that  the  "  buzzard  roosts  of  abstrac- 
tion" are  to  be  swept  from  the  walls  of  this  temple ;  that 
this  constitutional  matron,  aye  !  this  mother  of  states 
and  statesmen,  with  all  her  robes  of  dignity  about  her, 
is  to  be  transformed  by  the  magic  power  of  physics  into 
a  smiling  and  beautiful  young  damsel ;  that  her  feeble 
limbs  are  no  longer  to  be  dwarfed  in  this  the  circle  of 
her  censorship,  but  that  she  is  to  spring  up  from  the 
ashes  which  metaphysics  have  accumulated  upon  her, 
Phceuix-like,  and  startle  nations  by  the  rapidity  of  her 
march  in  the  onward  progress  to  empire.  There  was 
an  annunciation  of  another  fact,  by  my  friend  from  Au- 
gusta, which  cast  some  discredit,  I  thought,  upon  the 
assertion  that  the  west  was  moving — had  been  moving 
for  thirty -five  years — for  this  principle.  He  referred  us 
to  the  great  convention  which  assembled  at  Staunton 
sometime  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  convention  of 
1829-  30  ;  and  stated  that  that  great  Staunton  conven- 
tion spread  throughout  Virginia,  the  great  principle 
of  the  white  population  as  the  basis  of  representation. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  that  that  declaration  was  made, 
it  was  asserted  in  terms  equally  strong,  that  the 
policy  of  Virginia  was,  that  of  internal  improvement, 
and  to  use  again  the  expressive  language  which  I 
heard  fall  from  the  lips  of  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac, "  to  revivify  this  old  commonwealth,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  political  power  should  exist  where 
the  necessity  for  the  improvement  was  found  to  exist ;" 
that  the  political  power  of  Virginia  should  be  transfer- 
red to  the  hands  of  men,  who  wanted  their  own  country 
intersected  by  railroads  even  as  the  rivers,  God  has  placed 
upon  earth,  instersect  more  favored  regions.  But  to 
accomplish  that  object,  they  should  have  unlimited  con- 
trol of  the  purse  strings. 

Unfortunate,  indeed,  is  the  condition  of  that  people 
whom  I  in  part  here  represent,  while  as  a  part  of  one 
of  the  members  of  this  great  confederacy,  the  strong 
arm  of  the  colossal  power  which  presides  at  "Washington 
rests  heavily  upon  us,  while  under  the  operation  of  the 
ower  of  that  vast  machine,  our  life  blood  has  for  years 
een  extracted  to  build  up  the  fortune  of  other  sisters 
of  this  confederacy  ;  at  the  same  time  we  have  an  addi- 
tional burden  to  bear  in  our  own  State,  as  was  proved  by 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta.  We  contribute  our  full  share 
to  the  improvements  of  Piedmont,  in  which  improve- 
ments we  have  no  direct  interest.  Now,  we  are  call- 
ed upon,  after  having  built  up  the  improvements  which 
Piedmont  wanted,  to  give  the  power  to  the  Valley  and 
to  trans-Alleghany,  to  bring  upon  us  a  fresh  swarm — I 
will  not  repeat  the  fable  of  iEsop — a  fresh  swarm  who 
ajre  to  consume  the  little  of  our  substance  which  the 
vampire  appetites  of  others  have  left  us.  I  know  the 
splendid  scheme  which  flashes  like  an  oriential  vision 
upon  the  fancy  of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac.  I 
have  heard  him  in  his  own  peculiar  eloquence,  wand- 


ering far  away,  amid  the  recesses  of  the  Sierra  Ne- 
vada. 

1  know  that  railroads  are  either  now  contemplated , 
or  in  process  of  construction,  which  shall  connect  Rich- 
mond with  the  extreme  western  border  of  Missouri.  I 
know  that  the  mighty  energies  of  this  nation,  backed 
by  the  tremendous  power  of  the  general  government, 
are  fast  settling  upon  the  construction  of  that  other 
great  national  high-way  which  is  to  lead  us  to  San 
r  rancisco.  I  know  that  Richmond  and  San  Francisco 
stand  upon  the  same  degree  of  latitude,  and  that  it  is  an 
air  line  which  connects  them.  Gazing  from  San  Fran- 
cisco across  the  Pacific,  the  untold  wealth  of  Asia  falls 
upon  our  view.  That  great  trade — whose  track  like  a 
constellation  of  light — has  left  its  impression  in  every 
age  upon  the  page  of  history.  Gorgeous  indeed  is  the 
view  before  me.  The  imagination  almost  palls  in  the 
contemplation  of  this  stupendous  scheme.  Aye,  deep 
in  those  recesses  of  the  distant  Nevada  under  the  drip- 
pings of  such  a  commerce  as  Asia  would  give,  stupen- 
dous palaces  would  rise  up,  before  the  wild  native  who 
wanders  through  its  wildernesses,  could  have  become  fa- 
miliar with  the  steam-horse  of  civilization.  The  sandy 
deserts  of  the  great  valley  would  be  studded  with 
cases ;  aye,  it  is  to  invite  thus  to  us  the  flow  of  this 
mighty  traffic,  that  has  fired  my  friend  with  a  zeal 
which  I  fear  has  given  him  a  distaste  for  metaphysics. 
Under  its  influence  the  spoil  of  nations  would  become  the 
dowry  of  our  daughters,  the  spoil  of  nations  not  wrung 
by  the  red  right  arm  of  war,  but  led  a  smiling  captive 
in  the  civic  triumphs  of  commerce  and  of  peace.  Rapid 
doubtless  would  be  the  strides,  great  would  be  the 
impulse  imparted  to  Virginia,  and  her  march  to  em- 
pire might  probably  excel  the  march  of  the  empire 
State  of  the  north.  I  feel,  too  sensibly  feel,  that  this 
mighty  idea  is  stealing  its  way  to  the  hearts  of  my 
countrymen ;  I  feel  that  already  the  envious  glance  is 
cast  upon  those  States  of  our  Union  that  have  excelled 
us  in  population  and  in  all  the  external  evidences  of 
wealth,  and  that  their  contemplation  has  been  with- 
drawn from  Virginia.  A  gentleman  in  my  eye  seems 
to  think,  that  already  her  dignity  and  pride  have  prey- 
ed upon  her  resources,  until  soon  they  can  prey  no  long- 
er. They  seem  willing  to  discard  forever  that  moral 
amulet,  aye,  that  amulet  of  sublime  morality,  this  doc- 
trine of  metaphysics,  embodying  the  fundamental  and 
eternal  truths  to  which  in  every  storm  that  has  rocked 
this  vast  confederacy,  the  political  mariner  has  turned 
his  eye  as  to  the  star  of  hope  and  harbinger  of  safety. 
I  fear  that,  they  will  in  this  age  of  physics,  make  Vir- 
ginia what  New  York  is ;  and  if  ever  a  child  breathed 
a  prayer  for  the  safety  of  his  mother,  I  would  say,  in 
mercy,  God  forbid  it.  Yes,  I  would  not  have  the  peo- 
ple of  this  State  to  bow  down  to  the  idol  of  mammon. 
I  would  not  have  the  population  of  this  State  divided 
by  extremes  of  wealth  and  poverty  such  as  exist  in  New 
York.  I  would  not  have  that  commerce  here,  the  ope- 
ration of  which  is  every  day  accumulating  in  the  hands 
of  the  few,  the  whole  wealth  of  the  community,  and  year 
by  year  widening  the  circle  of  the  poor  and  enlarging 
the  list  of  the  starving.  No,  I  would  not  have  Virginia 
equal  New  York  in  all  the  splendor  of  her  exter- 
nal greatness,  if  with  that  splendor  we  must'  have  the 
profligacy  of  her  politicians,  the  moral  leprosy  of  her 
people,  as  the  fruits  which  fastest  grow  in  that  state  of 
prosperity. 

I  have  wandered  from  the  subject  unintentionally, 
and  I  will  endeavor  now,  with  the  permission  of  the 
committee,  to  return  to  the  important  question  before 
us,  and  conclude  as  speedily  as  possible  the  desultory 
remarks  which  I  feel  I  am  inflicting  upon  this  body  ; 
and  in  that  return,  I  come  to  the  opening  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta.  He  went  back  into  the  dark 
dim  recesses  of  the  past,  to  ascertain  whether  property 
constituted — I  might  almost  say — anoigani3  element  in 
the  formation  of  society;  and  he  seemed  to  come  to  the 
conclusion,  that  while  man  was  instinctively  endowed 
by  the  great  Creator  from  whom  he  came,  with  an  inti- 


316 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


mate  and  intuitive  knowledge  of  his  rights  to  life,  lib- 
erty and  to  limb,  the  idea  of  property  was  something 
which  the  God  of  nature  had  not  implanted  there. 
That  grew  up  after  society  was  formed.    That  is  a  re- 
markable proposition,  remarkable  because  who  does  not 
p«rceive  that  without  property  imbecility,  weakness 
and  infancy  would  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  ag- 
gression of  the  strong ;  no,  nearly  all  the  deliberate  acts 
of  crime  which  ever  yet  sprung  from  the  heart  of  man. 
were  eouceived  and  executed  in  the  pursuit  of  proper- 
ty.   And  if,   by  remoulding  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth,  you  could  by  some  process,  strike  from  his  in- 
tellectual nature,  all  ideas  of  property,  by  the  same 
stroke  you  would  free  him  forever  from  the  shackles  of 
all  government.    Property  is  the  great  tie  of  social 
life.    It  is  to  protect  property  that  government  was 
first  organized ;  nor  is  there  at  this  day,  or  has  there  ev- 
er existed,  for  any  length  of  time,  a  government,  which 
did  not  afford  adequate  protection  to  property.  Prop- 
erty does  not  incite,  nor  is  calculated  to  incite  those 
who  own  it,  to  acts  of  aggression.    It  is  conservative  in 
its  influence.    I  recognize  no  fundamental  principle  of 
universal  application,  in  the  organization  of  all  govern- 
ments.   My  idea  is,  that  the  great  doctrine  has  been 
truly  set  forth  by  the  fathers  of  the  constitutions  in 
Virginia.    "That  government  is,  or  ought  to  be,  institu- 
ted for  the  common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of 
the  people,  nation  or  community,  and  of  all  the  various 
modes  and  forms  of  government  that  is  best,  which  is 
capable  of  producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness 
and  safety,  and  is  most  effectually  secured  against  the 
danger  of  mal  administration." 

All  admit  the  necessity  for  the  protection  of  proper- 
ty ;  but  our  western  friends  contend  that  that  protec- 
tion is  not  to  be  found  in  assigning  to  the  rights  in  pro- 
perty, any  influence  in  the  organization  of  the  govern- 
ment ;  they  seem  to  rely  upon  a  perfectibility  in  man, 
which,  of  itself,  would  be  sufficient  to  restrain  a  govern- 
ment of  numbers  from  infringing  upon  the  rights  of 
property. 

I  cannot  consent  thus  to  believe,  without  discarding  from 
my  mind  all  those  attributes  which  every  page  of  human 
history  has  assigned  to  our  species.  Nor  can  I  conceive 
any  mode  by  which  the  rights  in  property  could  be  ade- 
quately protected,  unless  they  do  enter  as  constituents 
into  the  basis  for  the  organization  of  your  legislature. 

If  I  could  believe  that  the  principle  implanted  in  the 
breast  of  man,  which,  in  the  state  of  nature,  or  in  a  sav- 
age state,  induces  him  to  commit  depredations  upon  his 
neighbor — if  I  could  believe  that  the  principle  which 
gives  strength  to  physical  power,  unrestrained  by  gov- 
ernment, was  extinguished  in  his  bosom,  when  govern- 
mental shackles  were  imposed  upon  him,  then  I  might 
be  prepared  to  concede  that  property  might  safely  be 
entrusted  to  a  government  of  mere  numbers.  Protec- 
tion, to  be  worth  anything,  must  be  adequate  and  effec- 
tual. Now,  if  we  concede  that  guarantees,  engrafted 
upon  your  constitution,  restricting  the  power  of  your 
legislature  in  respect  to  taxation,  might  be  competent, 
while  the  constitution  existed,  to  protect  property,  what 
guarantee,  I  ask  you,  can  gentlemen  give  me,  that  these 
limitations  shall  be  respected  when  the  temptation  to 
commit  a  trespass  upon  the  rights  of  property,  shall  be 
sufficient  to  induce  them  to  call  another  convention  ? 

What  is  our  experience  upon  the  subject  of  constitu- 
tional guarantees  ?  Look  to  that  most  celebrated  of  all 
constitutions — look  to  the  great  work  of  the  purest, 
most  intellectual  and  noblest  men  who  ever  adorned  the 
history  of  any  people ;  look  to  the  constitution  drafted 
by  the  compeers  of  Jefferson  and  hallowed  by  the  appro- 
bation of  a  "Washington  ;  reflect  upon  the  mighty  influ- 
ence which  those  names  still  exert  upon  the  peo- 
ple of  this  confederacy,  and  tell  me,  when  you  have 
contemplated,  when  you  have  finished  the  examination 
of  our  history  for  the  last  fifty  years,  if  guarantees  thus 
solemnly  given — paper  guarantees,  thus  enacted,  with 
influences  which  guarantees  never  before  possessed  to 
sustain  them,  have  been  kept  inviolate  ? 


Tell  me  not  of  constitutional  guarantees.  I  hold  that 
the  only  guarantee,  the  only  protection,  is  so  to  organ- 
ize your  government  as  to  blend  the  strictly  personal 
rights  with  the  rights  in  property  in  the  majority  of 
your  electors.  And,  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
our  State,  under  all  its  constitutions,  you  will  find  that 
the  government  has  been  organized — the  acting  and  ex- 
isting government  has  always  had  for  its  basis  a  propo- 
sition like  that.  And  has  it  not  been  a  safe  govern- 
ment? What  injuries  to  the  western  people  have  ever 
flowed  from  its  operation  ?  Aye,  though  the  ingenious 
gentleman  from  Augusta  had  searched  the  musty  re- 
cords of  the  past,  though  he  seems  to  have  traveled 
over  every  act  of  the  legislature  for  the  last  fifty  years, 
what,  I  ask  you,  was  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
wrong  which  this  government,  thus  organized,  had  in- 
flicted upon  the  people  of  the  west  ?  They  required 
the  militia  to  be  mustered  three  times  a  year,  and  this 
was  the  only  solitary  wrong  which  that  ingenious  gen- 
tleman could  charge  upon  us. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  The  gentleman  did  not  apprehend 
the  argument.  I  did  not  consider  it  as  a  wrong.  I  ad- 
mitted it  was  the  duty  of  citizens  to  perform  military 
duty ;  but  another  duty  of  citizens  was  to  pay  taxes, 
and  that  the  discharge  of  the  military  duty  had  as  much 
right  to  representation  as  the  discharge  of  the  tax  pay- 
ing duty. 

Mr.  BEALE.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  not  even  one 
wrong  can  be  charged  upon  us. 

I  must  here  look  at  Virginia  as  she  is,  notwithstand- 
ing the    extended  statistical  information  which  was 
given  us  by  the  gentleman  from  Augusta.    I  see  the 
broad  fact  before  me,  that,  while  eastern  Virginia  owns 
more  than  half  of  the  landed  estate  of  the  whole  com- 
monwealth in  value  ;  that  while  she  pays  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  taxes  of  the  government";  that  while, 
in  regard  to  every  article  and  species  of  property  which 
can  be  enumerated,  with  four  exceptions,  I  believe,  she 
has  the  larger  share,  at  the  same  time,  out  of  $142,791,- 
600  value  in  slaves,  eastern  Virginia  owns  $123,821,000 
while  western  Virginia  has  but  $18,970,200.    Nor  can 
I  forget  that  the  largest  portion,  even  of  eastern  Vir- 
ginia, under  a  protection  at  least  as  strong  as  this  mix- 
ed basis  will  give  us,  has  heretofore  suffered  both  in 
the  imposition  of  taxes,  and  in  their  distribution  ;  that 
she  has  been  made  to  contribute  of  her  resources  to 
the  construction  of  works  inuring  wholly  to  the  benefit 
of  others.    In  reference  to  that  subject  of  slavery — I 
know  that  we  have  been  told  we  tread  upon  a  burning 
plowshare,  and  we  are  warned  inferentially,  take  care, 
take  care,  lest  by  your  actions  you  lose  your  grasp  upon 
this  institution — and  lose  it  forever.    We  have  been 
told  that  our  brethren  of  the  west  are  true  upon  this 
subject ;  and  I  take  great  pleasure  in  saying  that  it  was 
my  happiness  to  vindicate  gentlemen  of  the  west  whom 
I  had  known,  in  my  canvass  for  the  seat  upon  this  floor, 
from  the  imputation  of  any  unsoundness  in  reference  to 
the  question  of  slavery.    When  the  storm  from  the 
north  shall  come,  if  come  it  must,  doubtless  they  will 
be  with  us.    Aye,  in  the  time  of  excitement  between 
the  two  sections  of  the  confederacy,  the  yeomanry  of 
the  mountains  would,  I  have  no  doubt,  cheerfully  enlist 
and  come  to  our  rescue.    But  while  I  entertain  these 
opinions  in  reference  to  what  would  be  the  course  of 
western  men  in  a  contest  with  a  government  foreign  to 
us,;it  is  asking  too  much  that  I  shall  trust  you  entirely 
with  this  interest  in  our  own  State  government.  The 
gentleman  from  Greenbrier  asks  us,  why  fear,  why 
distrust?    The  gentleman  from  Augusta  has  not  only 
asked  the  question  but  argued  to  show  that  with  west- 
ern men  the  institution  was  perfectly  safe.    The  gentle- 
man from  Greenbrier  called  for  proof  of  hostility  on 
the  part  of  the  west,  to  this  institution,  he  called  for 
proof  of  the  danger  of  entrusting  its  guardianship  to 
her  care.    I  will  give  him  proof.    Go  to  the  journals 
of  your  own  house  of  delegates  and  tell  me  what  was 
the  action  of  western  Virginia  in  1881-32?    Tell  me  if 
this  power  which  you  now  claim,  had  then  been  placed 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


317 


in  your  hands,  where  would  have  been  the  desti- 
ny of  eastern  Virginia ;  and  not  alone  of  eastern  Vir- 
ginia, where  would  have  been  the  destiny  of  the  entire 
State  ?  This  is  an  impressive  fact,  and  it  seems  to  me  it 
should  fall  with  its  warning  voice  upon  the  ears  ©f  wes- 
tern gentlemen  themselves.  No.  I  know  not  in  the  fu- 
ture, what  may  be  the  destiny  of  this  institution ;  I 
know  not  what  are  the  dangers  which  it  may  encounter, 


but  I  do  know,  that  it  is  ever  safest  when  placed  under 
the  protection  of  that  great  polar  star  which  governs 
man  in  all  his  actions — self  interest.  I  thank  the  com- 
mittee for  their  attention  to  my  desultory  remarks.  I 
have  done. 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BROWN,  the  committee 
rose. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morn- 
ing, at  11  o'clock. 


FRIDAY,  February  21,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kepler. 
The  Journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

Washington's  birth  day. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  I  beg  leave  to  offer  for 
the  adoption  of  the  Convention  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  adjourri  to-day, 
it  will  adjourn  to  meet  again  at  11  o'clock  on  Monday 
next. 

To-morrow  is  the  anniversary  of  the  birth  day  of 
George  Washington,  and  I  propose  that  we  shall  at 
least  not  be  engaged  in  our  labors  on  that  day. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

PUBLICATION  OF  THE  DEBATES. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Richmond.  For  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining whether  it  is  practicable  to  hasten  the  publi- 
cation of  the  debates  of  the  Convention,  my  attention 
has  been  turned  to  the  subject  for  a  day  or  two  past.  It 
is  a  thing  to  be  very  much  desired,  I  presume,  by  us  all, 
for,  as  we  get  the  debates  now,  (without  designing  to  re- 
proach any  body  for  that  delay,  for  I  believe  all  con- 
cerned in  the  undertaking  are  free  from  any  blame,)  they 
are  of  no  use  for  immediate  reference.  It  appears  to 
me  that  it  is  possible  to  hasten  them,  and  with  a  view  of 
instituting  an  inquiry  upon  the  subject,  I  offer  to  the 
Convention  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  to 
inquire  whether  it  is  practicable  to  hasten  the  publica- 
tion of  the  debates  of  the  Convention. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT  named  the  following  gentlemen  to 
compose  the  committee,  under  the  resolution  just  adopt- 
ed :  Messrs.  Scott  of  Richmond,  Sheffey,  Taylor  of 
Norfolk,  Snodgrass,  and  Brown  of  Preston. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &c. 

The  Convention  then,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
(Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,)  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  basis  and  appor- 
tionment of  representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier. 

Mr..  BROWN.  In  the  few  remarks  I  design  making 
to  the  committee,  I  will  endeavor  to  confine  myself  to 
the  subject  under  debate  and  in  aaswer  to  the  remarks 
of  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  in  the  debate,  but 
more  particularly  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Westmoreland,  who  occupied  the  floor  on  yester- 
day. I  will  first,  however,  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  proposition  reported  from  the  commit- 
tee of  twenty-four,  marked  A,  and  the  substitute  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 
Proposition  A,  reported  from  the  committee,  proposes 
to  organize  a  legislative  department,  with  a  house  of 


one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  and  a  senate  of  fifty- 
one  members,  one  half  the  delegation  of  both  branches 
to  be  based  on  white  population,  and  the  other  half  on 
taxation,  or  in  other  words,  seventy-five  delegates  in 
the  J.ower  house  to  be  raised  on  899,134  free  white 
persons,  and  the  other  seventy-five  on  $514,510,  the 
revenue  or  taxes  of  the  Commonwealth  as  paid'in  1850, 
(excluding  the  amount  paid  on  licenses  and  law  process,) 
adding  them  to  the  increase  arising  from  the  recent  as- 
sessment on  lands  and  lots  and  to  be  apportioned  among 
the  different  counties,  towns,  and  election  districts  in 
that  proportion,  and  in  like  manner  in  the  senate.  The 
substitute,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  af- 
firms the  same  principle,  anc  should  the  blanks  be  filled 
with  the  numbers  indicated  by  that  gentleman  on  Mon- 
day last,  the  two  propositions  will  be  in  principle  pre- 
cisely the  same,  and  in  all  probability  produce  the  same 
results.    I  will  have  occasion  to  refer  more  particularly 
to  the  results  in  the  progress  of  my  remarks.    For  the 
present,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee 
to  what  I  deem  a  monstrous  feature  in  the  proposition 
itself  ;  by  its  provisions,  if  the  white  population  should 
be  two  millions,  still  but  one  half  the  delegates  would 
be  raised  from  that  element,  and  should  the  taxes  be 
reduced  to  half  their  present  amount,  still  the  revenue 
would  be  entitled  to  half  the  delegation  or  political 
power  in  the  law  making  department  of  the  State.  Can 
it  be  possible  that  gentlemen  would  be  willing  to  see 
such  a  principle  incorporated  into  the  constitution  ?  I 
was  pleased  to  hear  my  friend  from  Fauquier  say,  when 
he  introduced  his  substitute,  that  he  incorporated  in  it 
one  provision  especially  for  the  benefit  of  west.  I 
am  always  glad  to  find  among  my  eastern  brethren,  per- 
sons kindly  disposed  towards  that  section  of  the  State 
from  which  I  hail,  and  particularly  to  find  a  friend  in 
an  advocate  so  talented  and  influential  as  my  friend 
from  Fauquier  ;  but  I  must  confess  when  I  learned  that 
he  alluded  to  that  provision  which  directs  the  legisla- 
ture in  making  the  re-apportionment  in  1862,'  and  in 
every  ten  years  thereafter,  to  calculate  the  taxes  at  the 
average  amount  paid  the  preceding  ten  years,  I  thought 
however  much  he  desired  to  serve  us  in  that  particular, 
he  had  greatly  missed  his  aim.    That  sagacious  gentle- 
man hardly  can  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  west- 
ern division  of  the  State  has  increased,  is  increasing 
and  must  continue  to  increase  much  faster  in  both  wealth 
and  population  than  the  eastern  section,  why  then  de- 
prive the  growing  west  in  each  re-apportionment  of  the 
benefit  of  ten  years  of  its  increase — for  this  is  the  effect 
of  it.    But  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  told  us  that  it 
was  introduced  for  fear  the  eastern  majority  in  the 
legislature  might  the  year  next  preceding  each  appor- 
tionment, lay  the  taxes  with  a  view  of  inc -easing  their 
political  power  for  the  next  ten  years,  and  thereby  in- 
flict a  wrong  on  the  west.    I  have  no  doubt  of  the 
gentleman's  kind  feelings  for  the  west,  but  it  would 
seem  in  this  instance,  that  he  looked  upon  wronging  the 
west  as  such  a  luxury,  that  he  could  not  suffer  it  to  be 
enjoyed  by  the  legislature,  but  would  commit  the  deed 
himself.    But  did  it  not  strike  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier that  it  might  be  possible  that  the  legislature  in 
1862  would  be  honest,  particularly  as  he  and  his  friends 
have  been  for  some  days  past  assuring  us  that  the  east- 
ern majority  in  all  time  past,  have  never  used  their 
power  to  the  prejudice  of  the  west.    But  if  the  gen- 
tleman is  really  a  friend  to  the  west,  and  desirous  of 
serving  them,  could  he  not  effect  hit?  object  better,  by  in- 
structing the  legislature  in  each  apportionment,  to  ap- 
portion representation  among  the  counties,  towns  and 
election  districts  as  near  as  may  be,  having  regard  to 
the  relative  increase  of  population  and  taxation?  I 
could  appreciate  a  provision  of  this  kind  ;  it  would  in 
effect  be  to  give  them  the  benefit  of  their  superior  in- 
crease for  the  ten  years  to  come  next  after  each  appor- 
tionment.   Will  it  be  said  that  the  legislature  will  not 
obey  such  instructions  ?  Are  they  not  sworn  to  support 
the  constitution,  and  carry  out  its  provisions  ?    This  is 
no  new  provision,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitutions 


318 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


of  other  States  of  the  Union  ;  Maine  has  an  express 
provision  of  the  kind,  and  it  is  the  only  just  rule  to  be 
observed  between  communities  differing  widely  in  their 
growth  and  prosperity.  But  it  may  be  objected  that  it 
would  be  difficult  to  ascertain  the  average  increase  for 
the  next  ten  years  succeeding  an  apportionment.  I  im- 
agine that  there  would  be  but  little  difficulty  in  arriving 
at  a  near  proximity  to  accurate  results,  by  calculating 
the  average  increase  forvthe  ten  years  next  preceding — 
making  proper  deductions  for  any  temporary  causes,  and 
you  would  have  substantially  the  correct  result  for  the 
next  succeeding  ten  years.  But  is  it  true  that  the  west 
is  out-growing  the  east,  in  both  wealth  and  population  ? 
It  is  said  that  the  increase  of  the  west  for  the  last  ten 
years,  is  unprecedented,  and  not  likely  to  occur  in  the 
same  ratio  again  ;  well  then,  let  us  go  back  to  1820, 
embracing  a  period  of  thirty  years,  and  let  us  see  how 
the  account  stands.  In  1820,  the  trans- Alleghany 
counties  had  a  free  white  population  of  133,474 ;  in 
1850— 331,586— an  increase  of  198,474.  The  Valley 
in  1820  had  a  like  a  population  of  121,096  ;  in  1850— 
163,117 — an  increase  of  42,081,  making  an  aggregate  in- 
crease of  240,555  in  the  white  population  of  the  west 
in  thirty  years.  The  Piedmont  counties  had  a  white  pop- 
ulation in  1820,  of  187,448 ;  in  1850—213,449.  The 
counties  below  Tide  water  in  1820,  had  a  like  popula- 
tion of  161,687  ;  in  1850  (deducting  Alexandria,  which 
was  an  annexation  and  not  an  increase,)  180,470 — ma- 
king in  the  entire  east,  an  aggregate  increase  in  the 
last  30  years,  of  only  44,746.  Again  look  to  the  taxes. 
The  trans- Alleghany  counties  in  1820,  paid  $38,606  ; 
in  1850,  $77,898.  The  Valley  paid  in  1820,  $75,899  ; 
in  1850,  $79,476 — making  an  aggregate  increase  of  $40,- 
870.  The  Piedmont  counties  paid  in  1820,  $206,855  ; 
in  1850  $162,201.  The  Tide  water  counties  paid  in 
1820,  $187,382  ;  in  1550,  ( deducting  Alexandria, ) 
$169,968 — making  an  aggregate  decline  in  the  revenue 
of  the  east  of  $62,068.  Here  it  will  be  seen  that  while 
the  west  overcame  all  reduction  in  the  per  cent,  of  tax- 
ation, and  actually  increased  in  her  revenue  $40,870, 
the  east  diminished  $62,068.  But  again,  look  at  the 
increase  of  taxes  that  will  be  added — at  the  same  per 
cent,  as  that  paid  in  the  tax  bill  of  last  year,  on  the 
lands  and  lots  under  the  new  assessment  ;  the  west 
will  pay  the  addition  of  $27,941,  whilst  the  increase  in 
the  east  will  be  only  $9,597.  From  the  above  calcula- 
tion can  there  be  any  doubt  about  the  steady  and  uni- 
form increase  of  the  west  over  the  east,  both  in  wealth 
and  population  ?  Will  not  the  most  skeptical  give  up 
the  fact  ?  and  yet  whilst  we  are  increasing  in  all  the 
elements  of  political  power,  as  proposed  by  the  east 
era  men  themselves,  in  a  greatly  increased  ratio  over  the 
eastern  part  of  the  State,  yet  that  majority  on  this 
floor  representing  the  stand  still  minority,  instead  of 
proposing  to  calculate  for  the  benefit  of  the  growing 
counties,  at  each  apportionment,  the  average  increase 
for  the  ten  succeeding  years ;  actually  propose  to  cal- 
culate the  average  of  the  ten  preceding  years,  thereby 
keeping  the  growing  west  ten  years  behind  the  times. 
I  beg  of  gentlemen  if  they  will  carry  this  proposition, 
not  to  do  it  in  the  name  of  friendship  !  But  I  wholly 
repudiate  the  doctrine  of  wealth  being  an  element  of 
political  power.  I  know  that  money  has  power  in  a 
pecuniary  point  of  view  ;  power  in  the  markets  of  the 
world,  but  not  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  I  understand 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  society  to  guard  carefully  the  rights 
of  property  both  by  constitutional  provisions  and  legal 
enactments,  but  never  give  money  the  power  to  rule 
men.  I  now  desire  to  advert  to  some  of  the  remarks 
of  my  honorable  friend  from  Westmoreland,  (Mr. 
Beale,)  I  thought  the  remarks  of  that  gentleman  as 
applied  to  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  ( Mr- 
Smith,)  were  rather  harsh  and  uncalled  for,  when  he 
spoke  of  that  talented  and  highly  patriotic  member  as 
the  leader  of  the  cohorts  of  the  west,  bearing  aloft  the 
lighted  torch  to  fire  the  temples  in  which  his  fathers 
worshipped.  I  could  find  no  excuse  for  such  a  charge, 
but  in  the  heated  and  disordered  imagination  of  my 
honorable  friend.    When  have  western  men  manifest- 


ed any  disposition  to  burn  down  eastern  temples,  or  dis- 
turb eastern  society  ?  Never,  sir — never.  It  is  empty 
declamation  without  one  particle  of  foundation  to  sup- 
port it.  The  people  of  the  west  from  the  days  that 
that  section  of  the  State  was  known  by  the  name  of 
West  Augusta  until  the  present  hour,  have  never  failed 
to  respond  with  the  highest  impulses  of  patriots,  to  any 
and  every  call  made  upon  them  by  their  country,  in  de- 
fence either  of  the  east  or  west.  But  we  are  told  that 
the  people  of  the  west  are  in  search  of  political  pow- 
er ;  true  we  are  trying  to  regain  that  power  of  which 
we  have  been  despoiled  ;  is  there  anything  wrong  in  as- 
serting our  rights  and  contending  for  our  equality  as 
men  ?  The  doctrine  of  representation  on  the  white  ba- 
sis is  no  new  doctrine  in  west  Virginia.  It  will  be  re- 
collected by  the  committee  that  under  the  old  constitu- 
tion, representation  was  apportioned  among  the  coun- 
ties of  the  State,  each  having  two  delegates  without  ref- 
erence to  their  population,  the  noble  old  county  of  Lou- 
doun then  loudly  complained  of  this  inequality,  so  did 
the  populous  counties  of  the  Valley  ;  we  then  heard 
nothing  of  the  inequality  of  taxation  but  of  population. 
The  small  counties  of  the  trans- Alleghany  believed  in 
the  justice  of  the  complaint,  and  were  willing  to  sur- 
render their  undue  power  to  the  demands  of  justice.  1 
wel]  recollect  the  little  county  of  Preston,  as  early  as 
1825,  then  numbering  about  four  thousand  inhabitants, 
sending  a  delegate  to  the  Staunton  Convention,  (Wil- 
liam Sigler,  Esq.,)  a  highly  respectable  and  valuable 
citizen  yet  living  in  that  county,  was  the  delegate. 
The  object  of  that  convention  was  to  memoralize  the 
legislature  to  take  the  sense  of  the  people  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  call  of  a  convention.  I  have  no  doubt  but 
Greenbrier  was  also  repr  esented  in  the  Staunton  con- 
vention, as  well  as  nearly  all  the  western  counties. 
Our  voices  were  then  raised  in  favor  of  equalizing  rep- 
resentation on  the  whit,e  basis,  and  can  we  of  the  far 
west,  who  willingly  surrendered  power  to  the  princi- 
ple of  the  white  basis,  be  now  justly  charged  with 
seeking  power  not  our  own,  when  we  only  ask  for 
the  application  of  the  same  rule  for  the  sake  of  which 
we  surrendered  power?  It  gives  me,  and  the  people 
that  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent,  the  highest 
satisfaction  to  kn  >w  that  the  honest  and  generous  sons 
of  the  Valley  of  Virginia,  together  with  the  good  peo- 
ple of  old  Loudoun  and  other  noble  sons  of  the  east, 
who  might  possibly  gain  political  power  by  th.3  adop- 
tion of  the  mixed  basis,  have  arrayed  themselves  on 
the  side  of  principle,  and  are  nobly  fighting  for  the 
rights  and  equality  of  men.  But  my  friend  from  West- 
moreland paid  a  beautiful  tribute  to  the  memory  of 
the  great  men  who  were  in  the  convention  of  1830.  I 
yield  to  no  man  in  respect  and  devotion  to  the  great 
and  good  men  who  composed  that  convention,  but  most 
of  them  belonged  to  another  age  ;  they  were  designed 
by  God  for  the  great  worx  of  freeing  the  colonies  from 
a  foreign  despotism,  and  for  planting  the  tree  of  liberty 
in  the  new  world  ;  their  great  mission  on  earth  was  com- 
pleted before  they  made  and  published  the  constitution  of 
1830.  When  the  honest  and  unsophisticated  people  of  the 
small  counties  of  the  west  petitioned  for  the  last  Conven- 
tion, they  had  no  idea  that  they  were  the  objects  of  jeal- 
ousy and  suspicion.  They  never  dreamed  that  they  were 
to  be  robbed  of  the  principle  by  which  their  influence  and 
power  in  the  State  were  to  keep  pace  with  their  future 
growth  and  prosperity,  but  the  deed  was  done,  not 
by  adopting  the  mixed  basis,  but  by  an  arbitrary  basis 
without  any  principle  ;  the  men  of  1830  had  not  the 
nerve  to  do  what  is  now  proposed  and  seriously  threat- 
ened to  be  done.  They  argued  the  question  of  the 
mixed  basis,  but  they  did  not  venture  to  incorporate  it 
into  the  constitution.  And  as  to  the  monstrous  propo- 
sition contained  in  the  substitute  of  appropriating  a  por- 
tion of  the  political  power  of  the  cities  to  the  poor  coun- 
ties of  then-  vicinities,  to  raise  them  in  the  scale  of  po- 
litical importance,  and  give  them  by  means  of  a  borrow- 
ed capital,  an  equality  with  remote  counties  possessing 
far  greater  wealth  and  population  ;  it  was  never  thought 
of  in  1830  ;  but  it  is  the  offspring  of  modern  political 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


319 


science  invented  to  hold  together  eastern  men  and  east-  j 
ern  communities  in  their  common  effort  to  withhold  from  j 
the  west  her  just  power  and  rightful  influence  in  the 
councils  of  the  State.  And  because  the  western  del- 
egation in  this  body  resist  with  zeal  such  combinations 
and  encroachments  of  their  rights  they  are  charged 
with  ambition  and  an  undue  design  to  grasp  power. 
The  gentleman  from  Westmoreland  may  well  look 
with  great  kindness  on  the  work  of  the  convention  of 
1830  j  but  he  should  be  among  the  last  to  speak  of  the 
undue  exercise  of  political  power.  The  noble  little 
county  of  Westmoreland,  with  a  population  of  3,355  and 
paying  a  rev.  nue  of  §2,544  has  been  enjoying  by  the 
arbitrary  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  1830  as  much 
power  in  the  general  assembly  as  the  county  of  Ohio, 
with  a  population  of  17,514  and  paying  a  revenue  of  $8- 
608,  leaving  an  excess  unrepresented  in  Ohb  of  14,225 
persons  and  $  ,064  of  revenue  ;  and  if  the  gentleman's 
county  can  borrow  enough  of  the  super-abundance  of 
revenue  paid  by  the  city  of  Richmond,  he  may  again 
be  placed  in  a  like  enviable  position.  I  known  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  eating  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  rich 
men's  tables,  and  the  city  of  Richmond  can  furnish 
a  good  many  for  poor  neighbors.  And  here,  I  will 
take  occasion  to  return  my  sincere  thanks  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Greenesville,  who  addressed  the  committee  on 
Tuesday  last.  He  told  us  the  east  had  never  abused 
their  power — that  they  had  always  been  kind  and  had 
actually,  from  their  super-abundance,  ministered  to  the 
necessities  of  the  west.  Charity  loses  much  of  its  vir- 
tue when  the  benefactor  is  always  reminding  the  re- 
cipient of  his  heavy  obligations.  But  you  will  recol- 
lect that  Greenesville  is  one  of  those  favored  counties  to 
which  a  separate  delegate  was  assigned  by  the  present 
constitution  ;  she  now  enjoys  as  much  political  power 
as  Greenbrier  or  Washington.-  I  will  not  compare 
her  with  Ohio,  for  things  may  be  so  vastly  dispropor- 
tioned  as  not  to  bear  comparison.  But,  she  has  a  dele- 
gate now  in  the  capitol  exercising  as  much  political 
power  as  Washington  with  apopulation  of  12,349,  pay- 
ing a  revenue  of  $4,673  ;  while  Greenesville  has  only  a 
population  of  1,725  paying  a  revenue  of  $1  856.  [Here  a 
voice  inquired  how  many  slaves  in  Greenesville  ?  ] 
I  do  not  know.  I  have  not  looked  to  the  subject  ; 
we  will  try  one  issue  at  a  time  ;  I  am  now  looking  to 
population  and  revenue  ;  if  a  proposition  should  be 
submitted  to  give  representation  to  slaves,  I  will  then 
look  t3  that  subject.  I  was  endeavoring  to  show  the 
great  inequality  of  representation,  as  it  now  exists,  and  as 
my  honorable  friends  from  both  Westmoreland  and 
Greenesville  had  both  addressed  the  committee  and  taken 
strong  ground  against  the  surrender  of  eastern  power, 
I  have  alluded  to  their  respective  counties  to  show  that 
they  are  in  the  enjoyment  of  undue  political  power,  and 
that  they  might  not  be  the  most  disinterested  judges  of 
the  propriety  of  equalizing  representation  among  the 
people  of  the  State.  But  they  are  both  noble  little 
counties.  I  wish  I  could  change  the  adjective  and  term 
them  noble  big  counties.  They  then  would  be  entitled  to 
the  political  power  they  claim  and  enjoy,  and  our  dif- 
ferences would  be  at  an  end.  Nor  has  this  inequality 
been  brought  about  by  any  decrease  in  the  population  of 
Westmoreland  or  Greenesville,  since  1830,  when  a  sep- 
arate delegate  was  assigned  to  each.  I  do  not  complain 
of  any  practical  abuse  of  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
east  ;  I  complain  of  the  inequality  among  the  different 
voters  in  the  different  sections  of  the  Slate.  Greenes- 
ville is  a  noble  little  county  ;  I  doubt  not  her  generosity, 
but  her  revenue  is  rather  small  for  her  to  indulge  large- 
ly in  her  charitable  designs.  She  is  certainly  a  good 
democratic  county.  I  have  often  met  her  talented  and 
spirited  delegates  in  the  councils  of  the  State  ;  I  have 
their  acquaintance  and  acted  with  them  with  a  great 
deal  of  pleasure.  But  I  desire  to  inquire  if  the  large 
revenue  paid  by  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  which  is  pro- 
posed to  be  distributed  in  certain  localities  in  her  im- 
mediate section  of  the  State,  is  her  own,  or  is  the  result 
of  the  expenditure  of  the  revenue  of  nearly  the  whole 


j  State  within  her  limits.  Is  she  not  indebted  to  the*  whole 
I  State  for  a  large  amount  of  her  revenue  and  population  ? 
Yv'ithdraw  from  her  the  public  business  done  at  the  seat  of 
government,  take  from  her  the  capital  of  the  State,  and 
you  at  once  would  diminish  both  her  population  and  tax- 
ation. Why  then  give  to  the  tide  water  counties  that 
which  belongs  to  us  all  ?  I  have  now  shown  a  few  of 
the  many  startling  inequalities  existing  in  the  State 
by  the  constitution  of  1830,  in  which  gentlemen  find  so 
much  to  admire.  I  will  now  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  proposed  apportionment  under  the 
mixed  basis  as  shown  by  exhibit  A.  I  admit  that  if  we 
are  bound  to  observe  county  lines,  no  apportionment  can 
be  made  on  any  basis  that  will  give  the  exact  ratio  in 
every  county  ;  but  I  think  I  can  show  that  the  appor- 
tionment made  in  letter  A,  is  the  worst  gerrymander 
ever  proposed  in  Virginia.  But  before  proceeding  further 
I  desire  to  reply  to  the  attack  on  the  white  basis  appor- 
tionment made  by  the  gentleman  from  Westmoreland  ; 
that  gentleman  told  us  that  he  was  on  the  committee  of 
twenty  four,  and  hence  I  infer  he  was  well  prepared  to 
make  the  assault.  The  gentleman  pointed  to  the  city 
of  Norfolk,  which  I  admit  is  the  strongest  case  he  can 
find.  Norfolk  has  a  population  largely  above  what 
would  give  her  one  delegate,  but  not  sufficient  to  give 
her  two  ;  but  her  excess  is  only  3,328,  and  if  the  gentle- 
man had  looked  to  the  county  of  Norfolk,  he  would  have 
seen  that  the  county  had  been  assigned  two  delegates 
with  a  deficiency ;  also,  Princess  Ann,  Nansemond,  and 
Isle  of  Wight,  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  had  been 
assigned  one  delegate  each,  with  deficiencies  in  each  of 
them ;  also  the  senatorial  apportionment  on  the  white 
basis  gives  Norfolk  city  and  county,  with  Princess  Ann, 
a  senator,  with  a  deficiency  again  in  favor  of  Norfolk; 
so  that  she,  with  the  county  of  Norfolk  and  the  imme- 
diate section  connected  with  her,  in  the  aggregate,  is 
well  provided  for  in  the  way  of  representation.  Having 
examined  the  particular  case  of  hardship  adverted  to  by 
my  friend  from  Westmoreland,  I  desire  to  examine  slight- 
ly the  apportionment  which  he  advocates.  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  know  much  about  it,  but  from  the  very  slight 
examination  I  have  bestowed  upon  the  subject,  I  find 
the  following  results  and  inequalities.  I  again  take  oc- 
casion to  repudiate  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  mixed  ba- 
sis, but  as  gentlemen  seem  disposed  to  force  it  upon  us, 
I  desire  to  show  the  committee  and  the  couniry  the 
monstrous  results  that  are  to  follow  from  its  adoption. 
I  have  selected  the  following  western  counties,  all  cf 
which  have  more  population  and  pay  into  the  treasury 
a  greater  amount  of  revenue  than  the  eastern  counties 
with  which  they  are  compared,  and  still  it  was  proposed 
to  give  them  no  more  political  power  in  making  the  laws 
and  in  electing  such  officers  as  may  be  confided  to  the 
legislature,  than  the  small  eastern  counties  not  contain- 
ing half  their  population.  I  will  take  Marshall  with  a 
free  white  population  of  10,054,  paying  a  revenue  ex- 
clusive of  licences  and  law  process,  of  82,719.11  ;  and 
compare  her  with  Appomattox,  with  a  population  of 
4,208,  paying  a  like  revenue  of  $2,575.81.  The  county 
of  Wythe,  with  a  population  of  9,634,  revenue  $3,443. 39  ; 
compared  with  Powhatan  with  a  population  of  2,513, 
revenue  $3,382.62.  Greenbrier,  with  a  population  of 
8,942,  revenue  $4,392.42  ;  compared  with  Nottoway,  pop- 
ulation 2,217,  revenue  83,158.61.  Preston,  population 
11,639,  revenue  $1,984.76,  compared  with  Patrick,  popu- 
lation 7.176,  revenue  $1,589.27.  Marion,  population  10,- 
474,  revenue  $2,727.89,  compared  with  Stafford,  popula- 
tion 4,414,  revenue  82.593.84.  Wood,  population  9,910r 
revenue  $2,758.32.  King  George,  population  2,302,  reve- 
nue $2,480.31.  Monroe,  population  9,065,  revenue  $3,- 
371.78.  King  William,  population  2,712,  revenue  $>2,305.- 
60.  Ohio  is  given  two  delegates,  with  a  population  of  17,- 
614,  and  revenue  $8,608;  Southampton  and  Greenesville, 
with  an  aggregate  population  of  7,665,  and  a  revenue  of 
•$6,621,  are  given  two  delegates.  The  above  western  coun- 
ties pay  more  revenue  than  the  eastern  ones  with  which 
they  are  compared  by  $4,878.89,  and  have  an  excess  of 


320 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


populafion,  entirely  unrepresented,  of  57,509.  Can  my 
friend  from  Westmoreland,  who  says  he  was  on  the  basis 
and  apportionment  committee,  explain  how  such  mon- 
strous results  have  been  brought  about,  in  his  favorite 
scheme  ?  But  I  have  looked  slightly  into  the  senatorial 
apportionment,  on  the  mixed  basis  plan,  and  find  it  no 
less  unfortunate  in  its  unseemly  proportions  ;  I  have 
looked  to  Halifax,  with  a  population  of  10,900,  and  a 
revenue  of  $9,108,  assigned  one  senator;  and  the  noble 
counties  of  Patrick,  Henry  and  Franklin,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  24,139,  paying  a  revenue  of  $7,428,  assigned 
one  senator.  Here  we  see  13,239  persons  ballanced  by 
Si, 680  of  revenue.  One  would  suppose  they  had  been 
bought  cheap  enough  in  all  conscience.  The  counties  of 
Brooke,  Hancock  and  Ohio,  with  a  population  of  26,589, 
paying  a  revenue  of  $12,074,  are  assigned  one  senator, 
and  the  counties  of  Dinwiddie,  Brunswick  and  Greenes- 
ville,  with  a  population  ©f  12,422,  paying  a  revenueof 
$9,201,  assigned  one  senator  ;  so  that  the  Brooke  district 
pays  $2,865  the  most  revenue,  and  has  12,167  of  unrep- 
resented population.  I  think  I  have  demonstrated  to  the 
committee  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the  mixed  basis 
is  a  monstrous  rule  of  apportionment,  or  its  friends  have 
greatly  abused  it  in  its  application. 

In  the  remarks  of  my  honorable  friend  from  Green- 
brier, on  Tuesday  last,  he  stated  that  the  whole  number 
of  slave  owners  in  the  Commonwealth  was  some  forty 
thousand,  and  that  he,  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier, 
did  not  think  that  the  great  principles  of  republican 
liberty  and  equality  should  be  violated,  to  subserve  the 
peculiar  notions  of  a  mere  battalion  of  the  people.  These 
remarks  called  out  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Greenesville,  who,  with  some  warmth,  avowed  that  he 
was  one  of  the  gentlemen  on  this  floor  that  in  part  rep- 
resented that  battalion,  and  that  they  could  not  permit 
the  powers  of  legislation  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  a 
majority  of  the  voters  of  the  whole  State,  who  held  no 
interest  in  common  in  the  peculiar  property  in  which 
the  east  felt  so  deep  an  interest.  It  is  perfectly  natu- 
ral and  right  for  every  delegate  in  the  Convention  to 
look  to  the  immediate  interests  of  his  constituents.  I 
came  to  this  body  to  help  protect  and  defend  my  people  ; 
to  look  to  all  their  interests,  both  of  person  and  prop- 
erty. I  feel  myself  instructed  to  look  to  their  interests, 
and  to  all  the  great  interests  of  the  Commonwealth.  I 
feel  that  I  cau  subserve  the  interests  of  my  people  best 
by  looking  to  the  interest  of  all  portions  of  the  Com- 
monwealth ;  to  help  devise  ways  and  means  to  protect 
every  interest,  whether  east  or  west.  I  am  prepared  to 
pledge,  in  the  sacred  instrument  we  are  about  to  make, 
the  lives  and  fortunes  of  my  people  ;  to  help  defend  and 
protect  every  member  or  section  of  the  State,  in  the  en- 
joyment of  their  property,  of  every  kind  and  descrip- 
tion, and  all  they  ask  in  return  is  a  perfect  reciprocity. 
Although  my  constituents  are  poor,  they  are  prosperous 
— their  hopes  and  prospects  present  a  bright  future,  and 
all  they  ask  is  to  be  placed  on  a  perfect  equality  with 
their  brethren  of  the  east;  and  this  common  platform 
they  will  obtain  before  they  give  up  the  struggle. 
"When  we  tell  gentlemen  that  we  will  iterate  and  re- 
iterate our  complaints,  until  they  "  tingle  in  their  ears," 
they  need  not  affect  to  construe  such  expressions  into  a 
threat ;  they  must  hear  the  demands  of  freemen  from 
the  west  for  their  equal  rights,  so  long  as  they  are  un 
justly  withheld.  My  friend  from  Westmoreland  has 
pronounced  the  bill  of  rights  a  mere  abstraction,  that 
to  carry  out  its  provisions  literally,  it  would  confer  the 
right  of  suffrage  or  political  power  on  women  and  chil- 
dren. Not  so  ;  it  is  no  abstraction,  but  a  great  State  pa- 
per, embodied  by  clear  heads  and  soun  1  hearts,  contain- 
ing the  true,  and  only  true  principles  of  republican 
freedom.  It  is  true,  many  of  the  doctrines  contained  in 
the  bill  of  rights  had  been  pointed  to  by  the  writers  on 
political  law  before  the  days  of  the  revolution ;  but  it 
was  reserved  for  the  immortal  spirits  of  1776  to  reduce 
them  to  the  form  ©f  a  great  State  paper,  and  give  them 
to  the  world  in  that  useful  form,  as  a  beacon  light  to 
conduct  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  ultimate  freedom. 


That  paper  has  now  been  exerting  its  influence  on  man- 
kind for  about  seventy  years ;  it  has  shook  to  their  centre 
thrones  and  despotisms  in  the  old  world,  and  built  up  a 
sisterhood  of  free  and  sovereign  States  in  the  new,  un- 
exampled in  prosperity  and  happiness  in  any  period  of 
the  history  of  our  race.  I  understand  the  "  people  " 
named  in  that  instrument,  in  whom  all  political  power 
resides,  and  from  whose  hands  it  is  derived,  and  to 
whom  all  magistrates  are  or  should  be  amenable,  to  be 
those  who  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage ;  those  persons 
who  can  give  evidence  of  their  permanent  interest  in, 
and  attachment  to,  the  community  ;  no  better  descrip- 
tion can  be  given  of  them  than  that  given  in  the  bill 
of  rights,  and  these  voters  must  be  equal  in  power, 
wheresoever  within  the  broad  limits  of  the  Common- 
wealth they  may  reside — whether  on  the  north  or  south 
side  of  James  river,  or  east  or  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge 
of  mountains.  This  is  the  doctrine  contended  for  by 
the  people  of  the  west,  and  laid  down  in  the  white  basis 
report  B,  from  the  committee  of  twenty-four.  The  bill 
of  rights  never  could  mean  that  magistrates  were  amena- 
ble to  women  and  children,  nor  to  slaves  or  property, 
animate  or  inanimate,  because  none  of  these  appear  at 
the  ballot-box  to  confer  power.  That  majority"  of  the 
community  in  whom  rests  the  "indubitable,  unaliena- 
ble and  indefeasible  right  of  altering  or  abolishing  the 
organic  law  of  a  State,"  must  mean  free  persons,  per- 
sons having  the  right  to  contract  as  sovereigns,  to 
form  alliances,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  their  neigh- 
bors ;  consequently,  when  we  attempt  to  disturbe  old 
or  make  pew  constitutions,  we  must  refer  to  first  prin- 
ciples. Conventions  to  form  new  or  amend  old  or- 
ganic laws  are  not  designed  to  carry  out  existing  com- 
pacts, but  to  lay  the  foundation  on  which  the  super- 
structure of  government  rests.  Let  us  then  examine 
and  see  who  are  the  original  contracting  parties  to  soci- 
ety. Our  race  never  did  exist  as  isolated  beings  ;  God 
created  man,  male  and  female — the  wife  leaned  upon 
her  husband  for  support,  and  helpless  infancy  looked  to 
the  strong  arm  of  a  father  for  protection  and  defence — 
this  little  community  would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  husband  and  father,  and  he 
alone  capable  of  exercising  his  own  free  and  sovereign 
will.  To  illustrate  my  position,  let  us  suppose  five  men 
to  be  cast  away  on  some  desolate  coast,  three  of  them 
had  families,  and  two  were  wholly  unencumbered  with 
domestic  relations.  I  conceive  that  in  the  language  of 
the  bill  of  rights,  these  men  would  be  by  nature,  and  in 
fact ,  "  equally  free  and  independent,  "  but  it  would  not 
follow  that  the  women  and  children  would  be  free  and 
independent,  for  they  were  subject  by  the  laws  of  nature 
ito  the  will  and  control  of  him  who  was  charged  with 
their  protection  and  support.  The  first  thing  these 
strangers  would  do — prompted  by  the  instincts  of  nature 
— would  be  to  appropriate  to  themselves  lands  for  their 
habitations  and  pursuits  of  life  :  they  would  construct 
for  themselves,  with  the  means  within  their  reach,  cas- 
tles of  defence.  The  ruias  of  these  family  fortifications 
are  to  be  found  in  many  of  the  countries  of  the  old 
world  and  in  our  own  western  border,  and  in  most  of  the 
new  States  can  yet  be  found  the  rudely  constructed 
buildings  of  defence,  erected  by  the  first  settlers  of  the 
country.  My  new  settlers  having  secured  themselves 
and  families  against  the  storms  and  assaults  of  stran- 
gers, they  would  naturally  go  in  search  of  property,  and 
in  the  chase,  one  would  capture  the  wild  goat,  another 
the  sheep,  another  the  cow,  another  the  horse,  and  an- 
other the  wild  man,  on  whose  sable  brow  rested  the 
mark  of  Cain  and  the  curse  of  Ham  ;  they  would  reduce 
their  respective  acquisitions  to  obedience,  and  make 
them  and  their  future  increase,  property.  This  little 
community  would  soon  find  it  necessary,  for  the  mutual 
protection  of  their  persons  and  property,  to  organize  a 
little  republic  ;  and,  a  convention  being  called,  the  con- 
tracting sovereigns  all  appeared  in  person — it  was  then 
a  pure  democracy,  no  representatives  were  necessary — 
who  would  be  the  contracting  parties  ?  Would  the  de- 
pendents, the  women  and  children,  appear  J  Would 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


321 


the  live  stock  with  the  slaves  appear  ?  Certainly 
not.  It  would  be  the  free  and  responsible  persons  hav- 
ing property  and  families  to  protect.  Suppose  this  pure 
democracy,  under  the  influence  of  wholesome  laws,  grew 
in  wealth  and  population,  and,  like  the  fruitful  boughs 
of  Joseph,  that  ran  over  the  wall,  spread  over  sixty 
thousand  square  miles,  and  contained  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  free  persons,  having  personal  rights  and 
rights  of  property  to  protect  and  defend,  some  with 
families,  others  with  none,  all  having  different  amounts 
and  kinds  of  property.  At  this  period  of  their  history, 
they  found  it  necessary  to  amend  their  old  or  make  a 
new  constitution  ;  the  number  of  the  original  sovereigns 
had  now  become  so  large  that  they  could  not  meet  in 
mass,  but  found  it  necessary  to  change  their  pure  de- 
mocracy to  a  representative  democracy.  They  would 
proceed  to  elect  their  deputies  and  to  assemble  in  gen- 
eral convention  ;  would  this  change  the  principles  of  the 
government  or  only  the  forms  of  carrying  out  the  same 
principle  ?  Would  not  the  deputies  be  sent  in  place  of 
the  electors,  and  to  speak  in  their  stead  ?  Is  the  repre- 
sentative anything  more  than  the  medium  through 
which  the  original  sovereigns  speak  ?  The  deputies 
would  not  represent  the  will  of  persons  and  things  that 
had  no  will  of  their  own,  but  the  will  of  their  sovereigns 
who  had  commissioned  them  at  the  polls.  Suppose  in 
such  a  convention,  the  delegates  from  the  west  were  to 
insist  that  their  voters  should  have  more  power  than 
their  mere  numbers  would  entitle  them,  because  of  the 
great  quantity  of  wool  they  possessed  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  the  delegates  from  the  east  should  argue  that 
their  voters  should  be  a  "  head  and  shoulders  "  taller  in 
the  management  of  the  government  than  their  western 
brethren,  not  in  consequence  of  the  great  quantity  of 
their  wool,  but  because  of  its  peculiar  character.  If  we 
could  be  disinterested  spectators,  looking  upon  such  a 
convention  and  hearing  such  arguments,  the  smile  of  de- 
rision would  be  found  on  every  face.  And  yet,  we,  an 
assemblage  of  Virginia  statesmen,  a  convention  called 
in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  Old  Do- 
minion, are  gravely  arguing  the  silly  questions  I  have 
supposed. 

It  seems  to  me  that  gentlemen  do  not  look  to  the  great 
object  to  be  obtained  in  the  organization  of  political  com- 
pacts. Men,  both  in  a  state  of  nature  and  in  society, 
have  a  right  to  defend  their  persons  and  their  property  • 
but  owing  to  individual  weakness  they  are  insecure. 
Government  is  designed  to  strengthen  individuals  by 
bringing  to  the  aid  of  each,  the  strength  of  all.  And  so 
with  communities — you  of  the  east  have  the  right  to 
protect  yourselves  and  your  property,  but  would  you 
not  like  to  have  the  aid  of  the  west  to  help  you  ?  Would 
not  this  make  you  more  secure?  We  of  the  west 
have  the  right  to  protect  ourselves,  but  we  desire  to  add 
to  our  own  strength  that  power  that  lies  east  of  the 
mountains.  I  suppose  this  can  be  best  done  by  organ- 
izing a  government  in  which  all  will  be  recognised  as 
equals,  in  which  each  will  engage  to  help  the  other,  pro- 
viding all  safeguards  for  the  protection  of  each  section 
of  the  State,  and  for  each  individual  in  the  State.  But 
gentlemen  say  that  paper  guarantees  are  worth  nothing  ; 
then,  we  are  engaged  in  a  very  unnecessary  task,  mak- 
ing that  which  is  worth  nothing  ;  if  this  be  true,  we  had 
better  adjourn  and  go  home.  I  do  not  understand  gen- 
tlemen when  they  denounce  constitutional  guarantees. 
They  admit  that  such  guarantees  will  secure  life,  liber- 
ty, freedom  of  conscience,  freedom  of  speech,  and  all  kinds 
of  property,  except  negroes,  and  the  only  reason  that  I 
have  heard  for  this  exception,  is,  that  they  are  a  pecu- 
liar property.  Every  property  has  its  peculiarities  ;  but 
this  is  no  argument  against  its  capability  of  being  safely 
guarded  by  constitutional  checks  and  guarantees. 

Gentlemen  tell  us  that  they  have  full  confidence  in 
our  honesty,  and  that  we  would  carry  out  in  good  faith 
our  constitutional  stipulations,  but  they  are  afraid  of 
those  that  are  to  come  after  us — our  children  may  be  dis- 
honest. ^  This  is  a  very  remote  idea,  but  if  gentlemen  are 
sincere  in  their  fears,  can  we  not  even  embarrass  that 
29 


| movement?  Can  we  not  prevent  the  legislature  from 
i  passing  laws  facilitating  or  inviting  the  call  of  a  conven- 
tion, unless  done  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  But  what  can 
j  gentlemen  see  in  the  character  of  the  western  people, 
jthat  makes  them  the  objects  of  dread  and  suspicion.  If 
|  we  were  a  set  of  freebooters,  or  robbers,  we  would  be 
opposed  to  the  formation  of  any  constitution;  we  could 
accomplish  our  marauding  purposes  better  untrammeled 
by  compacts.  But  we  are  no  robbers,  we  are  a  law-lov- 
ing, and  a  law-abiding  people  ;  we  have  ever  been,  and 
we  now  are,  loyal  to  Virginia  and  to  all  her  institutions. 
You  have  had  our  affections  and  our  support  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  past,  you  can  have  them  and  will  have  them 
in  the  future,  unless  you  drive  us  from  you  by  your  jeal- 
ousy and  injustice.  But  let  me  tell  gentlemen  if  we 
harmonize  we  must  all  ba  equals.  No  community  of 
men  can  ever  unite  in  perfect  harmony  and  cordial  af- 
fection, unless  they  are  recognized  as  equals.  But  gen- 
tlemen tell  us  that  we  do  not  understand  them,  that  they 
design  no  idignity  to  the  west,  that  we  are  their  equals  ; 
but  your  acts  do  not  correspond  with  your  professions. 
You  admit  that  we  hav3  upwards  of  ninety  thousand  of 
a  majority  of  free  white  population  ;  with  our  restricted 
right  of  suffrage  in  Virginia,  we  usually  give  about  ten 
votes  to  the  hundred  persons  ;  this  will  give  to  the  west 
nearly  ten  thousand  more  voters  than  can  be  found  in 
the  east,  still,  you  want  to  have  the  control  in  the  gen- 
eral assembly  by  a  majority  of  twenty  members.  How 
can  you  produce  this  result  without  depreciating  the  vo- 
ters of  the  west  ?  But  gentlemen  say  this  result  is  ne- 
cessary in  consequence  of  the  great  dissimilarity  of  the 
pursuits  and  interests  of  the  people,  east  and  west  of 
the  mountains.  This  argument  only  goes  to  prove  that 
I  we  ought  not  to  be  united  in  consequence  of  our  conflict- 
ing interests,  but  not  that  we  should  be  united  on  terms 
of  inequality.  There  can  be  no  peace  in  Virginia  until 
Virginia  makes  peace  with  herself,  until  east  and  west 
Virginia  cease  to  be  known  in  the  fundamental  law  as 
separate  divisions  of  state,  until  all  odious  political  dis- 
criminations are  forever  abolished  among  her  people. 
I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  mixed  basis  report 
in  your  hands,  as  well  as  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier;  contain  principles  anti-repub- 
lican and  prejudicial  to  the  best  interests  of  Virginia, 
j  and  also  that  the  details,  so  far  as  they  have  been  car- 
ried out,  are  most  unjust  and  revolting.  I  have  endea- 
vored to  vindicate  the  principles  of  the  basis  of  qualifi- 
ed voters,  as  contained  in  exhibit  B.  My  arguments  do 
not  rest  alone  on  abstract  reasoning,  nor  my  interpreta- 
tion of  the  bill  of  rights  on  my  own  opinion  only.  I  have 
looked  into  the  constitution  of  the  thirty-one  States  of 
this  Union  and  find  twenty-three  of  them  have  adopted 
the  white  basis  in  some  form  or  other  ;  of  those,  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee  and  Louisiana,  have  adopted  the  basis 
of  qualified  voters,  and  the  other  twenty  have  taken 
either  the  white  population  or  ratable  polls.  Four  of 
the  States  yet  retain  the  old  county  basis.  North  Car- 
olina and  Florida  adhere  to  federal  numbers,  South  Car- 
olina the  mixed  basis,  and  old  Virginia  based  on  grand  di- 
visions ;  now,  is  there  nothing  due  to  the  opinions  and  ex- 
perience of  other  States,  particularly  when  they  have 
shown  such  unexampled  prosperity  ?  But  even  if  the  ex- 
perience of  others  were  against  me,  so  confident  do  I 
feel  of  the  correctness  of  the  position  for  which  we  con- 
tend, that  I  would  not  surrender  it.  I  have  now  detain- 
ed the  committee  longer  than  I  designed  when  I  took  the 
floor,  and  thanking  you  and  the  committee  for  your  kind  in- 
dulgence, I  will  commit  the  further  discussion  of  the 
subject  to  abler  hands. 

Mr.  PU  RKINS.  I  shall  offer  no  apology  for  addressing 
the  committee  upon  a  question  of  such  vast  importance 
to  the  people  of  Virginia,  as  the  one  now  under  discus- 
sion. I  am  here  in  the  discharge  of  a  high  and  important 
duty,  a  duty  entrusted  to  me  by  a  generous  constituen- 
cy, to  whom  I  may  truly  say,  I  am  almost  a  stranger. 
For  the  compliment  thus  conferred  upon  me,  I  trust  I 
feel  sufficient  gratitude  ;  and  I  know  that  the  responsi- 
bility of  my  situation  is  deeply  felt  by  me.    If  I  offer  no 


322 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


apology  for  an  attempt  faithfully  to  discharge  that  re- 
sponsibility, I  hope  I  may  be  at  least  permitted  to  follow 
the  example  of  almost  all  the  gentlemen  who  have  pre- 
ceded me  in  discussion,  by  expressing  to  the  committee 
that  it  is  with  great  diffidence  and  embarrassment 
I  take  part,  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  an  important  subject  before  a  deliberative 
body. 

I  regret  much  that  there  is  not  a  greater  concurrence 
of  opinion  as  to  what  are  the  great  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  government,  in  an  enlightened  assembly  like  the 
one  here  convened.  I  regret,  too,  to  see  that  there  is  an 
impression  pervading  this  assembly  that  the  calling  of  a 
Convention  by  a  political  community  "  to  alter,  amend,  or 
to  abolish  the  existing  constitution,  and  substitute  a  new 
one  therefor,  necessarily  resolves  that  community  into 
the  original  elements  which  compose  society,  and  that  it 
consequently  follows  that  in  considering  and  deciding 
upon  propositions  proposed  to  be  engrafted  upon  the  or- 
ganic law,  the  body  upon  whom  that  duty  devolves, 
must  be  guided  in  their  investigations  and  decisions,  by 
the  principles  of  natural  law,  rather  than  by  those  true 
governmental  principles  which  ought  to  prevail  in  the 
formation  of  a  social  compact.  We  are  not  in  a  state  of 
nature.  The  ratification  by  the  people,  of  the  act 
by  which  this  Convention  was  called  to  amend  the  or- 
ganic law  of  the  State,  did  not  abolish  the  existing  state 
of  things,  for  the  government  under  which  we  have 
lived  for  twenty  years,  both  in  its  primary  organic 
law  and  the  secondary  and  ordinary  laws  of  the  legisla- 
ture, is  just  as  obligatory  upon  the  people  of  Virginia  at 
this  day  as  though  we  had  not  assembled  in  this  hall. 
Then,  I  assert,  we  are  to  be  governed  in  the  decision  of 
this  question,  and  in  the  decision  of  all  other  questions 
that  may  come  before  us,  more  by  those  true  principles 
of  governmental  policy  which  ought  to  dictate  to  us 
the  true  basis  upon  which  to  found  the  constitution  of 
this  State,  than  by  any  speculative  theories  as  to 
what  are  the  laws  of  nature.  I  had  supposed,  and  not- 
withstanding all  I  have  heard  to  the  contrary,  my  mind 
is  unchanged  in  that  particular,  that,  when  a  communi- 
ty has  assembled  or  appointed  representatives,  to  per- 
form the  duty  of  organising  a  social  compact  or  form  of 
government,  no  individual  interest  in  that  commu- 
nity should  obtain  all  the  influence  of  the  government  in 
its  behalf — that  no  individual  interest  should  claim  the 
entire  control  of  the  power  of  that  government,  but  that 
the  government  should  be  so  formed  as  that  it  would 
seek  to  advance  all  the  varied  interests  over  which  its 
influence  would  be  felt ;  and  that  in  pursuance  of  that 
principle  in  the  bill  of  rights,  to  which  allusion  has  so 
often  been  made,  that  government  should  be  so  framed 
as  that  every  one  of  those  interests  would  be  amply  se- 
cured and  protected  under  its  administration. 

Let  us  briefly  examine  this  bill  of  rights.   In  the 
first  section  of  that  instrument,  and  I  will  read  the 
whole  section,  in  order  to  a  correct  understanding 
of  its  merits,  it  is  declared  that  all  men  by  nature 
are  equal  and  have  certain  inherent  rights  which, 
when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society  they  cannot 
be  deprived,  nor  can  these  rights  be  divested  from 
their  posterity.     What  are  those  inherent  rights  ? 
Why,  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,) 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffet,)  the  : 
gentleman  from  Preston,  (Mr.  Brown,)  unite  in  say-  > 
ing  that  they  are  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness and  safety.    But  are  these  the  only,  the  exclusive  i 
purposes  ?    Look  at  the  latter  clause  of  the  section  and  : 
you  will  find  it  says  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty  1 
with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  i 
and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety.  < 

"1.  That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  inde-  i 
pendent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which,  1 
when  they  enter  society,  they  cannot,  by  any  compact,  1 
deprive  or  divest  their  posterity ;  namely,  the  enjoyment  ] 
of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  pos-  < 
Bessing  property,  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  1 
and  safety."  i 


Here,  then,  we  have  it  laid  down  in  the  very  chart 
-  that  is  to  direct  us  in  our  political  voyage,  and  it  is  in- 
■  scribed  on  the  mast-head  of  our  ship  of  State — that  to 
i  give  security  in  the  acquisition  and  possession  of  prop- 
i  erty  is  one  of  the  chief,  the  principal  objects  of  a  social 
•  government ;  that  it  is  one  of  those  inherent  rights  of 
which,  when  we  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  we  can 
neither  divest  ourselves  nor  our  posterity.  But  it  does 
not  stop  there.  It  goes  further,  as  if  vigilant  lest  it  be 
misconstrued,  or  misunderstood, — as  if  fearful  that  the 
principle  would  not  be  sufficiently  explicit  or  rightly 
comprehended.  In  the  third  section  of  the  article,  it  is 
declared  that  governments  are  and  ought  to  be  insti- 
tuted for  the  common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of 
the  people,  nation  or  community,  and  for  the  exercise 
of  all  those  influences  which  are  calculated  to  produce 
the  greatest  happiness  and  security  of  the  people  for 
whom  it  is  instituted  :  "  That  government  is,  or  ought 
to  be,  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  protection,  and 
security  of  the  people,  nation  or  community  :  of  all  the 
various  modes  and  forms  of  government,  that  is  best, 
which  is  capable  of  producing  the  greatest  degree  of  hap- 
piness and  safety,  and  is  most  effectually  secured  against 
the  danger  of  mal-administration  ;  and  that,  when  any 
government  shall  be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to 
these  purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  in- 
dubitable, unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform, 
alter  or  abolish  it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most 
conducive  to  the  public  weal." 

And  that  they  should  guard  most  effectually  against 
any  mal-administration  in  carrying  out  its  purposes. 
What  purposes  ?    The  security  of  life  and  liber uy  %  Are 
these  the  only  purposes  of  government  ? — the  only  in- 
terests it  was  framed  to  protect  \    Certainly  not.  One 
of  its  purposes  is  the  protection  of  the  community — of 
a  majority  of  the  community,  (not  a  majority  of  the  in- 
habitants composing  it) — but  of  a  majority  of  a  political 
community,  in  the  right  to  acquire  and  possess  property. 
The  word  community,  as  used  in  the  first  section  of  this 
bill  of  rights,  is  used  in  an  apposite  sense,  with  the  words 
nation  and  people,  as  they  are  generally  understood. 
Who  are  the  people,  by  which  this  community  is  con- 
stituted ?    A  political  people ;  and  that  is  the  commu- 
nity of  which  this  bill  speaks  ;  and  consequently  1  will 
prove — if  my  strength  does  not  fail  me  before  I  yield 
the  floor — that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  stultifies  itself,  and  in  effect 
gives  up  the  whole  question — and  that  when  a  majority 
is  spoken  of  as  having  the  power  to  influence  the  action 
of  government,  it  is  a  majority  of  a  political  com- 
munity and  not  of  the  whole  people,  which  possesses 
an  indubitable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  re- 
form, alter  or  abolish,  any  laws  affecting  the  public 
weal.    Let  us  look  lurther  into  the  terms  of  this  instru- 
ment.   Still  wary  of  the  great  interests  about  to  be  com- 
mitted into  the  hands  of  government,  it  proceeds  to  spe- 
cify who  are  to  have  the  control  of  these  interests.  The 
sixth  section  provides  that  all  men  who  have  a  permanent 
common  interest  in,  and  an  attachment  to,  the  community, 
shall  have  the  right  of  suffrage,  &c.    Not,  a  mere  perma- 
nent interest,  but  a  common  interest,  in  the  community. 
But  it  does  not  stop  even  here.  It  goes  further  still.  The 
eleventh  section  of  this  bill  of  rights  makes  particular  re- 
ference to  the  protection  of  the  interests  of  property,  for  it 
says  that  in  any  controversy  respecting  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty, or  affecting  the  interests  existing  between  man  and 
man,  the  ancient  system  of  trial  by  jury  is  preferable  to 
any  other  mode  of  settlement,  and  should  therefore  be 
held  sacred.    Here,  then,  we  find  pervading  this  entire 
instrument,  the  one  idea — the  fixed,  unchangeable  prin- 
ciple, that  social  government  is  not,  as  in  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  instituted  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  persons  and  personal  interests, 
but  for  other  important  purposes.    If  the  protection  of 
life  and  personal  liberty  were  the  only  objects  of  gov- 
ernment, then  those  two  interests  should  have  the  en- 
tire control  of  government.    No  other  interest  should 
influence  the  action  of  government,  if  this  principle  is 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


323 


correct  and  carried  out ;  but  as  soon  as  you  assume  this 
position,  you  abandon  the  only  just  basis  upon  -which  all 
government  should  be  founded. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY,  (in  his  seat.)    No,  sir  ;  we  do  not. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  The  gentleman  from  Augusta  says 
no.  "Property,"  says  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  must  "have  adequate,  ample,  conservative  and 
radical  protection.  Now,  how  are  we  to  arrive  at  this 
result  ?  "  Oh,"  says  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  (Mr. 
Brown,)  ' '  we  are  not  contending  for  power  without  prin- 
ciple ;  we  are  in  favor  of  regulating  the  action  of  indi- 
viduals and  of  the  community  by  giving  the  majority 
the  right  to  rule,  but  you  do  not  want  paper  guarantees ; 
you  say  paper  guarantees  will  not  afford  you  gentlemen 
of  the  "east  adequate  protection.  I'll  tell  you  what  we 
will  give  you,  for  mind  you,  we  are  not  contending  for 
power  without  principle  ;  we  will  yield  the  principle 
that  the  majority  shall  govern,  and  engraft  a  provision 
in  the  constitution  which  shall  authorize  the  majority  to 
give  power  into  the  hands  of  a  small  minority  by  the 
two-thirds  rule,  whereby  they  may  be  authorized  to  say 
when  the  governmeut  shall  be  changed."  Now,  this  is 
power  with  principle,  with  a  vengeance  ;  this  is  a  major- 
ity principle  of  a  most  uncommon  species.  We  do  not 
choose  to  abandon  our  position  by  reason  of  such  soph- 
istry. 

I  will  notice  in  this  connection  another  remark  of  the 
gentleman  from  Preston.  He  says  that  we  have  scouted 
the  idea  of  paper  guarantees,  and  have  said  that  we  had 
no  security  that  would  last ;  that  western  Virginia  might 
call  a  convention  at  any  time  and  remove  these  guaran- 
tees from  the  constitution ;  and  the  gentleman,  in  a  tri- 
umphant tone,  as  if  he  had  settled  the  question,  proceeds 
to  ask  what  we  have  now  but  paper  guarantees.  I'll 
tell  you  what  we  have.  We  have  the  guarantees  con- 
tained in  the  bill  of  rights,  in  the  present  constitution, 
and  we  have  the  power,  by  a  majority  of  representation, 
to  maintain  them.  We  have  the  legislative  power  of 
government  given  to  us,  and  if  gentlemen  of  the  west 
will  give  us  these  guarantees  and  permit  us  to  retain  this 
power,  we  will  settle  the  question  at  once  ;  for,  however 
gentlemen  may  disguise  the  issue,  intentionally  or  un- 
intentionally, the  fact  is,  the  struggle  here,  on  the  part 
of  the  west,  is  for  power — naked  power.  The  whole 
tenor  of  debate  thus  far  has  proved  that  when  they  come 
to  talk  about  principle,  if  that  principle  leads  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  power,  it  is  good  ;  but  if  power  does  not  ac- 
company the  principle,  it  is  a  bad  one,  and  must  be  dis- 
carded and  abandoned.  And  for  what  purpose  do  they 
assume  the  position  they  occupy  ?  In  order  that  they 
may  obtain  the  power  which  will  enable  them  in  the 
future  to  destroy  this  very  principle. 

It  does  seem  to  me  a  little  strange*  that  gentlemen 
should  deny  that  contributions  given  to  the  support  of 
government  are  nothing  more  than  the  fulfilment  of  a 
duty  imposed  upon  the  people,  and  that  where  you  find 
one  interest  which  contributes  more  than  all  other  inter- 
ests to  the  support  and  maintenance  of  government, 
they  allege  that  no  influence  should  be  accorded  to 
that  interest  on  account  of  such  contribution ;  that  no 
power  should  be  given  it  because  of  its  faithful  discharge 
of  so  important  a  duty,  a  duty  which  we  as  subjects  (say 
they)  owe  to  the  government,  and  not  as  free  citizens 
voluntarily  give  it.  It  is  said  that,  when  we  have  dis- 
charged that  duty,  there  the  matter  ends,  and  that 
no  influencs  or  power  should  be  granted  to  the  particu- 
par  interest  which  contributed  most  largely  to  the  sup- 
sort  of  government.  Sir,  I  have  not  been  taught  in  that 
school  of  political  ethics.  The  gentleman  from  Augus- 
ta, in  speaking  upon  this  topic,  referred  to  a  higher  law 
principle,  and  said  that  when  we  had  discharged  our 
whole  duty  on  earth  even  to  our  Maker,  and  went  knock- 
ing at  the  gate  of  Heaven  for  admission,  we  could  not 
claim  entrance  on  the  score  of  discharged  duty.  Now, 
I  am  aware  that  we  must  attribute  all  the  glory  to  the 
Almighty ;  but  I  know  also  that  one  of  His  inspired 
writers  has  told  us,  that  if  we  appear  before  Him,  hav- 


ing discharged  our  duty,  He  will  say  unto  us — "  WelL 
done  thou  good  and  faithful  servant,"  and  give  us  our 
reward.  Here,  however,  it  is  said,  when  contributing  so 
largely  from  our  particular  interest  in  eastern  Virginia, 
that  we  ought  to  pay,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a  discharge 
of  obligation.  Gentlemen  from  the  west  tell  us  we  must 
pay  as  long  as  we  are  able,  and  yet  receive  no  reward  in 
the  way  of  power  for  that  discharge  of  duty  ;  and  doubt- 
less when  they  get  the  power  they  will  say  to  us  we 
mean  to  tax  you  as  long  as  you  will  bear  it.  I  shall  not 
say  any  thing  discourteous/  I  do  not  desire  to  deal  in 
harsh  epithets,  and  if  they  have  escaped  me,  certainly  I 
have  not  so  intended  ;  but  I  was  simply  about  to  remark 
that  they  will  tax  us  and  we  will  pay  until  the  burden 
becomes  too  intolerable  to  be  borne;  that  is  the  plain 
truth  of  the  matter.  The  eastern  part  of  Virginia  will 
thus  be  injuriously  controlled  and  oppressed  by  this 
transfer  of  power.  Now,  the  bill  of  rights  declares  that 
to  give  safety  is  one  of  the  great  objects  of  government, 
and  in  truth  it  is  its  primary  object.  But  we  are  met  by 
gentlemen  who  tell  us  that  this  safety  refers  to  the  se- 
curity of  people  in  their  lives  and  personal  liberty.  Is 
this  correct  ?  Is  this  the  true  meaning  of  this  instrument  ? 
Do  gentlemen  really  believe  that  it  has  not  a  more  com- 
prehensive signification  ?  Does  it  not  include  with  life 
and  personal  liberty,  property,  with  all  its  incidents  and 
enjoyments?  How  are  you  to  possess  happiness  and 
safety  without  property  ?  How  are  you  to  acquire  hap- 
piness and  safety  without  the  means  which  property  af- 
fords ? 

Digressing  for  a  moment,  allow  me  to  turn  your  at- 
tention to  this  higher  lawprinciple  for  which  gentlemen 
contend.  Grant  that  we  are  reduced  to  the  original  ele- 
ments of  society — that  nature  and  natural  laws  are  to 
prevail  in  the  construction  of  the  social  compact,  and 
gentlemen  will  find  that  the  highest  authority  to  which 
they  can  appeal,  is  in  favor  of  the  principle  which  we 
of  the  east  advocate — protection  to  property.  They  will 
find  that  property  is  not  the  creature  of  government.  It 
is  not  a  thing  which  government  makes ;  it  is  a  thing 
which  government  distributes,  protects  and  regulates. 
It  will  be  found  that  the  Creator  of  all  that  is  valuable 
— of  life  and  liberty,  and  every  earthly  enjoyment — 
when  about  to  finish  hi3  great  work  of  creation,  said 
unto  our  first  parent,  "  I  give  you  dominion  over  the 
fowls  of  the  air,  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  every  living 
thing  that  creepeth  on  the  face  of  the  earth."  Here  then 
we  see  that  property  was  a  special  gift,  not  a  gift  of  na- 
ture— but  a  gift  from  a  higher  source — from  nature's 
God.  Revert  then,  gentlemen,  to  your  own  principles. 
Go  back  to  the  very  origin  of  things — to  the  original 
elements  of  society — and  you  will  find  there,  that  man, 
when  first  created,  possessed  and  sought  to  acquire  prop- 
erty. The  very  first  gift  to  man,  after  life,  and  before 
liberty,  was  the  control  and  enjoyment  of  property. 
Life  and  liberty  are  the  gifts  of  God,  but  property  is 
one  of  the  creations  of  man,  says  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  although  originally  its  possession  and  enjoyment 
came  from  the  hands  of  God.  If  I  chose  so  to  do,  I  might 
argue  at  length,  to  show  that  life  and  liberty  are  not  worth 
having,  unless  combined  with  the  right  to  acquire,  pos- 
sess and  enjoy  property  ;  and  I  might  show,  that  from 
the  time  this  world  was  brought  into  existence,  that  it 
has  primarily  been  considered  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  government,  and  that,  in  point  of  fact,  government 
could  not  exist  without  it.  I  shall  not,  however,  pursue 
that  train  of  argument  any  further. 

I  have  not  heard  that  it  was  considered  presump- 
tuous on  the  part  of  my  friend  from  Westmoreland, 
(Mr.  Beale,)  and  I  trust  it  will  not  be  so  considered 
with  regard  to  myself,  to  express  a  partial  dissatis- 
faction with  reference  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  for  I  think  that  property 
should  not  only  be  entitled  to  the  protection  of  govern- 
ment, but  should  influence  representation,  and,  if  it  be 
necessary  to  its  protection,  should  be  entitled  to  con- 
trol, absolutely  control  all  other  interests.  Odious  as  this 


324 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


thought  may  appear  to  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, I  understood  him  aud  the  gentleman  from  Lou- 
doun (Mr.  Janney)  to  repeat,  iu  substance,  the  same 
sentiment,  that  this  might  be  absolutely  necessary, 
in  order  to  the  full  protection  of  property.  Abhorrent 
as  the  doctrine  may  be  to  gentlemen,  I  declare  it  as 
my  solemn  and  deliberate  conviction,  that  not  only  that 
interest,  but  every  other  interest — life,  personal  liber- 
ty— all  that  may  be  imagined,  or  of  which  we  can 
speak,  demands  that  if  the  entire  representation  and 
power  of  government  is  necessary  to  protect  the  inter- 
ests of  property,  it  is  entitled  to  it.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  any  other  interest.  I  am  in  the  habit  of  speak- 
ing plainly.  I  never  learned  the  art  of  concealing  ideas 
by  language.  I  learned  language  to  express  ideas  ;  and 
if  I  entertain  an  opinion,  there  is  not  that  power  upon 
earth,  I  care  not  from  what  source  it  may  emanate,  that 
could  prevent  me,  underprudent  circumstances,  from  ex- 
pressing it.  Now,  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  necessary  or 
proper  to  give  property  the  entire  representation  of  the 
State  of  Virginia,  in  order  to  ensure  its  protection  ;  and 
here  I  would  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta  "why  do  you  not  commence  at  the  foun- 
tain instead  of  down  stream  ?  "  I  answer,  because  it  is 
not  necessary  as  regards  our  particular  interest  ;  we 
can  take  the  stream  after  it  has  flowed  from  the  foun- 
tain ;  if  it  were  necessary  to  trace  it  to  its  first  gush  from 
the  earth,  we  might  go  even  back  to  its  origin  and  there 
settle  the  principle.  I  would  repeat  again,  that  unless 
we  can  ensure  its  full,  ample,  adequate,  providential, 
conservative  and  radical  protection  (to  use  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accomac)  by  beginning  lower 
down  the  stream,  we  ought  to  begin  at  the  fountain. 

The  gentleman  from  Greenbrier  (Mr.  Smith)  made  a 
very  unfortunate  reference  to  a  period  in  the  history  of 
this  confederation  of  States,  in  support  of  the  principle 
of  the  white  basis.  I  allude  to  the  period  when  the 
struggle  between  this  country  and  the  mother  country 
took  place.  If  I  have  read  the  history  of  that  struggle 
with  any  sort  of  profit  to  myself,  it  grew  out  of  this  very 
principle  of  protection — protection  against  enormous  and 
oppressive  taxation,  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  taxes 
were  imposed  by  those  who  did  not  represent  them,  upon 
those  who  did  not  consent.  The  duty  upon  tea  and 
stamps  was  but  a  mere  trifle.  Our  pilgrim  fathers  did  not 
stake  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honors 
upon  the  mere  payment  of  so  trifling  a  tax, but  entered 
into  the  revolutionary  struggle  because  their  interests 
and  their  property  did  not  receive  the  requisite  and 
necessary  protection  at  the  hands  of  the  British  govern- 
ment. This  was  the  cause  that  gave  rise  to  the  struggle 
between  the  United  colonies  and  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  and  which  resulted  in  the  freedom  of  America. 
I  regretted  very  much  that  the  gentleman  from  Green- 
brier should  have  repeated  what  has  been  so  often  and 
incessantly  repeated  in  the  ears  of  eastern  Virginia,  in 
regard  to  the  patriotism  and  gallantry  which,  upon  one 
single  occasion,  western  Virginia  manifested  in  defence 
of  eastern  rights.  Are  we  never  to  hear  the  last  of  this  ? 
Do  western  gentlemen  remember  that  eastern  blood  has 
flowed,  in  Indian  warfare,  from  the  veins  of  eastern  men. 
for  their  protection  ?  Do  they  remember  that,  at  the 
very  time  to  which  we  allude,  when  their  soldiers  were 
encamped  at  Norfolk,  and  were  suffering  from  the  in- 
clemencies of  the  season,  that  the  aid  they  received 
came  from  eastern  men  ?  Is  this  the  extent  of  west- 
ern patriotism  ?  Was  that  patriotism  exhausted  in  one 
single  struggle  ?  I  love  and  admire  western  Virginia 
and  her  people,  and  I  do  not  believe  they  designed 
to  so  restrict  their  patriotism.  They  did  not  act 
there  merely  in  defence  of  Norfolk  and  its  contiguous 
territory,  but  they  were  linked,  in  one  common  destiny, 
with  eastern  Virginia,  and  had  that  struggle  resulted  in 
our  defeat,  western  Virginia  would  have  fallen  with  us. 

But,  to  return  to  the  issue  ;  absolute,  individual,  politi- 
cal equality,  in  a  political  community,  is  a  perfect  absurd- 
ity. You  cannot  effect  equality  ;  inequality  must  exist ;  it 
always  has  existed  and  always  will  exist.  It  exists 
in  every  community — in  every  nation  in  the  world. 


You  have  in  society  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  weak  and 
the  powerful,  and  these  different  grades,  of  necessity, 
must  continue  to  be.  1  am  sure  that  no  gentleman  on 
this  floor  would  advocate  a  system  that  would  destroy 
this  inequality.  I  am  sure  the  time  has  not  arrived 
when,  in  Virginia,  infinitely  radical  as  some  of  her 
sons  maybe,  agrarianism,  socialism,  aud  Fourierism  are 
to  prevail.  There  is  a  mutual  dependence  of  one  class 
in  society  upon  the  other.  The  poor  man  contributes, 
by  daily  toil  and  hard  labor,  to  the  comforts  of  the  rich, 
and  the  rich  man,  of  his  substance,  remunerates  that  poor 
man  for  his  labor.  This  political  and  social  inequality  is 
a  matter  of  necessity.  You  cannot  organize  a  good  gov- 
ernment without  this  inequality  existing.  You  must  have 
this  inequality  as  well  political,  natural  and  social. 

For  what  purpose,  I  would  inquire,  does  western 
Virginia  desire  the  supremacy  of  power  in  our  State 
government?  I  think  I  have  shown  (and the  gentleman 
from  Preston  admitted)  that  they  did  not  want  it  merely 
because  it  was  principle  for  which  they  contended. 
He  admitted  that  he  did  not  want  power  without 
principle  ;  and  that  that  principle  consisted  in  giving 
the  eastern  part  of  Virginia  a  paper  guarantee  that  no 
change  should  be  made  in  the  Constitution  so  as  to  af- 
fect its  interests,  without  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  BROWN.  My  position  was,  that  the  power  of 
government  should  be  exerted  in  giving  to  the  east  full 
and  sufficient  protection  to  its  rights  of  property.  Of 
course  such  an  obligation  should  be  sacred  and  binding. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  The  gentleman's  explanation  does 
not  affect  the  issue  at  all.  I  understand  him  not  to  ask 
for  power  without  principle.  And  he  further  said ,  that 
we  were  unwilling  to  accept  paper  guarantees,  because 
we  said  they  could  be  erased  from  the  constitution  at 
will ;  but  this  defect,  if  it  was  a  defect,  he  said  could 
be  remedied  by  incorporating  into  the  constitution  a  pro- 
vision which  would  prevent  the  calling  of  another  Con- 
vention, unless  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members  of  the  legislature.  It  is  not  then  for  the 
preservation  of  principle  that  the  gentleman  from  Pres- 
ton wants  the  power,  for  he  is  willing  to  yield  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  majority  should  rule,  because  political  in- 
equality must  exist,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  pow- 
er. What  does  he  want  with  this  power  then?  Unless 
it  is  wanted  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  us  by  taxa- 
tion and  plundering  us  at  pleasure,  this  desire  for  pow- 
er must  surely  originate  in  a  mere  lust  for  its  exercise. 
Whenever  power  has  been  exercised  from  a  mere  love 
of  it,  all  historical  experience  proves  that  it  has  been 
abused.  I  do  not  charge  western  gentlemen  with  having 
any  such  object  in  view,  but  I  do  say  it  is  hard  for  men 
to  know  themselves.  I  do  not  charge  it  upon  you  that 
you  are  seeking  to  wrest  this  power  from  us,  in  order 
to  oppress  us,  but  I  tell  you  plainly  gentlemen,  that  you 
do  not  understand  yourselves.  You  have  not  examined 
your  own  feelings  as  you  should.  You  do  notknow  what 
position  you  may  occupy.  If  you  desire  to  attain  pow- 
er, of  course  you  must  have  some  object  in  view  by  its 
attainment  ;and  that  object  in  too  many  instances,  leads 
to  abuse  in  the  exercise  of  that  power.  I  tell  you  gen- 
tlemen we  had  rather  remove  temptation  from  you  by 
not  entrusting  this  power  in  your  hands.  We  do  not 
wish  to  give  you  even  the  opportunity  of  abusing  the 
exercise  of  power. 

Mr.  GOODE.  Inasmuch  as  there  has  been  between 
two  and  three  hours  speaking,  and  as  the  gentleman  who 
has  occupied  the  floor  for  the  last  hour  appears  obvious- 
ly to  be  greatly  fatigued,  I  move  that  the  committee  do 
now  rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

The  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  11  o'clock. 

MONDAY,  February  24,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Joiner  of  the  Methodist 
church. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


325 


PROJECT  OF   A  CONSTITUTION. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  have  received  a  communication, 
having  endorsed  upon  it  "  Reform  Constitution  Sugges- 
tions. "  It  comes  from  a  gentleman  who  is  a  foreigner 
by  birth,  and  who  has  been  a  citizen  of  three  distinct  re- 
publics. He  is  a  respectable  and  intelligent  gentleman, 
and  was  the  friend  of  the  late  Albert  Gallatin,  and  asso- 
ciated in  business  with  him.  It  is  couched  in  respectful 
terms,  and  may  contain  some  useful  suggestions.  It  is 
written,  however,  in  very  bad  English,  and  mav  give 
the  Secretary  some  trouble  in  reading  it.  I  move,  there- 
fore, that  it  be  laid  on  the  table,  and  printed. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  dislike  exceedingly  to  oppose 
the  printing  of  anything  offered  by  any  gentleman,  but 
it  does  seem  to  me  that  we  should  be  setting  a  very  bad 
precedent,  at  least,  for  the  printing  of  every  suggestion 
any  individual  gentleman  may  choose  to  send  in  here. 
It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  I  oppose  the  printing, 
but  really  I  should  think  a  paper  must  be  entitled  to 
very  great  weight  to  warrant  the  printing  of  any  sketch 
or  constitutional  suggestions  which  any  gentleman  may 
choose  to  send  in  here.  I  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  it. 
This  printing  bill  has  already  run  up  most  enormously, 
and  I  earnestly  suggest  to  the  gentleman  to  with- 
draw his  motion  to  print.  It  will  cost  less  to  read  it 
than  to  print  it.    Let  us  have  it  read. 

The  Secretary  commenced  reading  it. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  withdraw  my  motion  to  read. 
I  have  heard  enough. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  do  not  understand  what  the  pa- 
per is.  [Laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a  paper  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Harrison,  who  explained  it  as  containing 
constitutional  suggestions,  from  a  respectable  and  intel- 
teligent  gentleman. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  As  there  seems  to  be  a  disposition 
manifested  by  some  to  object  to  printing  it,  I  am  not 
tenacious  about  it.  It  will  come  out  in  seme  shape,  and 
thf*  gentleman  may  have  the  advantage  of  it,  without 
ordering  the  printing.  I  will  withdraw  the  motion  to 
print. 

ALLOWANCE  OF  AN  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  CHILTON.  I  have  an  account  in  favor  of  Ritchie 
&  Dunnavant,  an  account  amounting  to  $ 63.57,  for  print- 
ing done  for  the  Convention  before  the  appointment  of 
a  printer.  I  am  informed  by  the  Secretary  that  it  is  all 
correct.    I  offer  this  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  certify  for  payment  an 
account  of  Ritchie  &  Dunnavant,  for  $63.57,  for  print- 
ing done  for  the  Convention,  before  the  appointment  of 
a  printer. 

Mr.  TREDWAY.  I  would  inquire  if  there  is  a 
standing  committee,  to  whom  all  accounts  are  referred, 
and  I  suggest  to  the  gentleman,  whether  it  would  not 
be  better  to  refer  this  account  to  that  committee  ? 

Mr.  CHILTON.  The  Secretary  had  the  work  done, 
and  certifies  to  its  correctness.  I  think  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  refer  it  to  the  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  the  more  regular  course 
t  o  refer  it. 

Mr.  CHILTON,  I  would  ask  a  vote  upon  my  resolu- 
tion. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

SUBSTITUTE  FOR  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  It  will  be  recollected  that  upon 
the  coming  in  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Educa- 
cation,  that  I  presented  a  paper,  which  I  intended  to  of- 
fer at  a  proper  time,  as  a  substitute  to  that  report,  and 
asked  that  it  might  be  printed.  I  ask  now  that  it  may 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

It  was  agreed  to. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &c. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  PENDLETON,  the  committee  re- 


sumed the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
(Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair)  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Basis  and  Apportionment  of  Representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 
Mr.  PURK1NS  being  entitled  to  the  floor- 
Mr.  BROWN.  Will  my  friend  from  Halifax  permit 
me  to  make  a  remark  in  explanation  ? 
Mr.  PURKINS.  Certainly  sir. 
Mr.  BROWN.  On  Friday  last  the  gentleman  put 
some  interrogatories  to  me,  which,  in  the  confusion  of 
the  moment,  I  did  not  apprehend,  and  my  answer  was 
not  to  the  point.  I  desire  this  morning  to  answer  the 
gentleman,  that  he  may,  before  he  proceeds,  have  the 
advantage  of  making  any  commentary  upon  them  that 
he  may  desire.  In  my  reply  to  the  rematksof  the  gen- 
tleman from  Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  that  consti- 
tutional guarantees  were  worth  nothing,  I  endeavored  to 
show  that  all  our  rights,  of  persons  and  of  property, 
were  now  secured,  resting  alone  upon  guarantees  of  that 
kind.  And  in  answer  to  the  objection  which  that  gen- 
tleman raised,  that  although  guarantees  might  now  be 
given  in  good  faith,  and  observed  by  those  giving  thern, 
yet  another  race  of  people,  another  generation  might 
call  a  convention  and  repeal  them.  I  observed  that 
that  was  a  very  far-fetched  idea,  but  that  even  it  proba- 
bly might  be  guarded  against,  to  some  extent.  I  said, 
that  while  the  right  in  the  majority  of  the  community 
to  alter  or  abolish  their  fundamental  laws  was  ii  dubi- 
table,  unalienable  and  indefeasible,  yet  it  is  competent 
for  this  Convention  to  lay  restraints  upon  the  legisla- 
ture, in  passing  laws  facilitating  such  call,  or  inviting 
such  calls.  While  we  could  not  take  from  the  majori- 
ty of  the  community  their  unalienable,  indefeasible 
rights,  we  could  lay  prohibitions  upon  the  legislature  to 
pass  laws  inviting  a  call  for  the  purpose  of  changing  the 
fundamental  law. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  When  the  committee  rose  upon 
Friday  last,  I  was  addressing  myself  to  the  particular 
point  upon  which  my  friend  from  Preston  (Mr.  Brown) 
now  tenders  an  explanation,  and  in  all  candor  I  must 
say  to  that  gentleman,  that  his  explanation,  in  my  hum- 
ble opinion,  does  not  place  him  in  any  better  position 
than  he  occupied  when  he  first  stated  his  proposition. 
The  point  which  I  was  endeavoring  to  impress  upon  the 
mind  of  the  committee  was  this  :  that  the  west  came 
upon  this  floor,  insisting  that  a  majority  of  the  people 
had  a  right  to  govern,  and  that  the  east  should  sub- 
scribe to  this  proposition.  But  the  question  arises  just 
here  who  are  the  people  ?  I  insisted  that  they  formed 
a  political  community,  created  by,  constitutional  pro- 
vision and  governmental  arrangement,  and  that  the  ma- 
jority of  that  political  community  was  of  right  to  be  re- 
garded the  majority  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
State,  and  that  in  that  majority  the  political  power 
should  be  vested,  and  that  a  tender  of  guarantees  on  the 
part  of  the  west,  in  whatever  form  they  might  be  pre- 
sented, were  designed  to  transfer  political  power  from 
a  majority  to  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  commu- 
nity, if  it  is  to  be  effectual,  and  if  they  choose  to  regard 
that  community  as  consisting  of  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  State,  it  was  a  total  abandonment  of  the  principle 
upon  which  they  had  declared  they  designed  fixing  their 
basis  of  representation.  The  gentleman  from  Preston 
is  not  alone  in  this  tender  of  guarantees.  Distinguished 
gentlemen  in  this  body,  advocating  the  same  principle 
he  contends  for,  have,  upon  more  than  one  occasion  in 
discussions  that  have  taken  place  heretofore,  here  and 
elsewhere,  proffered  such  guarantees  and  limitations  of 
legislative  power  as  would  secure  and  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  secure  in  all  governmental  institutions, 
the  protection  to  property.  If  they  admit  that  proper- 
ty requires  protection  from  government,  and  they  gen- 
erally do  admit  this  fact,  for  the  gentleman  from  Au- 
gusta, as  well  as  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  more 
than  once  have  admitted  the  principle  that  property  is 
entitled  to  protection — I  wish  to  inquire  of  them  what 
those  means  of  protection  are,  and  what  are  those  guar- 
antees of  which  they  speak  ?    Unless  they  can  show 


326 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


that  they  can  tender  us  such  protection  as  will  be  ade- 
quate to,  and  fully  commensurate  with,  the  attainment 
of  the  end  we  have  in  view,  and  that  these  guarantees 
are  not  the  only  means,  it  is  clear  that  these  guarantees 
which  are  tendered  us  by  the  gentleman  from  Preston 
and  others,  being  the  only  security  they  can  give  us  for 
the  protection  of  our  property,  every  gentleman  on  this 
floor  who  advocates  the  white  basis,  must  come  up  and 
back  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  in  the  tender  of  those 
guarantees,  and  in  support  of  his  proposition  to  require 
a  vote  of  two-thirds  to  change  the  government. 

I  desire,  before  proceeding  further  upon  this  point, 
to  say,  that,  upon  reflecting  on  what  I  said  to  the 
committee  on  Friday  last,  it  has  occurred  to  me,  that, 
probably  in  the  heat  of  discussion,  1  may  have  uttered 
some  expression  that  has  sounded  harshly  in  the  ears  of 
my  western  brethren  ;  if  so,  I  entirely  disclaim  any  de- 
sign of  saying  anything  offensive.  I  do  not  mean  to  call 
you  plunderers,  but  I  mean  simply  this  :  that,  in  fram- 
ing a  government  and  in  creating  institutions  under 
which  we  are  to  live — (and  I  would  here  remark  that 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta  admits  that  security  must 
be  given  against  the  abuse  of  power) — it  is  a  cor- 
rect principle,  and  wise  counsels  will  suggest  that  we 
should  have  an  eye  to  the  security  of  the  government 
against  all  abuse  of  power,  and  I  shall  show  that,  unless 
we  do  adopt  some  such  principle,  there  must  be 
an  abuse  of  power,  of  a  kind  that  will  practically  tend 
to  plunder  us  of  our  rights.  This  is  what  I  mean  when 
I  use  the  word  plunder,  and  I  design,  without  meaning 
any  offence,  throughout  this  discussion,  to  continue  to 
call  things  by  their  right  names,  and  deal  with  them  as 
I  think  proper. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Preston  went  further  than 
merely  to  tender  to  his  eastern  brethren  guarantees  in 
the  constitution.  He  says  that  the  west  must  also  have 
guarantees  for  the  protection  of  their  property  as  well  as 
ourselves.  Now,  if  they  distrust  their  own  exercise  of 
power,  I  hope  they  will  not  complain  that  we  do  not  fee] 
fully  satisfied  to  place  ourselves  under  their  power.  If 
you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  guarantees  in  the  present 
constitution  you  must  not  fall  out  with  us  who  are,  for 
not  being  dissatisfied  with  them.  But  we  will  not  take 
those  guarantees  alone,  and  we  trust  we  may  be  permit- 
ted the  privilege  of  suggesting  to  you  such  guarantees 
as  will  secure  us  against  any  abuse  of  the  power  you 
desire  to  have.  Your  proposition  now  is,  to  base  the 
representation  of  the  State  upon  all  the  qualified  electors 
or  inhabitants  of  the  State.  Let  us  look  upon  this  pro- 
position, and  consider  it  practically.  In  the  first  place, 
I  would  ask,  how  will  you  be  able  to  apportion  represen- 
tation upon  the  qualified  electors  of  the  State?  It  may 
be  by  this  plan  approximated  to,  but  it  cannot,  without 
difficulty,  be  ascertained  accurately.  Take  the  popular 
vote  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this  commonwealth  in 
1848 — the  vote  at  a  county  election  would  not  be  a  fair 
criterion,  because  it  is  often  the  case  that  there  are  no 
opposition  candidates  in  the  field,  and  reasons  operate 
to  keep  the  voters  from  the  polls,  besides  the  number 
of  double  votes  given — the  Presidential  election,  how- 
ever, affords  a  good  guide,  as  to  the  number  of  qualified 
voters,  at  the  election  in  1848,  91,710  votes  were  east 
in  this  State.  This  was  the  united  vote  for  Taylor  and 
Cass.  The  entire  white  population  of  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia numbered  899,134.  I  would  here  state  that  the 
increase  of  votes  under  the  constitution  we  are  about 
to  adopt — if  we  extend  the  right  of  suffrage — will,  ma- 
king a  liberal  estimate,  amount  to  about  60,000 — an  over- 
estimate rather  than  an  under  one.  If  the  proposed 
extension  of  suffrage,  then,  had  been  made  in  1848,  the 
entire  popular  vote  would  have  amounted  to  151,710. 
Deduct  that  vote  from  the  entire  number  of  the  white 
population,  and  you  have  remaining  747,424.  Now,  by 
your  principle  laid  down  in  proposition  B,  representa- 
tion mu?t  be  based  upon  the  white  population.  The 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  whom  I  sorry  to  see  is  not 
now  in  his  seat,,  denounced  proposition  A  with  great 
force,  declaring  that  it  disfranchised  200,000  of  the  free 
people  of  Virginia,  at  the  same  time  forgetting  that 


proposition  B,  which  he  advocated  with  so  much  zeal, 
disfranchised  nearly  800,000  of  the  white  population  of 
the  State.  Here  then,  is  another  total  abandonment  of 
your  principles. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  instances  in  which  you 
abandon  your  principles.  Your  proposition,  as  it  af- 
fects representation,  does  not  base  it,  in  regard  to  the 
legislature,  upon  the  qualified  electors  of  the  State  nu- 
merically considered.  Else  why  restrict  it  to  county 
limits  ?  If  your  intention  is  to  carry  your  principle  prac- 
tically into  operation,  why  do  you  not  take  the  whole 
qualified  electors  in  the  State  and  divide  it  by  the  number 
of  representatives  of  which  you  propose  to  compose  the 
legislative  department  of  government,  and  thus,  without 
regard  to  county  boundaries,  give  representatives  to  all 
the  qualified  electors  of  the  State? 

A  MEMBER,  (in  his  seat.)  That  would  be  the  true 
way. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  That  would  be  the  true  way,  if  you 
do  not  design  abandoning  principle  for  power,  in  this  in- 
stance. And,  in  view  of  this  abandonment  when  there 
is  no  necessity  for  it,  can  you  blame  us  for  insisting  upon 
the  adoption  of  a  principle  which  will  work  good  results  ? 
This  is  the  dilemma  into  which  this  abandonment  of  their 
principle  will  throw  them,  and  arguments,  though 
strong  and  powerful,  and  appeals,  though  warm 
and  generous,  cannot  extricate  them  from  it.  It  is, 
that  when  they  thus  attempt  to  evade  the  necessa- 
ry result  of  the  position  they  have  assumed,  they 
will  carry  the  fraction  of  excess  in  voters  from  one  coun- 
try to  another,  and  thus  increase  the  representation  of 
the  smaller  counties,  while  the  larger  counties  will  be 
curtailed  of  their  just  proportion  of  representation. 
Here,  then,  are  several  instances  of  the  utter  abandon- 
ment, on  the  part  of  western  Virginia,  of  their  own  sa- 
cred and  revered  principles,  for  which  they  have  clam- 
ored so  loudly,  from  the  year  1815  up  to  the  present 
time.  Can  the  west — ought  it — to  take  any  exception, 
if  I  tell  them  that  this  is  a  struggle  upon  one  side  for 
power — naked  power — while  upon  the  other  it  is  a  con- 
test for  self-preservation,  a  contest  in  which  we  desire 
to  show  that,  in  order  to  self-preservation,  we  must  have 
power.  Sir.  the  principle  for  which  they  contend  can- 
not be  carried  out ;  it  is  practically  impossible  for  every 
man,  in  a  political  community,  to  have  equal  political 
power .  There  never  has  been  a  government  established 
upon  the  face  of  the  globe,  nor  can  there  be  one  estab- 
lished— I  care  not  what  its  form  may  be — where  equal 
political  power  can  be  vested  in  every  political  individ- 
ual, and  practically  carried  out.  This  has  never  been 
the  case  in  Virginia,  or  in  any  other  State  in  this  con- 
federation. It  has  been  the  result  heretofore,  mainly  of 
party  conflict,  where  the  successful  party — the  one  hav- 
ing the  majority — has  had  in  its  possession  all  political 
power,  from  the  exercise  of  which  the  minority  has  been 
excluded.  Take,  for  instance,  this  State.  Unfortunate- 
ly, it  may  be,  since  I  have  had  my  residence  in  the 
county  which  I  in  part  represent  on  this  floor,  I  have 
belonged  to  a  party  which  has  been  in  the  minority — 
always  deprived  of  political  power  in  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation ;  that  has  had  no  equality  whatever  with  the  ma- 
jority power  ;  while  my  friend  (Mr.  Edmunds)  from 
the  same  county,  has,  owing  to  his  being  connected  with 
the  majority  party,  been  in  the  exercise  of  power  all  the 
time.  And  you  cannot  produce  such  a  state  of  things, 
do  wrhat  you  may,  as  will  give  to  each  voter  in  this 
State  equal  political  power.  This  State,  in  the  last 
three  or  four  presidential  elections,  has  shown  nearly 
an  equilibrium  in  the  number  of  votes  cast  by  each  par- 
ty ;  the  average  majority  of  the  successful  party  has  n  ot 
exceeded  two  or  three  thousand  votes  during  the  last 
twelve  years.  Yet,  during  that  time,  the  democratic 
party  have  almost  invariably  had,  in  the  legislature  of 
Virginia,  a  majority  of  some  thirty  or  forty  members. 
Under  this  state  of  affairs,  was  the  whig  party  repre- 
sented, or  did  it  have  equal  political  power  m  the  legis- 
lature with  the  democratic  party?  Still,  they  had  equal 
rights  and  freedom.  You  cannot  show  it  j  and,  there- 
fore, gentlemen  of  the  west,  you  do  right  in  abandoning 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


327 


a  principle  which  cannot  be  carried  out,  and  serve  the 
purposes  you  desire. 

But  gentlemen  argue  that  the  right  of  sum-age  being 
the  groundwork  of  representation,  every  individual  who 
is  entitled  to  exercise  that  right,  ought  to  have  equal 
political  weight  in  the  affairs  of  government.  I  never 
so  understood  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  This 
right,  if  I  understand  it,  is  a  practical  incident  of  citizen- 
ship, and  the  exercise  of  it  is  only  one  of  the  elements 
of  representation  of  which  power  is  a  part.  The  right 
of  suffrage  alone,  does  not  give  power.  It  is  the  exer- 
cise of  a  political  right  incident  to  citizenship  ;  but  it  is 
not  the  only  means  by  which  political  power  is  created  ; 
it  may  be  called  an  active  agent  in  giving  effect  to  pow- 
er. There  are  other  means  through  which  it  is  created, 
as  I  shall  show  before  I  conclude  my  remarks. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr  Sheffet)  stated  on 
Wednesday,  I  think,  that  the  east  was  entitled  to  pro- 
tection, and  that  if  we  transferred  the  political  power  to 
western  Virginia  by  the  adoption  of  proposition  B,  that 
there  was  a  possibility  that  that  power  would  be  abused 
and  our  interests  imperiled.  Then,  I  say,  we  ought  to 
adopt  the  system  of  a  mixed  basis  if  that  will  alone  se- 
cure us  in  our  rights.  But  will  no  danger  result  to  our 
interests  by  adopting  the  principle  contained  in  propo 
sition  B  ?  May  we  not  be  oppressively  taxed  ?  Is  there 
no  danger  of  a  discrimination  being  made  against  the  in- 
terests of  eastern  Virginia  and  in  favor  of  the  interests 
of  western  Virginia  if  this  plan  (proposition  B)  be 
adopted  ?    But  he  says  there  is  no  great  peril — 

"  These  are  mere  phantasies — 
There  is  no  peril  •  * 

and  then,  like  Sardanapalus,  he  goes  on  to  prepare  the 
funeral  pile  and  collect  the  faggots  with  which  our  in- 
terests and  his  own  are  to  be  consumed. 

I  will  endeavor  briefly  to  show  how  our  interests  may 
be  imperiled.  Of  the  ordinary  interests  from  which  the 
revenues  of  this  State  are  derived,  eastern  Virginia  has 
the  largest  share,  and  consequently  pays  a  greater 
amount  of  taxes  upon  them,  than  western  Virginia,  with 
the  exception  of  four  only.  And  the  entire  amount  of 
taxation  upon  those  four  items  will  not  make  more  than 
one-sixth,  about,  in  truth,  one-eighth  of  the  revenue  of 
the  State.  The  four  are  horses,  metalic  clocks,  stages, 
and  houses  of  private  entertainment.  They  beat  us  in 
keeping  time  with  brass  metal ;  we  beat  them,  I  think, 
on  gold  watches.  And  in  regard  to  the  number  of  mu- 
sical instruments  we  are  a  long  way  ahead  of  them.  In 
the  whole  of  western  Virginia  there  are  but  two  harps  : 
and  I  would  here  take  the  liberty  of  giving  that  section 
a  little  advice  and  that  is  that  they 

"  Hang  thos8  harps  upon  the  willows." 

A  MEMBER.  How  many  have  you  in  eastern  Vir- 
ginia ? 

Mr.  PURKINS.  In  eastern  Virginia  there  some  thir- 
ty harps,  the  exact  number  I  do  not  recollect. 

A  MEMBER  (in  his  seat.)  You  had  better  hang  those 
up  too. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  That  would  make  the  air  too  musical. 
[A  laugh.]  Well,  of  all  the  sources  from  which  revenue 
is  derived,  western  Virginia  exceeds  us  in  the  payment 
of  taxes  upon  but  four,  while  in  every  other  class  of  tax- 
able property  we  are  ahead  of  them.  Are  not  these 
taxable  interests  of  ours  imperiled  then  by  entrusting 
the  highest  power  in  government,  the  taxing  power,  in- 
to the  hands  of  those  who  have  no  similar  interests  to 
tax  ?  Self-interest  in  government  is  the  motive  princi- 
ple with  men,  as  is  often  the  case  in  private  life.  I  do 
not  know  that  to  act  from  self-interest  is  a  moral  prin- 
ciple. Io  may  be  wrong  and  even  detestable  so  to  act 
in  private  life ;  but  for  one,  I  believe  that  it  is  the  very 
safest  and  most  prudent  principle  that  we  can  adopt  in 
political  government.  Not  that  narrow  •self-interest 
that  confines  itself  to  the  advancement  of  certain  indi- 
viduals, but  which  stretches  its  arms  wide  to  embrace 
the  entire  community  whose  protection  from  injury 


ought  to  be  the  object  of  its  peculiar  care.  And  if  this 
be  the  principle  which  is  governing  the  west,  as  1  think 
I  have  shown  it  to  be  in  this  contest  for  power,  and 
when  her  interests  and  their  advancement  demand  that 
our  interests  should  be  oppressed  and  destroyed,  it  be- 
comes us.  while  we  have  the  power,  so  to  guard  as,  that  in 
entering  into  a  social  compact  with  them  we  will  make 
such  arrangements  as  will  afford  us  beyond  all  doubt 
adequate  security. 

1  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  western  Virginia  may  im- 
peril our  interests  first  by  oppressive  taxation,  and  sec- 
ondly by  discriminating  upon  the  various  subjects  of 
taxation  in  her  own  favor.  Give  her  the  power  and  she 
might  divert  taxation  from  her  own  taxable  interests, 
and  increase  it  upon  ours.  She  might  not  do  it,  but  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  whom  I  am  happy  to  see  now 
in  his  seat,  has  quoted  to  us  from  a  very  celebrated  au- 
thor, De  Tocqueville,  to  the  effect,  that  the  love  of  pro- 
perty is  the  predominant  feeling  in  the  American 
bosom  

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  said  that  respect  for  the  rights  of 
property  was  the  predominant  feeling. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Precisely;  and  your  quotation  went 
on  to  say  the  love  of  property  itself.  If  this,  then,  be  the 
predominant  feeling  in  the  bosom  of  the  people  of  Vir- 
ginia, I  take  it  that  it  is  as  powerful  in  the  bosoms  of 
western  men  as  of  eastern  men  ;  and  if  it  is,  then  there 
is  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  eastern  gentlemen  to  retain 
the  control  of  their  own  property,  and  on  the  part  of 
western  gentlemen  to  wrest  that  control  from  our  hands, 
and  I  am  aware  of  no  worse  despotism  than  might  fol- 
low. They  act  upon  the  presumption  that  we  are  in- 
capable of  attending  to  our  own  concerns,  and  regard 
us  as  not  only  in  the  minority,  but  as  minors,  utterly 
unqualified  to  take  care  of  our  own  property. 

There  is  another  ground  upon  which  they  are  wholly 
unable  to  prevent  our  interests  from  being  imperiled. 
I  assert  that  some  of  our  interests  are  different  from  the 
interests  of  western  Virginia,  and  that  the  west  is  inca- 
pable of  attending  to  them  in  the  manner  which  alone 
can  prevent  them  from  being  injured  and  oppressed. 
Give  the  power  into  the  hands  of  the  west,  and  when- 
ever a  supposed  necessity  arises,  we  will  be  made  to 
feel  that  there  is  no  community  of  interests  between  us 
in  this  particular,  in  consequence  of  the  increased 
weight  of  the  burdens  imposed  upon  our  interests.  An- 
other reason  why  this  will  be  the  case,  arises  from  the 
extent  of  our  public  debt.  The  public  debt  of  Virginia, 
including  the  appropriations  by  the  present  legisla- 
ture— and  all  the  liabilities  of  the  State — amounts  to  be- 
tween twenty  and  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  The  inter- 
est on  that  debt  has  to  be  paid  annually,  and  where  is  it 
to  be  raised?  The  effort  of  the  west  may  be,  if  the 
power  is  given  in  her  hands,  to  make  eastern  Virginia 
pay  it  and  relieve,  to  as  great  an  extent  as  practicable, 
western  Virginia  from  the  burden  of  the  debt.  We 
are  willing  to  pay  our  proportion  of  the  tax  ;  but  we  de- 
sire to  have  the  right  of  saying  how  it  shall  be  paid, 
and  in  what  manner  the  taxes  shall  be  imposed  upon 
the  subjects  of  taxation.  The  public  debt — in  process 
of  time — must  be  redeemed,  and  how  is  it  to  be?  Sup- 
pose such  a  state  of  things  should  arise  as  that  its  re- 
demption should  be  demanded  immediately  upon  its 
coming  due.  I  ask  if  this  self-interest  might  not  force 
you  to  impose  the  burden  of  its  payment  upon  the  east, 
to  the  entire  relief  of  yourselves  ?  In  view  of  these 
things,  I  ask  my  friend  from  Augusta,  if  there  is  not 
good  reason  why  this  abuse  may  arise,  and  if  therefore 
an  abuse  of  power  ought  not  to  be  guarded  against?  It 
may  be  replied  that  the  east  may  pursue  the  same 
course  in  regard  to  western  Virginia  ;  but  I  assert  that 
from  the  state  of  facts  to  which  I  have  already  directed 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  this  cannot  possibly  take 
place.  The  history  of  the  political  action  of  Virginia 
during  the  last  seventy  years,  plainly  shows  that  hither- 
to they  have  not  done  it.  You  have  security  in  the  fu- 
ture, from  the  fact  that  eastern  Virginia  has  a  majority 
of  the  interests  which  are  subject  to  taxation,  and  she 
cannot  adopt  a  system  of  taxation,  even  if  she  desired 


328 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


so  to  do,  without  oppressing  her  own  interests.  Thus, 
our  feelings  would  be  directly  opposed  to  any  system  of 
oppressive  taxation. 

Suppose,  gentlemen  of  the  west,  that  you  obtain  the 
ascendancy  in  political  power.  You  are  great  sticklers 
for  the  bill  of  rights,  and  the  jus  majoris.  That  is  your 
magna  charta  as  well  as  palladium  of  political  liberty  ; 
yet  you  will,  by  pursuing  the  course  you  propose,  strike 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  temple  of  liberty  in  which 
you  say  you  desire  to  worship,  for  you  design  destroy- 
ing one  of  the  great  principles  of  republicanism,  viz  : 
the  enjoyment  of  property  involving  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness. But  to  this  point  I  simply  direct  the  attention 
of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  as  I  do  not  think  it  ne- 
cessary to  pursue  it  further. 

I  was  struck  with  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta,  which  was  made  in  a  different  form  by 
my  venerable  friend  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,)  that 
if  eastern  Virginia  did  not  yield  to  the  west  the  princi- 
ple she  was  contending  for,  there  would  arise  a  clamor 
from  ninety  thousand  western  freemen  which  would 
continue  to  tingle  in  eastern  ears  until  it  was  appeased 
by  their  yielding  up  the  principle  and  the  power.    If  a 
clamor  of  this  kind  is  to  be  raised  in  favor  of  a  princi- 
ple which  would,  if  adopted,  destroy  the  equilibrium  of 
government,  I  tell  gentlemen  of  the  west  that  the  voices 
of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  freemen  would 
come  up  in  opposition  from  the  beautiful  tide-water  re- 
gion of  the  State,  and  uniting  with  thousands  of  similar 
voices  from  Piedmont,  travel  on  towards  the  Valley, 
and  the  sound  would  swell  in  volume  even  to  the  sum- 
mit of  the  Alleghanies,  and  it  would  echo  and  reverbe- 
rate over  mountain  and  through  valley  until  your  ears 
would  not  only  practically  tingle  with  the  sound,  but 
every  habitation  of  the  west  would  quake  and  tremble 
at  the  voices  of  the  east  falling  upon  the  ear  as  if  the 
thunders  of  heaven  itself  were  roaring.    Do  gentlemen, 
by  their  declarations,  mean  to  intimidate  us  ?  And 
yet  their  language  will  bear  that  construction,  and  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  within  the  last 
few  days  resolutions  have  been  received  from  the  west-  • 
ern  counties  declaring  that  unless  the  east  yield  the 
power  asked  for  by  western  delegates  in  this  body,  that  i 
those  delegates  must  leave  this  body  and  return  home 
to  their  people.    Well,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  I  do  1 
not  question  the  integrity  of  my  western  brethren  here  ;  1 
we  think  you  are  a  very  elever  and  intelligent  body  of  i 
men ;  but  if  you  will  not  stay  with  us  and  partake  of  < 
our  hospitalities,  when  you  are  ready  to  depart  give  us  ' 
notice  and  we  will  bid  you  an  affectionate  and  respect-  ' 
f  al  farewell.    We  cannot,  we  will  not,  yield  you  our  1 
rights,  and  if  you  will  not  remain  with  us — though  I  1 
believe  you  will— let  us  part  as  friends.    I  dislike  dis-  < 
union  in  any  shape  or  form,  and  I  would  dislike  to  see  1 
it  as  much  in  regard  to  the  State  of  Virginia  as  in  re-  i 
gard  to  the  federal  government.    I  should  most  deeply  i 
lament  it,  as  I  deprecate  its  results.    And  I  assert  that  1 
the  principle  we  are  advocating,  if  engrafted  upon  the  5 
new  constitution,  is  a  principle  which  will  tend  more  to  ] 
allay  and  destroy  feelings  of  sectional  bitterness  than  1 
any  principle  that  can  be  brought  forward,  for  if  it  does  1 
not  now  give  entire  satisfaction  to  the  entire  people  of  £ 
western  Virginia,  it  will  at  least,  when  they  come  to  i 
their  sober  second  thought,  give  them  an  assurance  that  1 
they  will  have  their  property  as  well  protected  as  our  r 
own,  and  I  know  that  the  east  will  be  unanimously  in  t 
favor  of  it.    The  gentleman  from  Preston  tells  us  that  t 
the  entire  west  desire  that  property  shall  be  fully  pro-  t 
tected.    This  is  a  common  ground  upon  which  we  all  j 
meet.    We  are  all  in  favor  of  the  protection  of  property,  t 
the  only  thing  we  have  to  do  is  to  agree  upon  the  t 
means  of  protection.    But,  suppose  we  were  to  abandon  s 
this  principle,  I  ask  if  western  gentlemen  are  prepared  t 
to  abandon  the  principle  of  protection  to  property  to  its  { 
fullest  extent  ?    Are  they  prepared  to  carry  out  their  j 
proposition  hasing  representation  upon  white  population  > 
alone,  or  qualified  electors  not  holding  property  to  any  1 
extent  ?    If  it  be  a  correct  principle  it  has  as  just  an  ap  t 


,  plication  to  your  federal  as  to  your  State  government, 
f  It  is  no  reply  to  say  that  we  are  now  forming  a  consti- 
tution for  the  State,  and  that  no  illustration  taken  from 
>  the  operation  of  the  federal,  can  effect  it.  And  I  would 
3  inquire  whether  gentlemen  are  ready  to  apply  their 
r  principle  to  their  connection  with  the  federal  govern- 
;  ment  ?  Have  you  reflected  upon  the  consequences  which 
;  would  result  if  the  entire  political  community  of  the 
1  south  were  to  adopt  this  principle  as  the  principle  up- 
.  on  which  representation  should  be  based  in  the  federal 
:  government  ?  Adopt  it  in  that  connection,  and  the  re- 
-  presentation  of  the  south  would  be  cut  down  to  a  mere 
1  corporal's  guard  in  congress.    In  this  State  there  would 

■  be  a  loss  of  several  representatives  in  congress,  and  the 
loss  in  the  entire  south  would  amount  to  some  twenty 

[  representatives.    Are  you  prepared  to  do  this  ?    If  you 

■  reply  that  you  are  willing  to  carry  your  principle  to 
;  that  extent,  then  we  say  to  you  that  that  is  another 
.  strong  and  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  not  transfer 

■  the  political  power  of  Virginia  into  your  hands.  I  do 
not  distrust  you  upon  this  question,  but  whenever  you 
admit  that  you  wish  to  carry  your  principle  as  well  in- 
to the  federal  government  as  the  State  government, 
you  shake  my  confidence  in  you  to  a  very  great  ex- 

'  tent. 

A  MEMBER  (in  his  seat.)  None  of  the  western  del- 
egates have  said  that  they  wished  to  extend  this  princi- 
ple to  the  federal  government. 

Mr.  PURK1NS.    I  was  simply  inquiring  whether  this 
was  the  design  of  western  gentlemen — whether  they  do 
occupy  this  position — if  they  do  not  my  question  is  an- 
swered, and  we  have  another  proof  that  ic  is  power  not 
principle  for  which  they  contend.    I  think  I  have  thus 
clearly  shewn  on  the  part  of  western  Virginia,  an  utter 
abandonment  of  the  principle  (when  attempted  to  be 
carried  into  practice,)  for  which  they  have  clamored  so 
loudly  in  theory  ;  and  I  think  proven  that  this  is  not  a 
struggle  on  the  part  of  the  west  for  principle  but  for 
power — naked  power.    But  the  gentleman  from  Green- 
brier (Mr.  Smith)  said  that  he  would  not  take  issue  with 
gentlemen  from  the  east ;  "  that  justice  and  liberality 
had  been  exercised  by  the  east  towards  the  west  in  the 
administration  of  the  power  of  government.  "    It  is  easy 
to  be  shown  that  not  only  justice  but  liberality  has  been 
exercised  by  the  east ;  and  I  was  in  hope  s  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta  would  have  avoided  that  issue  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  power  that  has  been  ex- 
ercised by  the  east  during  the  last  seventy  years,  and 
would  not  have  charged  it  as  tyrannous.    But  he  says 
the  continuance  of  this  principle  which  has  been  in  exis- 
tence since  the  first  commencement  of  our  State  govern- 
ment, is  an  unjust  exercise  of  power,  and  that  the  prin- 
ciple itself  is  theoretically  and  practically  tyrannous.  I 
have  looked  at  the  recent  definition  of  this  word  "  tyran- 
nous, "  as  given  by  Webster,  and  I  call  the  gentleman's 
attention  to  it.    I  find  that  Mr.  Webster  defines  it  to 
be  an  unjust  and  arbitrary  exercise  of  power  over  the 
subject  in  a  manner  not  authorized  by  law  for  the  just 
purpose  of  government ;  hence  tyranny  is  often  synony- 
mous with  cruelty  and  oppression.    Now  I  ask  has  there 
been  even  a  single  instance  on  the  part  of  eastern  Vir- 
ginia of  an  exercise  of  this  power  in  a  manner  not  in 
accordance  with  the  constitution  of  the  State  or  in  con- 
formity with  the  law  and  with  a  strict  sense  of  justice  ? 
The  gentleman  from  Greenbrier  says  that  he  does  not 
and  will  not  take  issue  upon  the  question  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  exercise  of  power  by  eastern  Virginia,  but 
that  he  will  adimit  that  that  section  has  not  only  been 
just  but  generous  and  liberal  in  such  exercise.    1  leave 
the  issue  between  those  two  gentlemen  to  settle  it  as 
they  may.    For  fear  the  gentleman  from  Augusta  is  not 
satisfied  that  we  have  been  liberal  and  just,  permit  me 
to  call  his  attention  to  the  amount  of  taxes  which  are 
paid  under  the  assessment  of  1849.    Whole  amount 
paid  by  trans- Alleghany  on  lots,  lands,  slaves,  horses, 
watches,  clocks,  coaches,  stages,  carryalls,  gigs,  pianos, 
harps,  plate,  interest,  lees  over  $400,  attorneys,  doc- 
tors, dentists,  bridges,  ferries,  free  negroes,  and  collat- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


329 


eral  inheritances  is  $77,897.90.  In  the  Valley  districts, 
on  same  subjects,  $79,475.97.  Making  the  whole  amount 
on  these  subjects  paid  by  western  Virginia,  $157,373.87. 
The  Piedmont  district,  which  gentlemen  say  is  so  much 
more  likely  to  plunder  Tidewater,  paid  on  these  same 
subjects,  $162,201.66  ;  and  this  Tidewater  district, 
which  complains  that  she  has  been  so  unjustifiably 
plundered  by  all  the  rest  of  the  commonwealth,  pays 
$176,549.57.  This  make$  the  whole  amount  paid  on 
these  subjects  in  eastern  Virginia,  $338,751.23  :  exceed- 
ing the  amount  paid  by  western  Virginia  by  $181,377.36, 
or  more  than  double.  And  yet  we  have  been  unjust 
and  illiberal  when  we  have  absolutely  paid  into  the 
treasury  upon  these  subjects  of  taxation,  a  tax  more 
than  double  the  amount  that  you  have  paid.  But  let 
us  go  on  a  little  further,  and  take  the  aggregate  of  these 
subjects  and  connect  them  with  the  tax  on  law  process, 
<fec.  The  trans-Alleghany  district  in  this  connection  of 
subjects  paid  $121,038.53 ;  the  Valley  district  paid 
$108,862.41 ;  making  the  amount  paid  by  the  two  wes- 
tern districts  $229,900.94.  Tidewater  paid  $289,780.- 
75,  and  Piedmont  $214,640.37;  making  an  excess  paid 
by  the  east  of  $503,421.12,  or  more  than  double  again. 
Now,  is  this  injustice?  Is  this  a  tyrannical  exercise  of 
power  on  the  part  of  eastern  Virginia  ?  Is  it  not  more 
than  justice  to  you  ?  Is  it  not  more  than  liberal  ?  We, 
a  minority  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  take  upon  our- 
selves the  burthens  of  the  government  to  an  extent 
more  than  two-fold  that  which  we  impose  upon  you. 
But  to  resume :  The  land  tax  of  the  State  under  this  as- 
sessment was  $195,225.54,  exclusive  of  improved  lots. 
Of  this  the  trans-Alleghany  district  paid  $38,316.95, 
and  the  Valley  district  $42,106.54,  making  the  total 
amount  paid  by  western  Virginia  $80,923.49.  The  Pied- 
mont district  paid  upon  the  same  item  $67,721.19,  and 
Tidewater  $46,580.86;  making  the  total  eastern  tax 
on  land  exclusive  of  improved  lots,  $114,302.05  ;  an  ex- 
cess paid  by  the  east  of"  $33,378.56.  On  lots  the  excess 
in  the  proportion  is  much  greater,  it  being  on  the  whole 
sum  of  $65,295.80,  an  amount  of  $33,673.98.  The  whole 
excess  in  favor  of  the  last,  that  is,  on  real  estate,  is 
therefore  $67,405.25. 

Now  let  me  refer  to  another  subject  just  here.  The 
tax  on  slaves  is  $81,444.48.  Of  this  the  trans-Allegha- 
ny district  pays  $4,304.44,  and  the  Valley  $6,866.24, 
making  the  whole  tax  paid  by  western  Virginia  on 
slaves  $11,170.88.  The  Piedmont  district  pays  $39,- 
309.12,  or  nearly  four  times  as  much  as  both  the  west- 
ern sections  together.  The  Tidewater  district  pays 
$30,964.48,  making  the  whole  amount  paid  by  the  east 
on  slaves  $70,273.60,  or  excess  of  $59,102.72.  Thus  the 
whole  excess  upon  these  three  subjects  of  taxation  is 
$126,155.26,  equal  to  one-quarter  of  the  whole  of  the 
revenue  of  the  State  on  the  property  tax,  and  more 
than  one-sixth  of  the  revenue  from  all  sources.  Yet  it 
is  said  we  of  the  east  have  been  tyrannical  in  this  gov- 
ernment. We  have  given  from  our  pockets  most  libe- 
rally and  most  generously  without  a  murmur  or  even 
the  first  whisper  of  complaint.  We  have  paid  upon 
three  subjects  of  taxation  alone,  more  than  one-fourth 
of  the  whole  of  the  property  tax  of  the  State,  of  which 
you  have  got  your  equal,  your  proportionate  share  in 
the  distribution.  And  they  charge  us  with  a  tyrannical 
exercise  of  the  power  of  taxation,  and  of  all  the  other 
powers  which  we  have  exercised. 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
call  his  attention  to  one  example  of  this  immense  libe- 
rality of  which  he  speaks  ?  Since  1776  Virginia  has 
had  thirty-three  governors,  out  of  which  number  west- 
ern Virginia  has  had  five.  We  have  had  also  twenty- 
four  United  States  senators,  out  of  which  number  west- 
ern Virginia  has  had  but  three. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Really  that  was  not  our  fault.  If 
we  had  better  material  for  the  offices  than  the  western 
men  had,  why,  in  the  name  of  heaven,  do  not  quarrel 
with  us  about  it.  [Laughter.]  In  the  federal  govern- 
ment, Virginia  has  had  almost  all  the  presidents.  She 
30 


has  had  almost  a  majority  of  the  senators,  and  in  every 
session  of  the  house  of  representatives  she  has  had  a  long 
ways  more  than  double  her  share  of  her  own  sons  there. 
And  will  you  abuse  Virginia  for  this  ? 

Mr.  FULKERSON.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  then  I  am  to  understand  from  his  remarks  that  we 
of  the  west  are  not  Virginians  ?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  PURKINS.  I  will  recur  to  that.  Will  you  com- 
plain of  eastern  Virginia  because  she  has  well  reared 
her  sons  ?  Will  there  be  complaint  because  nature  has 
been  more  liberal  in  the  distribution  of  mental  powers 
to  the  sons  of  eastern  Virginia  %  Will  you  complain  of 
that  which  you  yourselves  have  aided  in  bringing  about  % 
There  has  not  been  within  my  own  recollection,  a  govern- 
or or  a  senator,  not  one,  who  has  not  been  elected  as 
well  by  western  as  by  eastern  votes,  and  for  heaven's  sake, 
when  you  buckle  the  honors  upon  our  backs,  do  not 
grumble  with  us  if  we  wear  them.  Let  us  wear  them  in 
peace  when  you  impose  them  upon  us.  I  hope  the 
gentleman  is  answered.  He  asks  me,  however,  if  I  do 
not  regard  the  west  as  a  portion  of  Virginia.  I  do,  and 
as  one  of  the  very  best  portions  of  Virginia ;  as  a  por- 
tion of  Virginia  whose  people  deserve  all  credit  and 
commendation  for  their  enterprize,  for  their  prosperity 
and  for  their  intelligence.  But  the  gentleman  spoke  of 
United  States  senators  and  complained  that  eastern 
Virginia  had  had  a  majority  of  the  senators  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  governors,  and  my  reply  to  him  is,  that 
Virginia,  either  eastern  or  western — I  am  not  prepared 
with  the  data  to  prove  which  section  has  the  majority 
— has  had  most  of  the  presidents,  many  of  the  senators, 
and  many  of  the  members  of  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  why  ?  Because  they  emigrated  from  Virginia 
to  other  States  and  have  been  honored  in  other  States. 
Many  of  them  have  gone  from  western  Virginia,  and 
you  have  an  equal  proportion  of  western  Virginia 
represented  in  the  congress  of  the  United  States. 

A  MEMBER.  They  had  to  go  out  of  the  State  to  get 
there.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Not  that.  You  have  not  staid  with 
us  to  see  whether  you  would  get  there.  [Laughter.] 
You  have  left  us  in  your  youth,  before  you  were  worthy 
to  receive  the  honor,  and  now  you  quarrel  with  us  be- 
cause, while  you  were  in  the  greenness  of  youth,  we 
would  not  confer  those  honors  upon  you. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  referred 
most  unwisely  I  thought,  to  a  period  in  the  history  of 
Virginia,  from  which  he  derives  a  precedent  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  principle  for  which  western  gentle- 
men on  this  floor  are  contending.  He  refers  to  that 
period  in  the  colonial  history  of  our  State,  commencing 
in'1621,  and  running  down  to  1660. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  There  are  a  great  many  remarks 
made  by  the  gentleman  which  are  not  a  correct  repre- 
sentation of  my  views.  If  he  is  going  on  with  an  argu- 
ment on  this  point,  I  may  save  him  some  trouble  in  this 
respect.  I  referred  to  the  apportionment  of  power  under 
the  colonial  government,  in  answer  somewhat  to  the  re- 
mark of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  that  the  mixed 
basis  was  the  existing  state  of  things,  and  that  there- 
fore he  called  upon  us  for  reasons  why  a  change  should 
be  made.  I  stated  that  under  the  colonial  government 
and  down  to  18 29-' 30,  county  representation  existed, 
which  representation  was  not  based  upon  the  mixed  ba- 
sis of  representation.  I  did  not  allude  to  it  as  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  white  basis. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Still  I  understood  the  gentleman  to 
refer  to  it  as  a  precedent,  to  show  that  white  inhabi- 
tants were  taken  as  a  basis  of  political  power. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  did  not  refer  to  it  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Very  well,  then  it  will  save  me  the 
necessity  of  referring  to  that  part  of  the  gentleman's 
arguments.  I  could  not  help  feeling  my  sympathies 
considerably  aroused  by  the  gentleman  from  Augusta, 
when  he  stood  before  this  committee  rather  in  the  hum- 


330 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ble  attitude  of  a  suppliant  than  in  that  commanding 
tone  in  which  he  addressed  us  in  the  larger  portion  of 
his  remarks.  Said  the  gentleman  :  "  I  do  not  feel  that 
I  am  equal  here  to  eastern  gentlemen ;  I  feel  that  I 
am  an  inferior,  and  in  an  inferior  position  •  deprived 
of  an  equal  degree  of  political  power,  and  utterly  cut 
off  in  the  exercise  of  my  political  rights."  Why,  I 
thought  the  gentleman  was  here  more  than  an  equal  to 
many  of  us,  and  I  think,  from  the  ability  and  ingenuity 
which  he  displayed  in  his  argument,  that  however  much, 
just  at  that  moment,  he  might  have  felt  his  spirits  de- 
pressed, he,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  did  feel  that  he 
stood  upon  a  higher  and  more  elevated  position,  even 
above  a  great  many  of  us.  Why  is  he  not  equal  ?  He 
stands  upon  this  floor  with  all  the  rights,  privileges  and 
immunities  which  attach  to  any  eastern  gentleman  here. 
He  stands  here  to  exercise  every  conventional  right 
which  the  free  government  of  Virginia  can  confer  upon 
a  free  citizen.  He  comes  here  to  aid,  and  with  an  equal 
voice  in  the  prosecution  of  that  work,  as  any  here,  in 
forming  a  social  compact  for  the  people  of  Virginia. 
But  he  comes  representing  a  people  who,  connected 
with  the  section  of  the  country  to  which  they  belong, 
do  not  contribute  to  the  support  of  government  in  such 
proportions  as  is  contributed  by  other  sections,  whose 
interests  are  not  a  majority  of  the  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  ;  and  he,  therefore,  cannot,  with  all  the 
potency  of  his  voice,  control  the  action  of  this  body  ;  and 
he  complains,  that  he  cannot. 

There  was  a  great  many  subjects  touched  upon  by  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta  to  which  I  had  intended  to  di- 
rect the  attention  of  the  committee ;  but  I  feel  that  I 
have  already  consumed,  probably,  much  more  than  my 
share  of  the  time  of  this  body  on  this  subject.  There 
are  one  or  two  things,  however,  to  which  I  must  call 
your  attention.  The  gentleman  says  that  the  expenses 
of  government  are  caused  by  property,  and  he  mentions 
courts  of  justice  as  one  instance  of  the  fact.  And  he 
complains  of  the  loss  of  time,  and  the  expenditure  of 
money  incurred  when  in  performance  of  military  duty 
by  the  militia,  as  a  portion  of  the  oppression  to  which 
the  people  of  western  Virginia  are  subjected.  Now,  I 
do  not  mean  to  refer  to  this  subject  in  any  improper 
spirit,  but  I  would  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  if  that  is 
the  doctrine  that  is  to  be  carried  out,  and  if  the  people 
should  not  be  called  out  at  public  places,  and  expend 
their  money  at  taverns,  and  lose  their  time,  we  ought, 
also,  to  abolish  all  elections.  It  will  be  the  most  judi- 
cious and  wisest  course  which  this  body  can  adopt,  if 
the  view  of  the  gentleman  is  correct,  for  us  to  decrease 
the  number  of  popular  elections,  if  not  to  abolish  the 
whole. 

But  our  courts  of  justice,  he  says,  are  established 
alone  for  the  protection  of  property,  or  rather  that  the 
expenses  of  courts  of  justice  are  alone  created  by  pro- 
perty, and  litigation  in  regard  to  property.  Most  sure- 
ly not.  I  take  it  that  a  large  portion  of  the  time  of 
the  courts  of  justice,  in  the  section  of  country  from 
which  this  gentleman  comes,  is  consumed  in  trials  of 
persons,  in  trials  affecting  the  lives  and  the  liberties  of 
men,  and  not  alone  of  property,  and  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty. It  is  not  properly  chargeable  that  the  expense 
of  the  judicial  system  of  the  commonwealth  of  Vir- 
ginia, or  of  any  other  government,  is  increased  in  a 
greater  degree  by  the  efforts  to  impair  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty, or  to  secure  its  enjoyment,  than  by  litigation  ap- 
pertaining to  rights  of  persons. 

But  the  gentleman  does  complain  that  the  west,  when 
it  comes  into  the  government,  surrenders  a  large  por- 
tion of  its  rights,  and  yet  does  not  receive  equal  politi- 
cal power.  Now,  I  believe  I  have  already  stated  to  the 
committee,  but  if  I  have,  I  hope  it  will  do  no  harm  to 
repeat  it,  that  every  man  who  enters  into  a  state  of  so- 
ciety, has  to  give  up  some  of  his  natural  rights.  He 
has,  necessarily,  to  make  that  surrender,  and  he  gets  in 
return,  benefits  and  advantages  arising  from  the  protec- 
tion which  the  government  affords  to  all  and  to  every 


right  which  is  retained  and  exists.  Western  Virginia 
has  no  right  to  complain  of  the  immense  surrender 
which  she  has  made,  because  gentlemen  must  reflect 
that  in  entering  into  the  social  compact,  eastern  Vir- 
ginia, in  the  nature  of  things,  having  a  much  larger 
amount  of  interest,  has  to  make  a  much  larger  surren- 
der of  those  interests,  and  that  when  she  does  make 
this  surrender,  there  must  be  a  proportionate  return  of 
benefits  and  advantages  corresponding,  to  a  great  extent, 
with  the  surrender  which  she  makes.  The  doctrine 
which  the  gentleman  contends  for,  will  lead  us  to  this  : 
that  we  must  surrender  all  our  rights  and  all  our  inter- 
ests into  the  hands  of  those  who  surrender  but  a  little, 
and  receive  in  return  no  advantage  whatever,  from  a 
controlling  influence  in  government,  but  that  it  is  to  be 
taken  entirely  from  us.  'Now,  we  do  not  mean  to  do 
that,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  may. 

But  while  I  had  much  more  to  say  upon  this  subject, 
I  feel  that  my  own  strength  is  failing,  and  that  it  is 
quite  time  that  I  should  have  yielded  the  floor  to  some 
other  person,  who  will,  perhaps,  present  this  subject  to 
the  committee  much  more  ably  than  it  is  in  my  power 
to  do.    I  cannot,  however,  take  my  seat,  without  refer- 
ring to  some  few  of  the  statistics  which  I  have  collected, 
to  show  that  the  gentleman  from  Preston  (Mr.  Brown) 
has  not  discovered  in  the  statistics  which  he  presented 
to  us  the  other  day,  any  very  great  blunder  which  has 
been  made  even  by  the  apportionment  under  proposition 
A,  as  submitted  by  the  eastern  portion  of  the  basis 
committee.    He  referred  particularly  to  the  counties  of 
Wythe  and  Powhatan,  and  he  attempted  to  show  that 
it  was  unjust  to  give  them  an  equal  representation,  in- 
asmuch as  the  population  of  Wythe  was  near  three-fold 
as  great  as  the  population  of  Powhatan,  and  the  county 
of  Wythe  paid  into  the  public  treasury  a  much  larger 
amount  of  revenue  than  the  county  of  Powhatan.  But 
he  forgot  to  say  that,  while  the  county  of  Wythe,  with 
a  white  population  of  9,634,  paid  $3,643  of  taxes,  that 
the  tax  per  capita  on  the  white  population  of  that  coun- 
ty amounted  only  to  about  thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents, 
while  the  county  of  Powhatan,  with  a  white  population 
of  2,513,  paid  a  tax  of  $3,382,  being  a  per  capita  tax  of 
$1.30-^.    Now,  does  the  gentleman  see  any  great  error 
in  an  apportionment  which  will  give  for  the  protection 
of  an  interest  of  such  magnitude,  the  county  of  Powha- 
tan an  equal  influence  with  the  county  of  Wythe  ? 
There  were  some  other  views  of  the  gentleman  which 
struck  me  as  equally  strange.    The  proposition  B,  gives 
to  the  county  of  Carroll  one  representative,  upon  a  pop- 
ulation of  5,730,  it  paying  the  enormous  amount  of  $744 
in  taxes ;  and  if  the  committee  will  go  into  a  minute 
calculation,  they  will  find  that  while  Carroll  is  given 
one  representative  upon  the  floor  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, that  the  amount  of  taxes  imposed  on  Carroll,  will 
not  pay  the  expenses  of  that  representative.    And  yet 
the  very  same  apportionment  which  gives  to  Carroll  one 
delegate  in  the  house  of  delegates,  and,  united  with 
the  other  counties,  gives  her  a  senator,  requires  the  lit- 
tle county  of  Essex,  whose  name  I  always  pronounce 
with  some  reverence,  for  it  was  there  that  I  breathed 
the  first  breath  of  life,  and  to  which  I  feel  more  indebted 
than  to  any  other  in  the  State,  with  all  my  obligations 
to  some  others  in  another  section — that  pays,  with  a 
white  population  of  3,072,  the  sum  of  $4,118  of  taxes, 
to  be  connected  with  the  county  of  Middlesex,  in  order 
to  get  a  representative  in  the  house  of  delegates.  Why, 
you  might  take  the  taxes  of  Essex  and  Middlesex,  and 
pay  off  the  delegate  from  Carroll,  and  have  sufficient 
left  to  pay  off  a  half  dozen  more  delegates  from  western 
Virginia.    And  they  will  be  required  to  do  it,  in  order 
to  make  up  the  deficiencies  in  the  amount  of  taxes 
which  are  paid  by  some  of  those  counties,  who  are  in- 
vested with  a  full  representation  on  the  floor  of  the 
house  of  delegates.    There  are  the  counties  of  Boone 
and  Logan,  which  also  are  given  a  delegate,  with  a  white 
population  double  that  of  Essex,  and  both  of  them  com- 
bined, not  paying  one  quarter  of  the  amount  of  taxes.  _ 
Now,  is  this  so  very  unequal,  is  it  so  very  unjust,  is 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


331 


it  an  exercise  of  tyranny  on  our  part  towards  them  ?  I 
should  deprecate  any  necessity  which  might  cause  gen- 
tlemen to  pursue  extreme  measures.  Whatever  may 
be  the  result  of  their  vote  upon  the  pending  question,  I 
should  deeply  regret,  if  they  obeyed  the  instructions 
which  have  been  received  from  the  different  meetings 
which  have  been  held  in  western  Virginia ;  but  if  we 
must  come  to  that,  why,  gentlemen,  when  you  return  to 
your  people,  tell  them  that  we  showed  you  that  we  had 
treated  you  with  liberality,  and  with  great  generosity ; 
tell  them  that  we  showed  you  that,  for  more  than  sev- 
enty years  we  had  exercised  the  political  power  of  this 
government,  and  without,  in  any  one  instance,  oppress- 
ing you;  tell  them  that,  under  this  administration  of  the 
government,  by  eastern  power,  your  interests  have  been 
fostered,  and  your  lives,  liberty  and  property,  protected ; 
and  tell  them  that,  from  a  little  colony,  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge,  under  our  kind  guardianship,  so  to  speak, 
you  have  grown  from  infancy  to  mature  age,  and  are 
now  in  all  the  fullness  and  the  vigor  of  manhood.  Tell 
them  also,  that  we  refuse  you  the  power  now,  only  be- 
cause your  interests  are  not  sufficiently  in  common  with 
ours  ;  tell  them  that  we  cannot  yield  this  principle  which 
we  find  sanctioned  in  the  bill  of  rights  and  in  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  the  constitutions  of  all  the  thirteen 
original  States  except  three,  and  which  we  find  at  the 
bottom  of  the  organization  of  all  social  governments ; 
and  tell  them  that,  we  fear  that  if  we  yield  it  now,  this 
proud  and  magnificent  fabric  of  government  of  ours, 
this  most  glorious  of  political  temples  in  the  world — 
the  temple  in  which  Virginia  freemen  prostrate  them- 
selves to  worship — will  be  undermined,  shaken  and  de- 
stroyed, and  that  we  may  have  to  cry  out  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  poet — 

"  Farewell,  a  long  farewell,  to  all  my  greatness." 
Mr.  WILLEY.  I  feel  that  some  apology  is  due  to 
this  committee  for  the  eagerness  with  which  I  have 
sought  the  floor.  I  assure  you  that  it  was  not  with  the 
vain  hope  of  being  able  to  entertain  this  committee,  or  to 
enlighten  it,  nor  indeed  to  influence  the  opinion  of  a  soli- 
tary member  of  the  committee.  I  entertain  no  such 
vain  hope  as  that ;  I  stand  here,  coming  from  the  still, 
small,  quiet  circle  of  private  life,  and  find  myself,  for 
the  first  time  in  my  life — not  very  extended  indeed — in 
the  presence  of  a  deliberative  assembly,  in  the  attitude 
of  a  member  of  that  assembly,  without  experience,  with- 
out ability,  without  anything  to  recommend  me  to  the 
consideration  of  the  committee.  I,  therefore,  entirely 
most  respectfully  cast  myself  upon  the  charitable  indul- 
gence of  the  committee,  while  1  attempt  to  address  it  for 
a  few  moments.  I  have  found  since  I  came  here  that  it 
has  been  necessary,  at  least  common,  to  define  one's 
position,  even  one's  political  position.  I  feel  that  my 
position  is  too  humble  to  need  definition.  But  if  it  were 
not,  in  that  respect,  I  would  still  decline  to  do  it.  I 
shall  address  myself  to  the  subject  to-day  without  refer- 
ence to  political  questions  ;  and  I  hope  that  while  I  shall 
have  the  honor  to  be  a  member  of  this  body,  no  action 
of  mine  will  indicate  to  which  of  the  two  great  political 
parties  I  belong.  I  shall  address  myself  to  the  ques- 
tion to-day  without  reference  to  sector  section.  I  shall 
not  address  you  as  an  east  or  west  Virginian,  but  as  a 
Virginian ;  and  I  hope  it  will  not  be  presumption  in  me 
to  assume  still  higher  ground .  Standing  upon  the  broad 
platform  of  American  republican  equality,  I  shall  ad- 
dress myself  to  the  question  in  the  light  of  this  great 
fundamental  principle.  We  are  engaged  in  no  new  con- 
troversy. This  controversy  commenced  long  prior  to 
the  agitation  of  public  sentiment  which  convened 
this  body.  This  controversy  commenced  long  prior  to 
the  convention  of  1829  and  1830.  It  is  as  old  as  the 
lust  of  power.  It  is  the  old  contest  between  the  few 
and  the  many.  It  is  the  same  struggling  effort  continued 
through  centuries  past,  to  centralize  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  few  against  the  antagonistic  struggle  of  the  many 
to  have  it  diffused  abroad  in  the  community.  It  is  the 
same  old  contest  that  has  been  convulsing  the  world  ever 
since  the  world  was  populated — the  struggle  between 


the  money  power  and  the  many  power.  For  awhile, 
and  indeed  most  generally,  since  the  history  of  the  world 
commenced,  the  contest  has  been  adverse  to"  liberty, 
our  own  birth  as  a  nation  is  an  exception — or  an  ap- 
proximation to  it — to  the  general  rule.  We  came  into 
existence  as  a  people  upon  different  principles  from  the 
money  principle — from  the  principle  that  would  concen- 
trate the  government  in  the  hards  of  the  few.  We 
came  into  existence  under  the  auspices  of  the  great 
dootrine  of  popular  supremacy.  Under  the  operation 
of  that  principle  we  have  flourished  for  three-fourths  of 
a  century,  in  a  manner  which,  it  seems  to  me,  ought 
to  have  vindicated  it  ?.nd  silenced  all  opposition  to  it. 
But  it  seems  that  even  here  in  the  good  old  common- 
wealth of  Virginia,  the  same  battle  is  to  be  fought  again; 
at  least  the  proclamation  of  war  has  been  issued.  I  invite 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  it  for  a  moment.  The 
same  old  contest  between  the  power  of  wealth  and  the 
power  of  the  people  is  started  here,  and  it  is  insisted 
that  we  shall  establish  the  legislative  power  of  our  go- 
vernment upon  the  following  principles  : 

"Representation  in  both  legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  among  the  counties,  cities  and  towns,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  each  ;  deducting 
from  such  taxes  all  taxes  paid  on  licenses  and  law  pro- 
cess. " 

This  is  a  part  of  the  proclamation  of  war  against  the 
friends  of  popular  government.  This  is  the  proposition 
now  before  the  committee.  It  has  frequently  be%n  re- 
marked during  these  discussions  in  this  body— it  was  even 
remarked  by  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, (Mr.  Scott, )prior  to  our  adjournment — that  our 
forefathers  had  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  democratic 
government  in  its  purity,  and  had  discovered  a  new 
principle  of  government,  which,  I  believe,  was  de- 
nominated the  true  principle  of  republican  govern- 
ment, namely:  a  majority  of  interests,  as  the  le- 
gitimate source  of  the  legislative  power  of  government  • 
and  the  same  assertion  has  been  renewed  since  the  re- 
assembling of  the  Convention.  During  the  progress  of 
the  discussion  before  this  committee  on  the  present 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  the  western  portion  of  the  committee  on 
the  basis  of  representation  propose  to  predicate  the  le- 
gislative power,  has  been  denounced  as  an  innovation. 
It  has  been  stigmatized  as  an  innovation  upon  the  true 
principles  of  government,  as  recognized  in  this  country. 
May  I  not  be  allowed  to  ask  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee for  a  very  few  moments  to  see  whether  that  is 
the  fact  ?  What  is  the  predominating  principle  in  re- 
gard to  the  basis  of  government  recognized  throughout 
the  United  States  ?  The  principle  of  the  amendment  is 
just  as  much  of  an  innovation  upon  the  existing  consti- 
tutional law  of  Virginia,  as  the  principle  of  the  suf- 
frage basis  can  be,  for  representation  in  Virginia  is  now 
based  neither  upon  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  solely 
upon  an  arbitrary  arrangement.  What,  then,  is  the 
American  doctrine  on  this  subject?  I  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  examine  the  seyeral  constitutions  of  the  States 
in  this  respect,  and  the  result  of  this  examination  will 
show  that  the  suffrage  basis  is  by  no  means  obnoxious 
to  the  charge  of  novelty.  I  have  not  had  access  to  the 
constitution  of  California.  This  State  is  still  so  far  out 
of  the  Union  that  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  is 
fairly  in  it  at  all.  I  will  not  then  adduce  that  as 
authority,  but  begin  at  the  last  of  the  other  States 
and  travel  backwards. 

In  Wisconsin  the  basis  of  representation  is  white  in- 
habitants ;  in  Iowa  white  inhabitants ;  in  Texas  free 
population  ;  in  Arkansas  free  white  male  inhabitants  ; 
in  Michigan  white  inhabitants  ;  in  Florida  federal  popu- 
lation ;  in  Missouri  free  white  males  ;  in  Alabama 
white  inhabitants  ;  in  Illinois  white  inhabitants  ;  in 
Mississippi  free  white  inhabitants  ;  in  Louisiana  quali- 
fied voters  ;  in  Indiana  white  male  inhabitants  ;  in  Ohio 
white  male  inhabitants  ;  in  Tennessee  qualified  voters  ; 
in  Kentucky  qualified  voters  ;  in  Georgia,  senators  by 


332 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


districts,  lower  house  free  white  inhabitants  ;  in  North 
Carolina,  senate  taxation,  house  of  representatives  fed- 
eral population.  We  have  come  now  to  a  sprinkling  of 
the  mixed  basis  principle.  In  Virginia  we  have  arbi- 
trary districts,  without  reference  to  any  principle,  based 
upon  the  mere  caprice  of  an  arbitrary  will.  Maryland 
is  in  a  state  of  abeyance.  The  basis  of  representation 
is  indefinite.  It  is,  however,  not  the  mixed  basis. 
Pennsylvania,  taxable  inhabitants ;  New  Jersey,  senate 
by  counties,  and  house  of  representatives  upon  "  inhab- 
itants ;"  New  York  population  ;  Connecticut  by  towns, 
&c.  ;  Rhode  Island  population  and  towns  ;  Vermont 
taxable  inhabitants  ;  New  Hampshire,  senate  on  taxes, 
and  house  of  representatives  on  ratable  polls  ;  Massa- 
chusetts the  same  ;  Maine  on  inhabitants. 

Now,  I  suppose  that  all  the  preceding  instances  are 
to  have  no  effect.  The  principle,  it  seems,  upon  which 
we  are  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  that  the  suffrage  basis 
is  an  innovation  upon  the  constitutional  policy  of  the 
United  States,  is,  because  it  does  not  accord  with  the 
constitution  of  South  Carolina,  for  within  the  broad 
limits  of  this  confederacy  that  is  the  only  State  that  re- 
cognizes the  very  identical  principle  that  is  set  forth  in 
the  amendment  to  this  proposition.  Well,  this  would 
probably  be  enough  for  me  to  say  on  this  subject.  I 
have  shown  that  it  is  no  innovation,  and  I  have  shown 
from  fact  that  the  well  recognized  constitutional  prin- 
ciple— American  constitutional  principle  at  least — is 
that  of  population  in  some  form  or  other ;  and  conse- 
quent]!? it  would  throw  the  burden  of  proof  and  argu- 
ment upon  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  and  upon 
those  who  think  with  him,  to  show  the  propriety  of 
their  scheme,  which  I  may  more  properly  call  an  inno- 
vation upon  the  constitutional  policy  of  this  country. 
But  the  doctrine  of  the  basis  of  representation  on  suf- 
frage has  been  made  obnoxious  to  another  malediction 
by  the  gentleman  from  Buckingham,  (Mr.  Fuqua,)  who 
pronounces  it  an  "  arrant  abstraction."  Let  us  look  at 
that  "  arrant  abstraction  "  for  a  moment.  Suppose  it 
were  an  abstraction.  I  will  admit  that  the  principle  up- 
on which  suffrage  is  based  is  an  abstract  principle.  But 
does  it  follow  that  because  it  is  abstract  in  its  character 
that  it  is  to  be  totally  excluded  from  all  consideration 
in  framing  a  constitution?  Every  truth  is  in  some 
sort  an  abstract  idea.  Therefore,  to  exclude  a  principle 
in  the  establishment  of  government,  because  it  is  abstract 
in  its  character,  would  be  to  exclude  all  truth.  Nor  do 
I  perceive  that  these  principles  are  so  abstract  as  to  be 
incapable  of  being  reduced  to  practical  application  in  the 
structure  and  administration  of  government.  What  are 
these  principles  which  gentlemen  would  deny  and  exclude 
from  all  practical  effect  in  the  establishment  of  our 
constitution  ?  I  remark  in  regard  to  them  in  the  first 
place,  that  they  are  not  new ;  they  are  indeed  no  novel- 
ty ;  they  are  as  old  as  society  itself ;  they  are  as  old  as 
man,  for  when  God  made  man  he  endowed  him  with 
these  principles  and  has  stamped  upon  them  the  seal 
that  they  are  natural  and  unalienable  and  indefeasible. 
And  our  forefathers  have  laid  them  at  the  foundation 
of  our  government ;  they  have  laid  them  at  its  very 
threshold  and  we  must  trample  them  under  our  feet 
and  disregard  them,  before  we  can  found  a  government 
upon  the  principles  of  the  mixed  basis.  But  although 
they  have  ever  been  the  natural  birth-right  of  mankind, 
it  was  reserved  for  the  earlier  history  of  the  country — 
for  those  who  participated  largely  in  the  earlier  events 
of  our  history — to  give  them  a  definition  and  reduce 
them  to  a. practical  form.  There  is  still  another  name 
that  has  been  given  to  this  principle  which  more  ap- 
propriately attaches  to  those  who  advocate  popular 
sovereignty.  We  have  been  called  "radicals,"  and  I  do 
not  know  that  this  is  peculiar  to  our  location  at  the 
west ;  for  I  understand  that  you  have  some  radicalism 
in  the  east  as  well  as  in  the  west.  I  believe  my  friend 
from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  claims  to  be  an  "infinite 
radical."  But  let  us  look  at  this  matter.  Gentlemen 
warn  us  against  the  revolutionary  tendencies  of  the 
times.    We  are  admonished  to  adhere  to  the  principles 


of  our  forefathers  ;  we  are  warned  against  destroying 
the  old  land-marRS  that  they  laid  down.  Now,  I  take 
upon  myself  to  say,  that  we  are  not  desiring  to  depart 
from  those  great  American  doctrines,  from  the  princi- 
ples of  our  forefathers ;  but  we  are  desiring  to  build  up 
a  government  upon  those  very  principles;  we  are  not 
seeking  to  cut  loose  from  the  shore  and  drift  away  up- 
on the  uncertain  current  of  speculative  experiment. 
Fortunately  for  us,  those  principles  have  been  recorded 
in  solemn  form,  and  in  language  so  explicit  as  to  admit 
of  neither  misconception  nor  prevarication.  One  of 
them  is  as  follows :  "All  power  is  vested  in  and  de- 
rived from  the  people."  If  adherence  to  this,  maxim  en- 
titles me  to  the  cognomen  of  "  radical  "  or  "revolution- 
ist," I  cordially  accept  the  name.  But,  my  radicalism 
— my  retrogradation,  stop  there.  I  will  not  go  further 
back.  I  am  no  great  admirer  of  speculative  theories. 
I  am  not  particularly  given  to  abstractions.  But  I  am 
willing  to  go  back  to  this  principle ;  but  I  am  determined 
to  stop  there.  I  will  not  consent  to  go  behind  the  rev- 
olution which  established  this  great  political  truth,  and 
exhume  the  discarded  principles  of  English  aristocracy, 
and  fill  our  halls  of  legislation  with  the  representatives 
©f  wealth.  I  will  never  consent  to  revive  odious  dis- 
tinctions and  privileged  classes,  founding  claims  to 
superior  political  power  upon  the  possession  of  proper- 
ty; but  1  will  stop  where  I  find  the  principle  declared 
that  "  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  indepen- 
dent." I  will  adhere  to  the  rule  that  "no  men,  or  set 
of  men,  are  entitled  to  exclusive  or  separate  emolu- 
ments or  privileges  from  the  community,  but  in  consid- 
eration of  public  services."  And  I  call  upon  gentle- 
men distinctly  to  say  whether  they  will  subscribe  to 
these  doctrines  of  our  fathers,  whose  wisdom  and  vir- 
tues we  arevso  often  and  so  vehemently  admonished  to 
revere  and  to  cherish,  or  whether  they  will  repudiate 
and  reject  them.  I  fear  that  the  admiration  of  our 
eastern  brethren  for  the  principles  and  wisdom  of  our 
fathers,  is  rather  an  "abstraction" — I  will  not  say 
an  "arrant  abstraction."  I  call  upon  gentlemen  to 
give  practical  evidence  of  their  own  veneration  for  the 
wisdom  of  our  ancestors  by  giving  practical  existence 
and  effect  to  the  principles  that  "  all  power  belongs  to 
the  people." 

There  is  another  doctrine  or  maxim  of  popular  gov- 
ernment to  which  I  wish  to  advert  for  a  moment.  I 
mean  the  jus  majoris,  or  right  of  the  majority.  This 
right  has  been  denounced  by  the  gentleman  from  Hali- 
fax, (Mr.  Purkins,)  as  an  "  absurdity."  He  has  argued 
to  show  that  the  idea  intended  to  be"  conveyed  by  the 
framers  of  the  bill  of  rights,  by  the  terms  "majority  of 
the  community,"  meant  a  political  majority ;  and  that 
a  political  majority  is  a  majority  of  interests,  embracing 
therein-  every  imaginable  species  of  interest,  both  of 
property  and  persons.  I  do  not  know  that  I  distinctly 
understood  what  that  gentleman  meant  by  denom- 
inating the  right  of  the  majority,  as  understood  by  west- 
ern gentlemen,  as  an  absurdity.  But  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  his  interpretation  of  the  purport  of  our  bill  of 
rights  be  a  correct  one,  it  will  involve  himself  in  some- 
thing of  a  dilemma,  for  he  distinctly  admitted  in  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  that  the  maxim  was  true  that 
the  people  were  the  source  of  all  political  power.  Let 
us  test  his  position.  "All  power" — not  a  part,  but  "all 
pow'er  is  vested  in  the  people" — not  in  property,  but  in 
"  people."  If,  therefore,  those  interests  of  property 
which  he  declares  are  constituent  elements  of  the  "  po- 
litical community,  or  majority,"  have  no  power  in  them, 
and  all  power  resides  in,  and  is  in  fact  inherent  in  the 
people,  how  can  it  be  true  that  the  majority  he  speaks 
of  is  a  majority  of  interests  ?  I  think  that  the  gentle- 
man's position  is  an  absurdity,  that  it  presents  as  com- 
plete a  reductio  ad  absurdum  as  can  be  found  in  Play- 
fair's  Euclid. 

When  considered  with  reference  to  himself,  alone, 
every  man  would  be  entitled  to  the  unrestricted  en- 
joyment of  his  own  opinions,  and  to  conform  his 
conduct  to  the  dictates  of  hi3  own  judgment.  But 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


333 


men  think  differently,  act  differently,  and  are  influ- 
enced by  different  motives.  They  are  not,  indeed,  al- 
ways guided  by  their  judgment,  fallible  and  fluctuating 
as  it  is,  but  are  too  often  influenced  by  corrupt  consid- 
erations. Now,  man  is  a  social  being ;  and  in  a  state  of 
society,  differences  and  difficulties  would  necessarily 
ensue.  Conflicts  and  collisions,  moral,  physical  and  po- 
litical, would  necessarily  result  in  the  community.  To 
preserve  society,  therefore,  and  by  preserving  society 
preserve  mankind,  we  must  look  for  authority  some- 
where to  adjust  these  difficulties  and  harmonize  these 
differences.  Where  shall  it  be  found  ?  In  the  unthink- 
ing horse  ? — in  the  stupid  mule  ? — in  lowing  herds  ? — 
in  bleating  folds  ? — in  the  vaults  of  the  banker  ? — or  the 
fields  of  the  farmer  ?  No,  sir,  no.  Such  things  would 
fail  you  in  the  hour  of  need.  Like  the  gods  described 
by  the  ancient  prophet,  they  have  "  eyes,  but  they  see 
not ;  ears,  but  they  hear  not ;  hands,  but  they  handle 
not ;  feet  they  have,  but  they  walk  not."  I  do  not  in- 
tend to  continue  the  reference,  and  say,  that  they  who 
put  their  trust  in  them,  are  like  unto  them ;  but  I  do 
mean  to  say,  that  such  things  cannot  properly  be  con- 
sidered the  true  and  legitimate  source  of  true  and  le- 
gitimate political  power. 

I  will  repeat  the  maxim,  "  all  power  is  vested  in 
the  people."  Now,  what  portion  of  the  people,  who  are 
by  "  nature  equally  free  and  independent, "  shall  be 
clothed' with  the  proud  prerogative  ot  determining  and 
administering  the  rights  of  the  community  ?  Consti- 
tuted as  society  is,  and  must  continue  to  be,  differ- 
ences will  arise  among  the  members  of  the  society 
of  varied  and  vital  importance.  Who  shall  settle 
them  ?  Where  all  cannot,  or  will  not,  agree,  whose 
opinions  ought  to  prevail  ?  Common  sense  answers — 
the  majority.  Necessity  answers — the  majority.  The 
bill  of  rights  declares  that  this  power  rightfully 
belongs  to  the  majority —inalienably  and  indefeasi- 
bly  belongs  to  the  majority.  If  not  in  the  majority, 
in  how  many  less  ?  I  propound  that  question  ; 
and  I  respectfully  ask  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  it.  If  the  majority  have  not  this  right,  in 
how  many  less  than  a  majority  does  this  right  exist? 
And,  moreover,  of  whom  shall  this  favored  minority 
consist?  Answer  me  that  question.  Who,  in  the  first 
place,  shall  have  the  right  to  select  this  minority?  I 
demand  to  know  that.  Is  it  a  divine  right,  a  self-ex- 
isting, self-demonstrating  right?  Will  gentlemen  in- 
form me  on  this  point  ?  I  repeat  the  question  again : 
In  a  community  of  men  who,  by  nature,  are  equally  free 
and  independent,  who  do  constitute  the  minority  who 
is  to  govern  the  majority? 

We  have  been  living  under  the  existing  constitution 
for  some  twenty  years.  How  was  that  constitution  es- 
tablished ?  What  gave  it  being  and  authority  ?  Was 
it  your  lands,  your  slaves,  your  property  ?  No.  It 
was  the  voice  and  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  com- 
munity— at  least  of  the  qualified  voters.  Now,  I  hope 
we  shall  succeed  in  our  labors  here,  and  before  long  pre- 
pare an  amended  constitution.  What  will  be  done 
with  it  ?  You  will  present  it  to  the  people,  irrespective 
too,  of  their  property,  or  the  taxes  paid  by  them.  What 
for  ?  To  ascertain  whether  it  is  the  will  of  the  majori- 
ty that  it  should  be  adopted.  If  it  should,  unfortunate- 
ly, contain  the  mixed  basis  of  representation,  and  should 
therefore,  fail  to  receive  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the 
qualified  electors,  it  will  be  rejected  ;  even  though  it 
should  receive  the  votes  of  persons  who  paid  two-thirds 
of  the  taxes  of  the  commonwealth.  And  yet  this  jus 
majoris — this  right  of  the  majority,  is  denounced  as  a 
"political  absurdity."  Why,  gentlemen  cannot  get 
their  mixed  basis  without  it. 

If  some  process  could  be  adopted  by  which  the  intel- 
ligence and  integrity  of  the  community  could  be  cer- 
tainly ascertained  and  graduated,  so  as  to  bring  these 
qualities  and  qualifications  to  bear  on  political  action, 
there  might  be  some  propriety  in  confining  political 
power  to  less  than  a  majority  of  the  people,  provided 


such  minority  possessed  the  greater  amount  of  virtue 
and  capacity.  Bub  I  do  not  understand  eastern  gentle- 
men to  predicate  their  claims  for  superior  legislative 
power,  on  any  such  premises.  They  do  not  arrogate  to 
themselves  such  superiority.  They  say  that  they  pos- 
sess more  property  and  pay  more  taxes,  and  are,  there- 
fore, entitled  to  greater  political  power. 

I  propose  to  consider,  briefly,  this  assumption.  I 
wish  to  know  how  it  is  that  wealth  confers  any  such 
authority.  Does  it,  necessarily,  improve  the  mind  or 
the  heart?  Does  the  mere  fact  that  a  man  possesses 
a  great  amount  of  goods  and  chattels  necessarily  quali- 
fy hinveither  mentally  or  morally,  for  the  faithful  and 
efficient  discharge  of  the  duties  of  a  good  citizen  ?  Is 
property  the  source  of  patriotism  ?  Is  love  of  country 
no  higher  principle  than  love  of  money  ?  I  understand 
the  characteristics  of  the  good  citizen  to  be  of  a  Very 
different  nature.  But,  aside  from  the  fact,  that  the  pos- 
session of  property  has  no  inherent  efficiency  to  impart 
virtue  and  wisdom  to  its  possessor  so  as  to  enhance  his 
qualifications  for  the  discharge  of  his  civil  or  political 
duties,  it  might  not  be  unavailing  to  inquire  what  its 
usual  incidental  effects  are  upon  the  public  morals  and 
integrity.  And  here,  I  think  I  may  appeal  to  univer- 
sal history  to  attest  the  truth,  that  the  due  administra- 
tion of  justice,  and  the  civil  liberties  of  mankind,  have 
suffered  less  from  the  rapacity  of  the  poor  than  from  the 
encroachments  and  corrupting  tendencies  of  wealth. 
Wealth  itself  is  power,  and  its  possession  by  masses, 
like  its  possession  by  individuals,  has  been  often  made 
the  instrumentality  of  oppression.  Whether  we  may  not 
find  an  apt  illustration  of  the  verity  of  thi$  assertion  in 
the  history  of  our  own  commonwealth,  I  shall  not  now 
stop  to  inquire.  It  is  said  that  "  power  is  always  steal- 
ing from  the  many  to  the  few,"  and  I  feel  assured 
that  the  reason  of  this,  to  a  great  extent,  has  been,  that 
this  favored  few  were  the  proprietaries  of  wealth.  A 
reference  to  the  oligarchies  and  aristocracies  of  all  time 
will  confirm  this  position.  Wheresoever  there  have  ex- 
isted privileged  orders  or  classes,  from' the  patrician,  at 
Rome,  down  to  the  nobleman  in  England,  there  it  will 
be  found  that  they  have  controlled  the  wealth  of  the 
country  to  a  predominating  extent.  Now,  of  all  kinds 
of  aristocracy,  that  is  the  meanest,  and,  usually,  the 
most  despotic,  which  derives  its  authority  from  proper- 
ty. Birth  and  lineage,  rendered  illustrious  by  a  long 
succession  <  'of  honorable  ancestors  and  noble  deeds, 
challenge  our  homage  with  some  color  of  apology  ;  but 
that  upstart  pretension  to  superior  political  authority, 
founded  upon  the  simple  possession  of  lands  and  tene- 
ments, goods  and  chatties,  is  abhorent,  not  only  to  the 
spirit  of  liberty,  but  also  to  the  spirit  of  a  man.  It  is 
downright  presumption,  wrong  in  principle,  disastrous 
in  its  practical  effects,  and  anti-republican  in  its  nature. 

And  thus  an  examination  of  the  actual  consequences 
of  a  departure  from  the  true  theory  of  a  free  govern- 
ment admonishes  us  of  the  impropriety  of  discarding  all 
abstract  principles  as  "arrant  abstractions;"  and  justi- 
fies us,  I  think,  in  regulating  the  important  matter 
occupying  the  attention  of  this  committee,  in  insisting 
upon  giving  practical  effect,  in  our  organic  law,  to  the 
great  political  maxim,  that  the  majority  of  the  people 
is  the  only  fountain  of  political  power. 

But  it  may  be  alleged,  perhaps,  that  although  in  or- 
ganizing the  government  in  the  first  place  the  will  of  a 
majority  may  be  necessary  and  proper,  yet  the  majority 
may  will,  in  order  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  mi- 
nority, to  place  the  legislative  power  of  the  government 
in  the  hands  of  the  minority.  I  shall  not  stop  to  dis- 
cuss this  proposition.  Gratia  argumenti — suppose  it 
were  so  ?  I  ask  what  is  the  will  of  the  majority  rep- 
resenting the  present  question  ?  Is  the  majority  of  the 
community  in  favor  of  the  mixed  basis,  or  of  the  suf- 
frage basis  ?  I  propound  that  question  to  gentlemen. 
You  know  —  this  committee  knows  —  there  is  a  ma- 
jority of  at  least  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  of  the 
people  of  Virginia — a  majority  of  at  least  fifteen  thou- 


334 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


sand  of  the  qualified  electors  of  Virginia  in  favor  of  dis- 
tributing the  legislative  power  according  to  suffrage. 
I  will  repeat  the  fact.  I  wish  it  to  be  thought  of  by 
the  people.  I  want  the  world  to  understand  it.  More 
than  one-half  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  by  at  least  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand — more  than  one-half  of  the 
Toters  of  Virginia,  by  at  least  fifteen  thousand — are 
standing  this  day  knocking  at  the  doors  of  this  hall, 
after  long  years  of  delay,  after  mature  deliberation  and 
a  quarter  of  a  century's  discussion,  and  patient  endur- 
ance of  their  grievances,  they  are  now,  to-day,  at  this 
moment,  knocking  at  the  doors  of  this  hall,  demanding 
their  proper  political  power,  and  an  apportionment  of 
representation  upon  the  principles  of  the  declaration 
of  rights.  Shall  we  resist  their  suit  ?  You  know  that 
such  is  the  fact.  We  all  know  it.  And  yet  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  in  the  presence  of  this 
popular  array,  and  in  answer  to  this  solemn  appeal,  ex- 
claims :  "  How  long  shall  our  patience  be  abused  by  the 
eternal  clamoring  of  the  west  to  get  its  hands  upon 
eastern  purse  strings  1  "  I  have  long  admired  that  dis- 
tinguished gentleman.  I  heard  that  expression  with 
profound  regret.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
mean  to  say  that  the  western  people  are  corruptly 
influenced  by  the  spirit  of  plunder  ?  Does  he  mean 
to  say  that  their  delegates  on  this  floor  are  actuated — 
Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  I  expressed  no  such  senti- 
ment. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  understood  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  to  say  distinctly,  the  other  day,  in  response 
to  some  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr. 
Summers,)  and  in  a  manner  most  emphatic,  "  how  long 
shall  our  patience  be  abused  by  the  eternal  clamor- 
ing of  the  west  to  get  its  hands  on  the  eastern  purse- 
strings  ? " 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  WILLEY.  I  am  glad,  however,  to  understand 
that  the  gentleman  did  not  mean  any  impeachment  of 
Our  motives ;  and  glad  that  I  have  afforded  him  an  op- 
portunity of  making  the  disavowal. 

In  regard  to  this  question  of  western  majority,  allow 
me  to  submit  a  few  statistics.  In  1 790  the  eastern  ma- 
jority of  white  population,  was  185,932.  In  1800,  it 
was  159,903.  In  1810,  it  was  126,114.  In  1820.  it  was 
94,964.  In  1830,  it  was  57,012.  In  1840,  the  scale  was 
turned,  and  there  was  a  western  majority  of  2,172.  In 
1850  the  western  majority  was  _  90,392.  At  the 
same  rate  of  progression  what  will  it  be  in  1860  ? 
in  1870,  it  will  no  doubt  be  300,000.  Our  taxation 
will  increase  in  equal  ratio ;  so  that  it  will  be  but  a  few 
years,  until  we  will  be  entitled  to  a  majority  of  repre- 
sentation even  upon  the  mixed  basis.  And  yet  the  gen- 
tleman froja  Halifax  (Mr.  Purkins)  speaks  of  the 
mighty  voice  of  100,000,  which  is  to  begin  to  swell  on 
the  ocean  shore  and  roll  up  to  the  Piedmont  country, 
and  there  be  increased  in  its  volume  by  the  voice  of  an- 
other 100,000  ;  and  then  this  voice  is  to  rush  over  the 
Blue  Ridge,  sweep  across  the  Valley,  and  over  the  Al- 
leghanie3,  and  then  it  is  to  begin  to  thunder  and  lighten, 
and  shake  the  earth  unless  the  mixed  basis  prevail. 
Let  me  tell  that  gentleman  that  he  will  find  a  spirit 
there  which  will  set  our  hills  and  mountains  on  fire ; 
and  we  will  meet  his  voice  with  earthquakes  and  volca- 
noes.   He  had  better  look  out.  [Laughter.] 

One  of  the  principal  objections  relied  on  by  eastern 
gentlemen,  against  trusting  the  west  with  the  political 
power  which  we  claim,  is  the  selfishness  of  human  na- 
ture. But  I  would  inquire  whether  the  minority  are 
not  just  as  selfish  as  the  majority  ? — whether  power  in 
the  hands  of  the  many  is  not  as  safe  as  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  few  ?  It  must  be  lodged  somewhere,  and 
expediency,  as  well  as  principle,  requires  that  it  should 
be  vested  where  it  rightfully  belongs — in  the  majority 
of  the  community.  The  best  exponent  of  expediency  is 
truth.  Whatsoever  is  abstractly  right,  is  usually  prac- 
tically expedient. 

I  have  listened  with  no  small  degree  of  amazement  to 
the  utterance  of  certain  opinions  on  this  floor.    It  may 


be  owing  to  my  _  inexperience.  Having  mingled  little 
with  the  world,  it  may  be  worse  than  I  suppose.  But 
I  think  I  know  something  of  the  people  of  west  Vir- 
ginia. They  are  not  cut-throats — they  are  not  robbers.. 
They  are  not  actuated  by  a  "  spirit  of  plunder, "  as  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  seems  to  sup- 
pose. They  are  not  corruptly  "  clamoring  to  get  their 
hands  on  eastern  purse-strings."  I  cast  back  the  impu- 
tation. The  western  people  are  at  least  as  virtuous 
and  patriotic,  and  trust-worthy,  as  the  people  of  east 
Virginia. 

I  entertain  no  Utopian  ideas  of  human  perfectibility. 
But  I  had  supposed  that  the  anglo-American  race  was 
capable  of  self  government.  I  had  supposed  that  this 
fact  was  here  admitted.  If  so,  men  must  be  trusted 
with  the  administration  of  the  powers  of  government. 
If  political  power  is  only  vested  in,  and  only  derivable 
from  the  people,  it  is  equally  vested  there,  and  equally 
derivable  therefrom.  Men  must  be  trusted,  and  they 
must  be  trusted  alike,  or  there  is  an  end  to  republican 
equality. 

Our  own  glorious  history  triumphantly  confutes  this 
plea  of  distrust  against  the  popular  integrity.  It  am- 
ply vindicates  the  patriotism  of  the  masses.  It  shows 
that  reliance  may  be  placed  upon  the  non-property  hold- 
er, as  well  as  upon  the  wealthy.  Without  any  foolish 
desire  to  embellish  a  period,  or  to  appeal  to  the  pas- 
sions, I  may  yet  be  allowed  to  refer  to  the  proud  annals 
of  our  past  history — prouder  and  brighter  and  more  il- 
lustrious on  account  of  the  practical  agency  which  they1 
exhibit  of  the  popular  fidelity.  I  ask  gentlemen  who  it 
was  who  shed  their  blood  most  freely  in  our  revolution- 
ary struggle  for  independence  ?  Whom  did  the  "  fath- 
er of  his  country  "  lead  to  victory  ?  Upon  whom  did  he 
rely  in  the  dark  "  days  which  tried  the  souls  of  men  ?  " 
Was  it  upon  the  slave  owner,  the  land  owner,  the  man 
of  merchandize,  the  wealthy  ?  I  will  venture  the  as- 
sertion that  seven-tenths  of  those  noble  men  had  no  ti- 
tle to  a  foot  of  the  soil  -which  they  enriched  by  their 
blood,  shed  in  defence  of  it.  And  when  they  shoulder- 
ed their  knap-sacks  they  carried  on  their  backs  their  en- 
tire stock  of  goods  and  chattels.  Yet  we  confided  in 
them.  We  placed  in  their  keeping  "  our  lives,  our  for- 
tunes, and  our  sacred  honor  ;  "  and  we  were  not  betray- 
ed. And  this  day,  the  star-spangled  banner  floating 
yonder  from  the  flag-staff  on  the  capitol,  is  the  immor- 
tal memorial  of  their  integrity.  Why,  the  shouts  of 
the  victories  of  Chapultepec  and  Buena  Vista,  are  still 
echoing  in  our  mountains,  and  floating  across  your  low 
lands.  Who  fought  those  brilliant  ^achievements  ?  Who 
successfully  carried  our  arms  through  the  Mexican  war 
and  planted  the  standard  of  our  country  upon  the  pal- 
aces of  the  Montezumas  ?  Was  it  our  landlords,  our 
slave  owners,  or  the  wealthy  proprietaries  of  the  country  ? 
No,  sir,  no.  I  hazard  nothing  in  saying  that  few,  very 
few,  of  the  common  soldiers  were  property  holders  of 
any  kind  to  any  considerable  extent.  And  yet  they 
were  true  to  the  death. 

Now,  I  demand  to  know,  why  men,  similarly  situated, 
and  similarly  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  commu- 
nity, may  not  securely  be  entrusted  with  an  equal  par- 
ticipation with  the  whole  community,  in  the  adminis- 
tration and  exercise  of  the  ordinary  powers  and  du- 
ties of  government.  We  have  more  to  fear  from  with- 
holding from  the  people  their  just  and  equal  privi- 
leges and  political  authority,  than  from  granting  to 
them  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  their  natural  rights. 

But  I  am  given  to  understand  that  gentlemen  predi- 
cate their  claim  to  representation  upon  the  basis  of  pro- 
perty and  taxation  not  merely  upon  the  ground  of  expe- 
diency, but  as  a  matter  of  political  right.  It  is  alleged 
that  he  who  contributes  most  to  the  support  of  the  gov- 
ernment, should  enjoy  mostauthority  in  the  government 
— that  taxation  and  representation,  are  correlative  terms 
and  should  exist  in  equal  ratio.  I  will  avail  myself  of 
the  present  occasion  to  declare  that  I  understand,  and 
unequivocally  admit,  that  one  of  the  first  and  great  duties 
of  government  is  to  secure  the  citizen  in  the  perfect  en- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


335 


joyment  of  his  property.  I  wish  this  to  be  explicitly 
understood.  But  I  cannot  conceive  how  it  is  necessa- 
ry, or  proper  that  in  order  to  secure  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty in  one  portion  of  the  community,  it  is  also  neces- 
sary and  proper  to  invade  the  personal  rights  of  the  other 
portion  of  the  community.  In  other  words,  I  deny  that 
property  can  be  the  proper  and  legitimate  source  of  le- 
gislative power,  or  that  taxation  can  be  the  legitimate 
rule  by  which  to  apportion  the  legislative  power  ;  be- 
cause, to  grant  this,  would  in  the  matter  now  the  subject 
of  discussion  necessarily  infringe  the  indefeasible,  un- 
alienable rights  of  a  majority  of  the  community. 

1  repeat  that  the  west  does  not  oppose  just  and  equal 
protection  to  property.  I  repel  the  insinuation  that  the 
western  people  are  actuated  by  any  sinister  purposes. 
It  is  true  we  are  seeking  for  power,  but  it  is  because  it 
belongs  to  us;  it  is  because  it  is  right  that  we 
should  have  it.  Let  me  tell  eastern  gentlemen  that  such 
inuendoes  come  from  them  with  a  bad  grace,  whilst 
they  claim  for  themselves,  in  open  violation  of  the 
principles  of  popular  sovereignty,  the  very  same  power 
which  they  are  unwilling  to  entrust  to  us.  Do  not  gen- 
tlemen perceive,  that  they,  a  mere,  a  decided  minority 
of  the  people,  are  assuming  to  themselves  the  right  to 
control,  as  far  as  legislation  can,  the  property  of  the 
majority  of  the  people?  You  say  the  case  is  different. 
You  say  that  the  minority  possesses  the  most  property, 
pays  the  greater  amount  of  taxes,  and,  therefore,  an  ar- 
bitrary exercise  of  power  by  the  majority  would  affect 
you  more  than  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  power  by  the 
minority  could  affect  us.  Allow  such  to  be  the  fact. 
The  effect  is  the  same  in  principle  and  character,  differ- 
ing only  in  extent.  So  that  you  are  denouncing  as 
wrong,  the  exercise  of  a  power  by  us,  whilst  you  are 
claiming  the  right,  even  though  in  the  minority,  to  exer- 
cise the  very  same  power  yourselves.  I  would  be  au- 
thorized to  refer  here,  I  think,  to  the  farmer  and  the 
judge,  and  the  ox  that  was  gored. 

The  protection  afforded  to  property  by  means  of  al- 
lowing it  representation  in  the  legislative  department 
of  government  is  wrong,  because  the  principles  by  which 
it  is  regulated  must  necessarily  operate  unequally  and 
partially.  The  mixed  basis  does  not  and  cannot  operate 
alike  on  all  sections,  and  more  especially  it  cannot  ope- 
rate with  equality  on  individuals.  The  principle  is,  there- 
fore, radically  wrong,  and  practically  anti-republican; 
because  it  inevitably  produces  inequality.  I  think  I  can 
demonstrate  such  to  be  the  fact. 

What  is  the  object  of  constitutional  law  ?  I  acknowl- 
edge that  it  is,  in  part,  to  protect  the  minority.  Its 
great  object,  however,  is  to  protect  individual  rights. 
How  shall  this  protection  be  secured?  Hot  by  giving 
each  individual  the  control  of  legislation.  That  would 
be  an  absurdity.  But  is  it  almost  as  absurd  to  give  any 
number  of  individuals  less  than  the  majority  such  con- 
trol ?  If  in  any  number  less  than  a  majority,  why  not 
ten,  five  or  one?  But  individual  rights  cannot  be  se- 
cured by  any  legislative  majority  whose  will  is  unre- 
strained by  positive  law  and  fixed  limitations  of  power. 
The  will  of  legislative  bodies  like  the  will  of  individu- 
als is  changeful,  variable  and  fluctuating.  Hence  the 
propriety  of  written  constitutional  law,  by  whiGh  the 
people  in  their  original  sovereign  capacity,  restrict  and 
regulate  the  action  of  their  legislative  agents  and  all 
others,  by  definite  principles  and  rules  which  cannot  be 
transgressed  without  their  consent.  This  is  the  reason 
of  written  constitutions,  and  when  these  organic  rules 
are  well  defined,  the  interest  of  individuals  as  well  as 
of  sections  must  be  secure.  If  gentlemen  fear  to  entrust 
the  taxing  power  in  the  hands  of  a  western  majority, 
let  them  provide  a  constitutional  limitation.  Will  it  be 
said  that  having  the  power,  we  will  disregard  any  such 
limitation  ?  Let  me  ask  what  becomes  of  western  in- 
terests in  the  hands  of  an  eastern  majority  ?  You  will 
say  that  the  undue  exercise  of  arbitrary  power  over  our 
property,  lives  and  liberties,  will  be  prevented  by  the 
unchanging  and  unchangeable  rules  of  constitutional 
law.   I  hope  so.   But  if  constitutional  limitations  are  po- 


tent enough  to  protect  the  west  from  the  east,  why 
should  they  not  be  strong  enough  to  protect  the  east 
from  the  west  ?  It  is  said  that  it  is  a  "bad  rule  which 
don't  work  both  ways.  "  Do  gentlemen  seek  to  estab- 
lish the  principle  that  the  irresponsible,  fluctuating  will 
of  a  legislative  majority,  representing  a  minority  of  the 
people,  will  secure  either  the  east  or  the  west,  either  the 
welfare  of  the  majority  or  the  minority  ?  Surely  not. 
Therefore,  if  constitutional  limitations  of  power  are 
necessary  and  adequate  to  the  protection  of  western 
rights,  so  I  think  they  will  be  adequate  to  protect  east- 
ern rights.  And  hence,  a  legislative  majority  is  not  only 
unjust  but  unnecessary. 

Before  I  proceed  to  show  more  minutely  the  partial 
and  unequal  operation  of  the  mixed  basis  of  represen- 
tation, allow  me  to  refer  to  the  principle  of  taxation 
discussed  the  other  day  by  the  gentleman  from  Augusta, 
(Mr.  Sheffey,)  and  to  express  to  him  my  obligations  for 
the  able,  elegant  and  eloquent  argument  with  which  he 
entertained  the  committee.  I  allude  to  ad  valorem  tax- 
ation. Now,  I  do  not  now  mean  to  commit  myself  ir- 
revocably to  that  principle.  I  will  wait  for  further 
discussion.  At  present  I  can  see  nothing  objectionable 
in  it.  What  better  security  against  discriminating  and 
oppressive  taxation  could  gentlemen  desire  ?  Let  every 
species  of  property  be  taxed  according  to  its  value — let 
no  one  species  of  property  be  taxed  higher  than  any 
other  species  of  equal  value — and  what  ground  can  there 
be  for  complaint  or  alarm  ?  And  what  pretext  can  gen- 
tlemen urge  for  property  represeEde,tion,  in  order  to 
protect  it  from  undue  taxation  ?  'v^ad  valorem  prin- 
ciple now  seems  to  me  to  be  just,  ay-a^tt  easy  and  equal 
application.  With  such  a  just  and  p&jfy  limitation  of 
the  taxing  power,  why,  how  is  the  ^ich  man  entitled  to 
more  legislative  power  than  his  neighbor,  who,  though 
less  wealthy,  is  entirely  equal  in  virtue  and  intelligence, 
and  every  other  characteristic  of  a  good  citizen.  It  is 
true,  he  pays  more  taxes.  He  contributes  more  to  the 
support  of  the  government.  But  ought  he  not  to  do  so  ? 
One  of  the  great  objects  of  the  government,  is  the  protec- 
tion of  property.  Well,  the  citizen's  property  is  pro- 
tected, and  he  is,  secured  in  the  enjoyment  of  it.  What 
more  is  he  entitled  to?  Being  more  wealthy  than  his 
neighbor,  he  derives  more  advantage  from  the  govern- 
ment, and  ought  in  justice  to  contribute  more  to  its  sup- 
port. 

Allow  me  to  illustrate  the  equal  operation  of  equal 
or  ad  valorem  taxation.   A  citizen  east  of  the  Blue  Kidge 
is  worth  ten  thousand  dollars.    A  citizen  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge  is  worth  one  thousand  dollars.    According  to 
existing  rates  of  taxation,  which  are  ten  cents  on  every 
hundred  dollars,  the  eastern  man  would  pay  ten  dollars, 
and  the  western  man  would  pay  one  dollar.    The  former 
would,  therefore,  pay  ten  times  the  amount  of  the  lat- 
ter.   But  he  is  ten  times  as  able  to  pay,  and  is  ten 
times  as  much  interested  in  paying  it,  for  he  derives 
ten  times  as  much  advantage  from  paying  it.  There^B 
therefore,  no  injustice  or  hardship  in  the  operai^B 
the  principle.    Thus,  citizens  are  equally  burdflH 
equally  benefitted. 

How,  contrast  this  mode  of  taxation,  with  t9^H 
cal  effects  of  the  mixed  basis  plan  of  distributing  tflRB 
gislative  power  of  the  government  according  ^|^^^H 
tion,  by  which  it  is  proposed  to  secure  the  proj^H 
the  minority,  by  conferring  the  legislative  powe^^B 
minority.  Do  this  fairly,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  tbis^JM 
edbasis'system  is  partial  and  unequal  in  its  operation^] 
effects,  both  sectionallv  and  personally.    Why  there^H 
thousands  of  the  citizens  living  in  the  trans-Allegban^jl 
district,  who  possess  more  property  and  ^iy  more  taxes 
than  thousands  of  the  citizens  living  in  the  cis-montane 
districts  ;  and  yet  because  your  aggregate  wealth  is 
greater  than  ours,  these  same  eastern  citizens  are  to  be 
"vested  with  more  political  power,  than  western  citizens 
who  pay  twice  the  amount  of  taxes.    I  will  venture  to 
say  that  there  may  be  found  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  at 
least  twenty-five  thousand  tax  payers,  who  pay  a  great- 
er amount  of  taxes  than  twenty-five  thousand  eastern 


336 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


tax  payers,  who  might  be  selected,  and  yet  these  latter 
have  more  weight  and  are  to  be  clothed  with  more  power 
than  the  former.  Is  this  justice  ?  Js  this  consonant 
with  the  spirit  and  requirements  of  republican  equality? 
How  does  it  happen  that  a  man  paying  one  dollar  of 
public  revenue,  by  living  in  the  vicinity  of  wealthy 
neighbors,  is  entitled  to  more  weight  in  the  government 
than  the  man  paying  twenty  dollars,  who  resides  in 
the  midst  of  a  community  that  is  not  wealthy?  If  pro- 
perty be  really  and  rightfully  the  source  of  representa- 
tion, should  it  not  be  everywhere  equally  represented  ? 
Should  not  those  who  actually  possess  the  property  and 
pay  the  taxes,  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  political  authority 
connected  therewith  ?  Gertaiuly  no  principle  can  be 
sound  which  operates  so  partially.  I  will  further  illus- 
trate this  idea.  Monongalia  county  has  a  population  of 
something  above  twelve  thousand  ;  and  at  the  late  elec- 
tion for  delegates  to  this  body,  cast  above  twelve  hun- 
dred votes.  That  county,  under  the  present  distribution 
of  the  legislative  power  sends  one  member  to  the  house 
delegates — under  the  proposed  apportionment  it  would 
send  two  members.  Now,  John  Jacob  Astor  when  liv- 
ing was  worth  thrice  the  assessed  value  of  all  the  taxa- 
ble property  of  Monongalia  county.  Apply  the  mixed 
basis  impartiality,  and  Mr.  Astor,  if  he  were  living  and 
a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth,  would  be  entitled  to  one 
or  two  representatives  in  the  general  assembly.  But 
apply  the  principle  as  it  is  proposed  in  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  the  basis  to  apply  it,  and  if  John 
Jacob  Astor  we^ej  ow  living  in  Monongalia  county, 
he  would  be  enti,.  d  to  no  more  political  power  than 
the  poorest  qua]1!8 -J  voter  in  it,  and  not  so  much 
as  any  head  of  a^nily  in  Richmond  or  Norfolk,  who 
had  paid  twelve  anc^ahalf  cents  tax  on  a  Yankee  clock  ! 
How  can  such  inconsistency  be  defended?  And  if  the 
principle  be  wrong  when  applied  to  individuals,  how  can 
it  be  right  when  applied  to  communities  of  individuals  ? 

With  the  leave  of  the  committee  I  will  briefly  advert 
to  one  or  two  other  considerations  in  this  connection.  It 
is  urged,  that  if  the  legislative  power  be  transferred  to 
the  west,  the  revenue  of  the  east  would  be  liable  to 
be  absorbed  in  western  improvements.  Do  gentlemen 
forget,  that  whilst^  the  same  power  remains  on  this  side 
of  the  mountains,  the  revenue  of  the  west  are  liable  to 
be  absorbed  in  eastern  improvements  ?  May  I  not  ask, 
has  not  sueh  been  the  case  ?  It  may  be  answered,  that 
the  burden  of  taxation  falling  more  heavily  upon  the 
eastern  tax  payer,  because  he  has  more  taxable  proper- 
ty, there  is,  on  that  account,  no  danger  of  such  an  abuse 
of  power.  Let  us  see.  If  I  wish  to  improve  my  es- 
tate, there  is  no  hardship  in  levying  a  contribution  on 
that  estate,  which  I  am  to  receive  back  again  in  the  form 
of  improvements  on  that  estate.  So  that  if  I  am  taxed 
two  dollars  and  my  neighbor  only  one  dollar,  I  am  at 
last  a  gainer,  if  the  whole  three  dollars  be  expended  for 
my  benefit.  The  fallacy,  therefore,  of  such  an  argument 
is  obvious,  since  an  eastern  majority  can  control  the  ap- 
plication of  the  entire  revenues.  But  we  are  told  that 
the  legislative  power  has  been  in  eastern  hands  ever 
since  the  organization  of  the  commonwealth,  and  has 
never  been  abused.  When  gentlemen  are  driven  to  such 
a  dilemma,  they  seem  to  forget  another  proposition  or 
principle  much  insisted  on  by  some  of  them — I  mean 
th^  selfishness  of  mankind  justifying  constant  guaranties 
and  distrust.  But  I  would  simply  inquire  are  not  the 
western  people  as  virtuous  and  patriotic  as  the  eastern 
people?  Do  gentlemen  pretend  to  say  they  are  not? 
Then  why  not  give  us  the  power  ?  You  have  enjoyed 
it  a  reasonable  length  of  time.  You  ought  to  be 
satisfied,  and  not  complain,  if  we  are  willing  to  re- 
lieve you  of  its  responsibilities  and  its  burdens. 

Still  referring  to  the  lust  of  power  and  the  plea  of 
selfishness,  allow  me  to  suppose  a  case.  Suppose  the 
east  retain  the  legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  the  mi- 
nority; and  suppose  that  in  the  course  of  time,  western 
population  and  wealth  should  so  increase,  as  by  the 
principles  of  apportionment  on  the  mixed  basis,  the  west 
should  be  entitled  to  a  majority  of  representation,  might 


not  a  selfish  minority,  prompted  by  the  love  of  power, 
refuse  to  make  that  apportionment  ?  Would  it  exceed 
the  eastern  idea  of  the  selfishness  of  mankind  to  imagine 
it  possible  that  this  minority,  under  such  circumstances, 
might  be  induced  so  to  modify  and  multiply  taxation  on 
eastern  property,  as  to  keep  the  mixed  basis  always 
above  the  popular  standard,  so  as  to  retain  the  power, 
especially  since  this  minority  would  always  have  it  in 
its  power  to  appropriate  this  increased  revenue  to  its 
own  benefit  ?  But  the  great  source  of  apprehension  is 
your  slave  property. 

I  take  it  upon  myself  to  say  that  there  is  no  ground 
for  any  alarm,  that  any  western  majority  would  or  could 
oppress  the  eastern  slaveholder  by  exhorbitant  taxa- 
tion, or  by  any  enactment  affecting  slave  property. 
Look  at  the  condition  of  the  valley.  To  say  nothing  of 
the  counties  of  Wythe  and  Kanawha  in  the  trans-alle- 
ghany  district,  let  me  invite  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  following  facts :  The  county  of  Augusta 
pays  tax  on  2,801  slaves ;  the  county  of  Berkeley  on  1,099 ; 
the  county  of  Botetourt  on  2,019 ;  the  county  of  Clarke 
on  1,034 ;  the  county  of  Frederick  on  1,401 ;  Jefferson  on 
2,419;  Roanoke  on  1,346;  Rockbridge  on  2,428  ;  Rock- 
ingham on  1,288.  These  nine  counties  would  be  entitled 
to  eighteen  delegates,  on  the  basis  of  suffrage  in  a  house 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  members.  Cannot  any  body 
see  that  in  all  questions  affecting  slavery  or  slave  pro- 
perty, all  these  counties  would  unite  with  the  east  ?  In 
such  a  case  the  whole  valley  would  unite  with  the  east. 

Let  me  ask,  where  all  this  time  are  the  lives  and  the 
liberties,  the  souls  and  the  bodies  of  the  western  peo- 
ple ?  I  desire  to  repeat  this  interrogation.  Where  all 
this  time  are  western  life  and  personal  rights  ?  Are 
they  not  to  be  considered  in  organizing  the  government  ? 
How  is  it  ?  Constituting  as  we  do  a  majority  of  near 
one  hundred  thousand  souls,  we  are  asked,  modestly 
asked,  to  surrender  our  lives,  liberties  and  persons,  so 
far  as  they  can  be  affected  by  the  legislative  power  of 
the  government,  to  a  minority.  Disguise  it  as  you  may, 
you  are  regarding  your  goods  and  chattels  with  higher 
distinction,  than  you  are  the  life  and  liberty  of  the  west- 
ern citizen.  Are  you  not?  Are  you  not  demanding 
that  your  property  shall,  virtually,  have  place  and  pow- 
er in  the  legislative  department  of  the  government  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  freemen  of  the  west?  Is  this  right  ? 
Is  it  tolerable?  Is  there  a  man  below  the  Blue  Ridge, 
who,  if  transferred  beyond  the  Alleghanies,  would  sub- 
mit to  it  ?    Not  one  !    Not  one ! 

I  beg  leave  to  say  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
little  personal  estate  which  I  possess,  consists  of  a  fam- 
ily of  slaves.  I  am  a  slave  holder,  and  I  regard  the  ti- 
tle to  this  property,  as  to  all  other  property,  as  sacred, 
equally  sacred.  But,  I  cannot  allow  my  interest,  in 
this  respect,  to  override  the  natural  rights  and  liberties 
of  one  hundred  thousand  of  my  fellow-citizens.  No  I 
You,  a  mere  minority  of  the  people,  claim  authority  to 
legislate  for  the  majority — to  control  their  interests,  civil, 
religious,  political,  even  life  itself.  You  have  no  right 
to  such  control.  I  speak  with  all  due  deference  to  the 
opinions  of  others,  and  with  the  diffidence  which  my 
humble  position  on  this  floor  ought  to  inspire  me.  I  im- 
pute none  but  the  purest  motives  to  any  gentleman,  but 
I  speak  the  sentiments  of  my  heart,  and  when  I  remem- 
ber that  1  speak  the  sentiments  of  my  constituency  too, 
I  am  emboldened  to  declare,  here  in  my  place,  that  such 
assumptions,  if  carried  into  effect  and  made  a  part  of 
the  organic  law,  would  be  monstrous  oppression,  utterly 
subversive  of  the  dearest  principles  of  political  liberty 
and  republican  equality. 

I  am  weary  of  this  cry  of  selfishness — this  inferential 
impeachment  of  western  integrity.  It  has  been  ringing 
in  our  ears  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century — the  stereo- 
typed decree  against  every  petition  we  have  preferred 
for  political  equality.  When  we  ask  for  our  natural 
liberties,  we  are  told  that  we  are  clamoring  for  abstrac- 
tions— arrant  abstractions.  When  we  sue  for  an  equal 
and  just  participation  in  the  administration  of  the  gov- 
ernment, we  are  answered  that  men  are  selfish.  The 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


337 


distinguished  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  cries 
out — "  How  long-  shall  our  patience  be  abused  by  this 
eternal  clamoring  of  the  west  to  get  their  hands  on  our 
purse-strings  ?"  The  fears  of  eastern  gentlemen  are 
idle.  What  is  there  to  justify  them  in  the  history  of 
the  past  ?  Upon  what  facts  do  gentlemen  predicate 
their  apprehensions  of  our  integrity?  There  are  no 
facts  to  justify  them.  These  apprehensions  are  the 
mere  bug-bears  of  an  excited  imagination — mere  specu- 
lative assumptions,  having  their  origin  in  their  theories 
of  human  selfishness. 

I  appeal  to  the  record.  The  gentleman  from  Halifax 
(Mr.  Purkixs)  has  made  it  necessary.  I  do  so  with  re- 
luctance. Self-commendation  is  hardly  ever  in  good 
taste,  but  the  gentleman's  remarks  in  reply  to  the  re- 
marks of  the  venerable  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr. 
Smith,)  require  some  notice.  Besides,  I  feel  myself  in 
some  sense  compelled  to  refer  to  those  events  of  which 
gentlemen  have  spoken,  to  offset  the  constant  reference 
of  eastern  members,  to  the  moderation  and  justice  with 
which  they  have  exercised  the  power  in  their  hands,  and 
to  repel  the  imputations  against  western  fidelity  and  pa- 
triotism. I  confess  I  feel  some  pride  withal,  in  making 
this  reference.  I  appeal  then  to  the  record.  How  was 
it  some  forty  years  ago  when  the  invader  was  enticing 
away  your  negroes,  burning  your  villages,  pillaging 
your  property,  and  driving  your  families  into  the  inte- 
rior ?  How  was  it  then,  with  an  enemy  in  your  midst, 
who,  when  you  sought  to  repel  the  invader  from  before 
you,  might  recall  you  by  the  midnight  glare  of  your 
own  dwellings  in  flames  ?  You  called  for  help.  And 
the  echo  of  your  call  had  hardly  returned  from  our 
mountains  till  the  roll  of  the  western  drum  was  heard 
on  your  capitol  square.  Where  were  your  ideas  of  self- 
ishness then  ?  Where  was  your  distrust,  when  you 
were  arming  us  for  your  defence  ?  We  came  at  your 
call.  The  district  which  I,  in  part,  have  the  honor  to 
represent,  sent  down  her  men,  her  Haymonds,  her  Mor- 
gans, her  Tennants,  her  Hurrys,  her  Staffords,  and  oth- 
ers equally  worthy.  But  they  did  not  all  come  back. 
"No.  Many  a  desolated  western  fireside — many  a  be- 
reaved family  attested  the  fidelity  of  the  western  heart 
that  day.  And  now  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  (Mr. 
PuitKixs)  tells  us  that  we  received  our  wages — we  were 
duly  paid  off—"  we  had  our  reward,  and  ought  to  be 
content."  Yes,  the  bones  of  some  of  these  brave  men 
now  lie  bleaching  on  your  pine  hills  and  pine  barrens 
along  your  sea  coast,  to  reproach  you  for  your  ungener- 
ous distrust ;  and  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  (Mr.  Pur- 
kins)  cries  out  from  the  midst  of  these  affecting  memen- 
toes of  western  fidelity — "  I  am  tired  of  hearing  of  these 
things — you  have  had  your  reward — be  content." 

I  must  pause  here  to  pay  a  tribute  to  the  memory  of 
a  great,  good  man.  Under  whose  banner  did  those  true 
hearted  western  soldiers  rally  ?  It  was  that  of  a  man 
as  true  hearted  as  they,  or  any  man  that  ever  lived — the 
noble  General  Robert  B.  Taylor.  There  and  then  it 
was  he  learned  our  character,  our  fidelity,  our  devotion 
to  the  State,  without  regard  to  section  or  locality.  It 
was  fitting,  that  afterwards,  in  the  hour  of  our  extremi- 
ty, he  should  be  the  first  to  unfurl  the  flag  of  the  suf- 
frage basis  in  the  convention  of  1829-30.  But  the  same 
unmitigated,  unrelaxing  spirit  of  the  money  power  which 
is  here  now,  was  here  then,  and  drove  him  from  the 
councils  of  the  convention.  His  voice  ceased  to  be 
heard  in  our  defence.  His  name  ceased  to  be  recorded 
with  the  Mends  of  republican  liberty.  But  his  name 
lives  for  all  that.  It  has  found  a  more  enduring  record 
in  the  hearts  of  western  freemen ;  and  it  shall  continue 
to  live,  and  to  be  cherished  whilst  a  freeman  remains  on 
our  mountains.  I  acknowledge  the  weakness  of  the  mo- 
ment. The  unbidden  tear  has  revealed  (wiping  one  from 
his  cheek,)  the  homage  of  a  grateful  heart,  and  in  that 
tear,  here  in  the  presence  of  the  Convention,  I  baptize 
the  memory  of  that  great  man. 

But  I  am  not  done  with  the  record.  I  claim  to  say  a 
word  respecting  your  "  peculiar  rights,"  in  connection 


with  the  question  now  under  consideration.  I  have  ever 
regarded  the  present  as  a  most  unpropitious  time  for  a 
calm  and  judicious  adjustment  of  the  Constitution.  As 
in  time  of  an  epidemic,  so  now,  all  questions,  of  what- 
soever character,  become  involved  in  the  prevalent  ex- 
citement on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Alarmed,  and,  I 
may  say,  justly  alarmed,  at  the  encroachments  and  me- 
naces of  northern  fanaticism,  the  slaveholder  of  the 
east  seems  to  suspect  all  whose,  circumstances  and 
interests  are  not  identical  with  his  own ;  and  hence, 
however  faithful  the  west  has  been,  and  is,  in  its  princi- 
ples and  in  its  conduct,  respecting  the  rights  to  proper- 
ty, it  is  looked  on  with  distrust,  simply  because  it  not 
so  extensively  interested  in  slave  property.  I  will  not 
say  that  such  apprehensions  are  entirely  unnatural;  but 
I  do  say,  that  they  are  not  justifiable  in  fact.  Look  to 
the  record.  Look  to  the  journals  of  the  legislature. 
There  are  some  "abstractions"  besides  those  in  the  bill 
of  rights.  I  think  you  may  find  a  few  on  the  journals 
of  our  assembly.  And  if  the  distinguished  gentleman 
from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  will  allow  me,  I  would  sug- 
gest that  it  is  here,  where  that  grand  "  roost "  of  abstrac- 
tions of  which  he  spake  some  time  since,  may  be  found. 
Every  year  is  our  political  horizon  darkened  with  chat- 
tering broods  from  this  prolific  rookery.  [Laughter.] 

It  has  been  deemed  necessary  to  forewarn  fanatics  of 
the  determination  of  Virginia  to  defend  her  "  peculiar 
institutions."  We  have  defined,  and  re-defined  our  po- 
sition. We  have  declared  and  re-declared  our  rights  in 
this  behalf, — published  and  re-published  them,  session 
after  session,  till  the  archives  of  state  are  groaning  be- 
neath the  accumulating  mass  of  preambles,  resolutions 
and  laws  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  How  are  western 
votes  recorded  here  ?  We  have  sometimes  thought  there 
was  no  necessity  for  so  much  ado.  We  have  doubted 
the  expediency  of  such  legislation.  We  have  sometimes 
thought  these  proceedings  were  better  calculated  to  ex- 
cite and  feed  the  flames  of  fanaticism,  than  to  allay  and 
quench  them.  I  believe  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  has  some  reason  to  remember  that  he  thought 
so  too,  on  one  occasion.  [Laughter.]  But  we  were  will- 
ing that  the  east  should  direct  in  a  matter  so  interesting 
and  peculiar  to  that  section  of  the  State.  Our  votes 
are  generally  found  recorded  with  eastern  votes  on  such 
occasions.  If  there  be  exceptions,  it  was  not  because 
we  were  not  with  you  in  sentiment,  and  principle.  The 
legislative  proceedings  growing  out  of  the  Southampton 
insurrection,  forms  no  just  exception  to  this  assertion  : 
for,  although  western  members  of  the  legislature  favored 
emancipation  measures,  so,  likewise,  did  the  two  leading 
public  journals  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  and  so  did 
eastern  gentlemen.  Indeed,  those  measures  themselves, 
were*  I  believe,  principally  introduced  into  the  legisla- 
ture by  eastern  members.  It  was  not  a  strictly  section- 
al question. 

Time  after  time,  have  we  united  with  you  in  your 
pledges  and  declarations.  We  have  tendered  you  our 
hands.  You  have  always  had^  our  hearts — you  have 
them  still.  You  know  this.  You  cannot  contradict 
the  record.  But  now — now  when  we  only  ask  to  be  ele- 
vated from  our  political  degradation,  and  placed  by  your 
side,  on  the  great  platform  of  republican  equality,  we 
are  met  with  the  miserable  repulse  that  mankind  is  sel- 
fish, and  bidden  to  cease  our  "  eternal  clamoring  to  get 
our  hands  on  your  purse-strings." 

I  will  not  say  that  anything  can  destroy  western  fidel- 
ity and  allegiance.  But  referring  to  those  principles  of 
selfishness,  on  which  gentlemen  base  their  resistance  to 
our  claim  for  popular  power,  how  can  it  be  reasonably 
expected  that  western  fealty  should,  not  be  diminished, 
while  that  very  slave  property  which  we  have  hereto- 
fore done  all  that  was  ever  required  at  our  hands,  to  pro- 
tect, is  made,  in  the  shape  of  taxation,  the  instrumen- 
tality of  our  political  degradation,  virtually  giving 
goods  and  chattels  power  in  the  government,  whence  we 
are  excluded  ? 

Do  gentlemen  suppose  that  the  west  is  so  craven, 


338 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


that  it  will  always,  like  the  dog,  lick  the  lash  with  which 
it  is  beaten  ? 

But  I  will  not  allow  myself  to  speculate  upon  a  con- 
tingency so  seriously  impugning  the  moral  sense  of  my 
eastern  brethren.  Standing  in  the  midst  of  scenes,  hal- 
lowed by  the  lives  and  labors  of  the  mighty  men  who 
first  defined,  and  afterwards  achieved,  our  American  in- 
dependence, many  of  whom  consecrated  with  their  blood 
the  glorious  principles  of  man's  political  equality,  I 
will  not  anticipate  here,  in  "Old  Virginia,"  that 
those  great  principles  can  be  sacrificed  on  the  altar 
of  a  miserable  sectional  jealousy.  Surely,  the  descend- 
ants of  sires  who  pledged  their  "lives,  their  for- 
tunes and  their  sacred  honor,"  in  resisting  foreign  ty- 
ranny, will  not  persist  in  fastening  the  fetters  of  a 
galling  and  degrading  bondage  on  their  own  brethren  at 
home. 

The  west  desires  no  advantage — she  asks  only  to  be 
recognized  as  entitled  to  political  equality.  Can  there 
be  any  danger  in  granting  this  ?  No  !  we  may  well 
'dread  to  do  wrong,  but  never  to  do  right.  Give  us 
this.  Give  us  our  natural  rights — ours  by  the  laws  of 
nature  and  of  nature's  God.  Do  this,  and  you  secure  our 
fidelity  forever.  You  will  bind  us  to  your  interests 
and  your  fortunes,  by  ties  temfold  stronger  than  any 
which  a  legislative  majority  can  devise.  Do  this — and 
then  should  ever  the  dark  demon  of  insurrection  show 
it3  hideous  head  in  your  midst — should  ever  the  fie- 
ry fiend  of  northern  fanaticism  plant  its  robber  feet 
on  southern  soil,  or  lay  its  leprous  hand  on  a  single 
slave  within  your  borders,  I  feel  in  my  heart  authorized 
to  pledge  you,  that  the  hardy  sons  of  our  western 
mountains  will  come  to  your  rescue, — they  will  come 
not  by  units,  but  by  thousands.  They  will  all  come, 
not  by  constraint,  reluctantly,  but  promptly  and  cor- 
dially, with  hands  as  strong  and  hearts  as  true,  as  ever 
defied  the  tyrant,  and  died  in  defence  of  liberty  and 
honor. 

Before  I  resume  my  seat,  I  would  make  a  further  re- 
mark. I  do  so  with  some  hesitation,  for  I  have  observ- 
ed a  sensitiveness  on  the  part  of  gentlemen,  to  construe 
mere  expressions  of  opinion,  respecting  the  probable  re- 
sults of  our  actions  here,  into  threats  or  menaces.  I 
trust  I  have  too  much  self-respect — too  much  respect  for 
this  body — and  too  high  a  regard  for  the  Virginia  char- 
acter, to  be  guilty  of  such  an  indignity  or  of  such  an  in- 
discretion. Nevertheless,  I  believe  it  to  be  within  the 
scope  of  legitimate  debate,  and  quite  within  the  de- 
mands of  wisdom  and  prudence,  to  consider  the  results 
of  any  measure  in  contemplation.  Nay,  the  propriety 
of  a  principle  is  best  tested  by  observing  its  practical 
results.  And  now.  should  we  present  an  amended  con- 
stitution to  the  people,  containing  the  mixed  basis, 
would  it  be  adopted?  This  is  at  the  least  very  ques- 
tionable. But  if  adopted,  what  follows  ?  Agitation  ! 
agitation !  Still  further  tumult  and  alienation  of  fraternal 
feelings.  That  peace  and  concord  so  essential  to  the 
prosperity  c  f  the  commonwealth  would  be  destroyed,  by 
constant  criminations  and  recriminations.  Can  a  prin- 
ciple be  correct  which  would  produce  so  great  popular 
dissatisfaction? 

Heretofore  the  agitation  of  this  subject  has  principally 
been  political  in  its  aspects  and  relations.  Hereafter,  if 
the  mixed  basis  be  thrust  upon  us,  it  will  assume  a  mere 
personal  character.  For  the  operation  of  that  basis  will 
be  personal  degradation  as  well  as  political.  The  weal- 
thy will  have  privileges  and  power  that  poor  men  can- 
not possess,  simply  because  they  are  poor.  Western 
men  will  be  over-ridden  by  eastern  goods  and  chatties. 
The  odium  of  the  principle  will  naturally  transfer  itself 
to  the  person  of  him  who  vindicates  and  applies  it. 
I  should  regret  such  a  state  of  affairs  exceedingly.  No 
man  deprecates  these  evils  more  than  I.  I  dislike  even 
now  to  allude  to  them.  But  we  ought  not  to  shut  our 
eyes  upon  the  consequences  of  our  action  here.  But  the 
question  will  arise,  when  you  make  your  slaves,  as  the 
subjects  of  taxation,  the  instrumentality  of  political  and 
personal  inequality  in  the  government,  can  it  be  expected 


that  men  will  ardently  and  cordially  support  negro  slave- 
ry, when  by  so  doing  they  are  virtually  cherishing  the 
property  which  is  making  slaves  of  themselves  ?  What 
will  be  the  result  ?  It  is  impossible  that  the  morbid,  pseu- 
do-philanthropic spirit  of  northern  abolitionism  should 
ever  find  a  resting  place  in  Virginia.  But  will  not  a  hos- 
tility to  slavery  be  engendered  by  the  incorporation  of 
such  a  principle  into  the  constitution?  Your  slaves,  by 
this  principle,  drive  us  from  the  common  platform  of  equal 
rights,  and  usurp  our  place.  Will  the  spirit  of  freemen 
endure  it?  Never!  Either  the  principle  must  be  abol- 
ished, or  you  will  excite  a  species  of  political  abolition 
against  property  itself.  You  will  compel  us  to  as- 
sume an  attitude  of  antagonism  towards  you,  or  towards 
the  slave,  and  like  the  man  driven  to  the  wall,  we  shall 
be  forced  to  destroy  our  assailants,  to  save  our  own 
liberty. 

I  will  bring  my  remarks  to  a  conclusion  by  referring 
the  committee  to  a  fact — a  great  fact — attested  on  eve- 
ry page  of  man's  political  history.  It  is  this:  When- 
soever the  personal  liberties  of  any  people  have  been 
most  securely  protected,  then  has  property  to  the  same 
extent  been  secure.  And  it  is  equally  true,  that  where 
the  rights  of  person  have  been  insecure,  the  rights  to 
property  have,  in  like  manner,  been  insecure.  That  is 
the  verdict  of  universal  history.  Reasoning  therefore, 
from  effect  to  cause,  we  arrive  at  this  result :  that  if  we 
desire  to  fortify  property  against  the  undue  encroach- 
ments of  power,  by  the  wisest,  safest,  strongest  guaran- 
tees ever  devised,  we  must  extend  and  secure  to  every 
citizen,  his  just,  true  and  full  political  equality.  Will 
the  government,  community,  or  man  that  denies  to  the 
citizen  his  personal  rights,  have  any  very  scrupulous  re- 
gard to  his  property  ?  I  tell  you,  that  he  who  refuses  to 
recognize  and  cherish  my  superior  rights  and  interests,, 
ever  challenges  my  distrust  against  his  fidelity  to  my  in- 
ferior and  secondary  rights  and  interests. 

For  the  honor  of  the  ''Old  Dominion,"  I  pray  that 
this  mixed  basis  shall  never  darken  her  annals.  Liberty, 
if  not  born  on  her  soil,  at  least  escaped  from  her  bondage 
here,  and  first  stood  forth  in  all  the  graceful  attitude 
of  her  mature  proportions.  Shall  she  be  stabbed  on 
the  very  arena  of  her  original  triumph  ?  Shall  she  be 
wounded  in  the  house  of  her  friends  ?v>  Why,  what  an 
unenviable  position  gentlemen  are  striving  to  place  this 
proud  old  State  in  !  clinging  to  the  relics  of  an  ex- 
ploded aristocracy,  under  the  blazing  splendor  of  Ameri- 
can liberty.  Star  after  star  has  been  added  to  the  glo- 
rious galaxy  of  American  States,  to  increase  the  lustre 
of  the  great  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty,  undimmed 
by  the  faintest  shadow  of  the  dark  dogma  of  property 
representation.  One  after  another  of  the  "old  thir- 
teen," have  thrown  off  the  livery  of  colonial  vassalage, 
from  which  there  was  not  an  entire  escape  in  the  revo- 
lutionary struggle,  till  there  is  hardly  a  vestige  of  the 
mixed  basis  remaining  in  the  Union.  All  over  North 
America,  where  our  banner  is  unfurled,  it  floats,  with 
exceptions  hardly  worthy  of  being  named,  over  a  peo- 
ple not  only  by  "nature  equally  free  and  independent," 
but  so  in  fact.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  moral  influences  of 
the  great  American  doctrine  of  political  equality,  and 
of  its  practical  development  in  the  civil,  social,  moral, 
political  and  religious  condition  of  the  American  citi- 
zen, have  crossed  the  seas.  They  have  reached  Asia. 
They  are  recognized  in  Africa.  They  are  felt  and  feared 
in  Europe.  Ancient  dynasties  and  hoary  thrones  are 
crumbling  away  tanaught,  under  the  spreading  and  po- 
tent influences  of  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty. 
The  pampered  minions  of  monied  aristocracy — the  pro- 
scriptive  children  of  a  haughty  oligarchy,  are  trembling 
for  the  tenure  of  their  privileges  and  their  power,  under 
the  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty. 
The  great  mighty  popular  heart  of  the  world  has  received 
an  impulse.  The  masses  are  moving.  The  divine  right 
of  kings  has  been  exploded,  and  the  millions  groping  in 
the  dark  labyrinths  of  despotism  are  being  quickened  and 
enlightened  by  the  great  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty . 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


339 


And  yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  this,  in  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  beneath  the  noontide  effulgence  of 
this  great  principle  of  popular  supremacy,  a  voice  is 
heard  in  old  Virginia,  rising  from  almost  the  spot  where 
the  clarion  voice  of  Henry  awoke  a  nation  to  freedom, 
when  he  exclaimed,  "  give  me  liberty  or  give  me  death" — 
even  here,  where  we  should  take  off  our  shoes,  for  the 
earth  on  which  we  walk  is  holy — bearing  in  its  conse- 
crated bosom  the  remains  of  George  Mason  and  Thomas 
Jefferson,  the  one  the  author  of  the  declaration  of  inde- 
pendence, the  other  of  the  Virginia  bill  of  rights — even 
here,  a  demand  is  made  by  honorable  gentlemen  to  give 
superior  political  power  to  the  property -holder,  and  vir- 
tually invest  goods  and  chattels,  with  the  prerogative  of 
legislating  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  a  vast  majo- 
rity of  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth.  I  trust  this 
can  never  take  place. 

I  cannot  take  my  seat  without  tendering  to  the  com- 
mittee my  most  grateful  acknowledgments,  for  its  long, 
late  and  most  flattering  attention  to  the  very  poor  re- 
marks which  I  have  been  able  to  submit.  I  will  trouble 
you  but  seldom  hereafter,  t 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier,  the  committee 
then  rose. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning,  at  11  o'clock. 

TUESDAY,  February  25,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Manly  of  the  Baptist  church. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

The  Convention  resumed  the  consideration  in  commit- 
tee of  the  whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,)  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  the  basis  and  apportionment  of 
representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  proposi- 
tion of  VIr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Fauquier.  When  I  offered  the  sub- 
stitute under  consideration,  I  regretted  my  inability  to 
gratify  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  by  explaining 
at  that  time  the  reasons  which  I  intended  to  adduce  in 
support  of  it.  Their  desire  that  I  should  do  so  was,  no 
doubt,  very  natural,  and  it  is  probable,  since  they  so  in- 
sisted', that  it  would  hav-e  been  becoming  in  me  to  have 
taken  the  lead  in  the  discussion.  But  I  felt  a  strong  re- 
pugnance to  the  task  of  opening  the  argument.  Upon  a 
question  so  much  vexed,  the  most  far-sighted  cuuldnot 
anticipate  all  the  arguments  on  the  opposite  side,  that 
might  be  deemed  worthy  of  an  answer,  and  in  the  at- 
tempt to  do  so,  I  should  have  incurred  the  danger  of  rais- 
ing up  men  of  straw,  and  combatting  upon  the  floor  the 
mere  creations  of  my  own  fancy.  There  was  another 
danger  to  which  the  position  was  exposed,  probably 
already  exemplified  in  this  debate ;  from  the  want  of 
a  due  appreciation  of  what  may  be  thought  to  belong 
to  certain  suggestions,  we  are  liable  to  pass  them  unno- 
ticed, as  propositions  too  monstrous  to  find  a  place  in  a 
regulated  mind,  and  suffer  the  mortification  afterwards 
of^seeing  them  gravely  put  forward  by  others,  as  con- 
taining the  essence  of  whatever  is  reasonable  and  just  in 
morals,  and  the  quintessence  of  what  is  republican  in 
politics.  It  was  to  avoid  these  disadvantages,  that  I  de- 
clined the  other  day  to  lead  the  discussion,  and  this  I 
trust  will  be  received  as  some  apology  for  what  doubt- 
less appeared  my  obstinacy  on  that  occasion.  Besides,  I 
thought  my  friend  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  as 
chairman  of  the  committee,  might  properly  have  taken 
the  position  which  he  manifested  so  much  desire  to  as- 
sign to  me. 

But  these  things  aside,  as  the  mover  of  the  substitute, 
I  have  deemed  it  due  to  the  committee  to  claim  their  at- 
tention at  this  early  day,  whilst  I  attempt  to  recom- 
mend it  to  favor. 

The  debate  has  taken  a  wide  range,  and  many  topics 


have  been  introduced,  having  no  just  relevancy  to  the 
subject  under  consideration,  and  calculated  to  embarrass 
rather  than  aid  the  mind  in  coming  to  a  right  conclusion. 
To  divest  the  subject  of  useless  topics,  and  direct  the 
debate  to  the  practical  questions  at  issue,  will  be  my 
chief  aim  in  what  I  am  about  to  submit.  But  I  must  be 
permitted  to  say  that  I  indulge  no  hope  that  any  thing 
which  can  be  said  will  change  the  vote  of  any  gentle- 
man from  the  west,  for  upon  this  question,  unfortunate- 
ly, they  have  all  come  here  with  minds  pre-occupied, 
judgments  forestalled,  and  arguments  already  fashioned. 
But  I  do  not  despair  of  exposing  to  their  own  senses,  cer- 
tain errors  into  which  they  have  fallen,  and  thereby  dis- 
abusing the  minds  of  the  more  candid,  of  some  of  the 
objections  put  forward  in  the  discussion. 

Gentlemen  have  argued  from  the  beginning,  that  the 
eastern  sections  of  the  State  had  by  some  contrivance, 
got  possession  of  the  reins  of  government,  and  were 
seeking  now  to  use  their  usurped  power  for  sectional  ag- 
grandizement, and  they  point  to  the  organization  of  this 
Convention  as  pregnant  with  that  truth.  They  say  that 
these  sections  contain  only  a  minority  of  the  white  in- 
habitants, and  they  denounce  this  rule  as  odious,  oppres- 
sive and  tyrannical.  With  the  bill  of 'rights  in  their 
hands,  they  appeal  to  the  article  which  declares  the  jus 
majoris,  and  clamorously  demand  the  instant  surrender 
of  the  obnoxious  authority.  The  bill  of  rights  is  part 
of  the  present  constitution,  and  was  never  before  sup- 
posed to  be  in  conflict  with  its  provisions.  The  constitu- 
tion was  fairly  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  State, 
and  in  solemn  form  received  their  ratification.  Until  rati- 
fied it  had  no  force,  and  its  entire  effect  is,  therefore,  due 
to  the  deliberate  act  of  that  very  majority,  for  whose 
sovereign  will  such  absolute  respect  is  professed  upon 
this  floor.  Gentlemen  ought  to  spare  their  denuncia- 
tion ;  if  the  control  be  in  the  hands  of  the  minority  it 
was  the  will  of  the  majority  that  it  should  be  so.  No  one 
objected  to  the  bill  of  rights — no  one  contested  any  of 
its  great  truths  ;  I  myself,  subscribe  implicitly  to  every 
principle  it  proclaims.  As  a  memorial  of  the  virtues 
and  courage  of  our  fathers,  as  a  monument  of  their  wis- 
dom, and  imperishable  testimony  of  their  appreciation 
of  the  true  principles  of  rational  liberty,  I  would  pre- 
serve it  most  sacredly.  Perfect  as  it  stands,  addition  or 
subtraction  will  but  deform  its  proportions.  Compressed 
into  a  small  compass,  we  behold  in  a  single  view  all  the 
fundamental  principles  of  a  free  representative  republic 
— distinguished  broadly  from  the  despotisms  of  monar- 
chies, oligarchies  and  aristocracies,  and  the  dangerous 
turbulence  of  democracy. 

We  will  depart,  I  doubt  not,  from  many  of  its  wise 
lessons,  and  in  the  work  we  are  about  to  accomplish  in- 
fuse more  and  more  of  the  spirit  of  democracy.  Those 
who  come  after  us,  will  hold  on  in  the  same  course  until, 
it  may  be,  every  principle  of  the  great  instrument  will 
be  obliterated  from  the  constitution.  But  still  I  would 
preserve  it,  not  as  a  memorial  only  of  the  past,  but  as  a 
beacon  light,  that  in  the  dark  peril  of  the  tempestuous 
night  may  guide  the  distressed  crew  into  port,  and  ena- 
ble the  good  ship  once  more  to  ride  safely  at  her  moor- 
ings. 

The  third  article  defines  the  purposes  for  which  gov- 
ernment is  instituted,  and  declares  that  "when any  gov- 
ernment shall  be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these 
purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubi- 
table, unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter 
or  abolish  it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most 
conducive  to  the  public  weal."  Of  what  majority  this 
great  right  is  predicated  gentlemen  do  not  seem  agreed 
among  themselves.  There  is  a  numerical  majority  re- 
sulting from  a  computation  of  all  the  individuals  who 
compose  the  community;  there  is  also  a  physical  majori- 
ty composed  of  those  who  possess  the  greatest  force  ; 
both  of  these  existed  anterior  to  and  independent  of 
government.  There  is  a  governmental  majority  consist- 
ing of  those  to  whose  hands,  under  the  special  compact, 
administration  is  entrusted.    Under  our  system  this  last 


340 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


majority  consists  of  all  that  class  of  persons  who  exer- 
cise the  right  of  suffrage,  and  it  is  to  this  class  that  the 
bill  of  rights  refers  the  power  to  reform  the  existing 
government.  The  legislature  is  their  agent,  and  the 
members  who  compose  it  their  trustees  and  servants. 
It  was  in  obedience  to  the  supposed  wishes  of  this  majori- 
ty that  the  last  legislature  passed  the  act  for  the  assem- 
bling of  this  Convention.  By  one  of  its  provisions  the 
question  of  Convention  and  the  plan  of  its  organization 
was  submitted,  without  distinction,  to  all  the  voters  at 
the  polls,  and  by  a  majority  unexampled  in  popular  ac- 
tion, it  was  approved  and  adopted.  In  answer,  then, 
to  the  denunciations  against  the  alleged  inequality  of 
representation  in  this  body,  I  say  it  was  the  will  of  the 
majority.  And  I  again  remind  those  who  profess  so 
much  devotion  to  their  rights,  and  rely  so  implicitly 
upon  their  reason  and  justice,  how  grossly  they  depart 
from  the  principles  they  profess.  It  was  certainly  pro- 
per that  the  Convention  should  be  organized  upon  the 
basis  of  the  government.  If  a  change  is  to  be  made, 
and  further  concessions  granted,  they  ought  to  proceed 
from  the  deliberate  and  unconstrained  will  of  those 
who,  by  the  compact  under  which  we  live,  exercise 
supreme  authority.  Had  the  question  been  submitted 
to  the  voters  by  grand  divisions,  and  each  division  been 
allowed  a  voice  in  proportion  to  its  authority  in* the 
State,  no  valid  objection  could  have  been  maintained 
against  it.  But  a  more  liberal  policy  was  pursued,  and 
an  equal  suffrage  extended  throughout.  Yes,  this  much 
abused  eastern  minority,  having  the  government  in  their 
hands — dispensing  at  will  all  of  its  powers  and  emolu- 
ments, voluntarily  referred  it  to  the  majority  of  the 
west  to  assemble  this  body,  submitting  thereby  to  the 
certain  loss  of  the  patronage  heretofore  enjoyed,  and 
the  possible  transfer  to  others  of  the  command  of  their 
purses.  If  gentlemen  will  look  dispassionately  at  the 
subject,  they  will  cease  their  accusations,  and  disabuse 
their  minds  of  the  impression  that  injustice  has  been 
done  in  the  manner  of  forming  this  body.  There  is  no 
inequality  between  us,  each  one  stands  here  upon  the 
same  platform  of  rights,  at  liberty  to  pursue  his  own 
judgment  to  whatever  result  it  may  lead.  "We  are  .all 
to  consult  for  the  general  good,  and  according  to  our 
best  judgment,  form  a  constitution  which  will  best  se- 
cure the  common  benefit,  protection,  and  security  of  the 
people. 

If  the  members  elected  by  a  minority  of  the  people 
hold  the  sway  in  our  deliberations,  no  detriment  can 
arise  from  it,  because  what  we  do  will  have  no  force 
whatever,  until  it  shall  be  ratified  by  the  majority,  by 
that  majority  to  which  the  other  side  appeals — the  ma- 
jority of  the  qualified  voters.  And  if,  as  I  doubt  not 
will  be  the  case,  the  amended  constitution  shall  extend 
the  right  of  suffrage,  and  introduce  new  parties  to  the 
compact,  I  shall  be  ready  to  extend  to  them  the  privi- 
lege of  passing  upon  its  ratification  or  rejection. 

The  question  then,  is  not,  as  has  been  stated  on  the 
other  side,  whether  the  majority  have  the  right  to  gov- 
ern, but  conceding  their  right,  the  question  is,  how  they 
ought  to  govern,  whether  any,  and  what  limitations 
ought  to  be  imposed  upon  their  power?  That  some 
limitation  is  necessary,  all  experience  attests.  No  one 
here  will  propose  to  organize  a  government  with  abso- 
lute power.  Adopt  what  basis  you  may — the  white  if 
ycu  choose,  or  the  free  suffrage  if  you  prefer,  the  most 
ardent  advocate  of  the  "jus  tnajoris"  will  assent  to 
the  propriety  of  setting  some  limit  to  popular  authority. 
And  what  is  this  limit  but  a  restriction  upon  the  right 
of  the  majority?  In  free  governments  restrictions  are 
self-imposed.  The  majority  reserves  to  itself  the  exer- 
cise of  such  power  as  is  capable  of  producing  the  great- 
est degree  of  happiness  and  safety,  and  submits  to  such 
restrictions  as  promise  most  effectually  to  secure  it 
against  the  danger  of  mal-administration.  The  extent 
to  which  power  shall  be  reserved,  and  the  limit  of  the 
restrictions  are  questions  to  be  determined  in  the  settle- 
ment of  every  government.  We  are  to  determine  them 
in  amending  this  constitution.    The  three  departments 


are  but  agencies  of  the  majority,  and  the  persons  who 
fill  them  their  trustees  and  servants.  Every  limitation, 
therefore,  upon  a  department,  is  a  limitation  on  the 
power  of  the  majority — and,  in  effect,  is  the  same  as  if 
the  majority  were  to  say,  we  will  not  trust  ourselves 
with  this  or  that  power,  because  in  its  administration 
we  are  liable  to  abuse  it.  Of  the  three  departments, 
the  legislative  is  that  in  which  by  far  the  largest  class 
of  powers  will  be  reposed,  and  over  these  a  very  broad 
discretion  must  necessarily  be  confided.  Where  the 
powers  are  large  and  discretion  broad,  the  danger  of 
abuse  is  imminent,  and  too  much  care  cannot  be  bestowed 
in  guarding  against  the  peril.  We  are  now  to  settle  the 
construction  of  this  important  department,  and  three 
competing  schemes  are  before  us  for  consideration. 
One  proposes  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  a 
senate  of  fifty-one  members ;  another  proposes  a  house  of 
one  hundred  and  fifty-six,  and  a  senate  of  thirty-six  mem- 
bers. Both  contemplate  biennial  sessions  of  the  gene- 
ral assembly,  and  both  provide  for  re-apportionments 
at  intervals  of  ten  years,  one  counting  from  1862, 
the  other  from  1855.  Both  propose  an  actual  present 
distribution  of  the  members  of  both  branches  amongst 
the  counties,  cities  and  towns  of  the  commonwealth. 
To  proceed  no  further  with  the  comparison,  it  must  be 
obvious  that  in  the  adjustment  of  these  matters,  in  a 
body  like  this,  much  diversity  of  opinion  is  likely  to  pre- 
vail, a  diversity  having  no  relation  whatever  to  the 
great  principle  of  the  basis  upon  which  the  schemes 
proceed,  and  in  the  settlement  of  which  individuals  may 
become  so  dissatisfied  as  to  vote  against  the  adoption  of 
that' which  embodies  the  principle  to  which  his  judg- 
ment assents. 

It  is  desirable  to  obtain  the  judgment  of  the  commit- 
tee upon  the  great  question  of  the  basis,  its  free,  calm, 
unbiased  judgment,  and  to  that  end  the  question  ought 
to  be  presented  in  a  form  clear  of  the  disturbing  influ- 
ence of  matters  of  detail. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  comparison.  By  the  one 
scheme  the  delegates  and  senators  are  distributed  ac- 
cording to  a  mixed  basis  of  white  population  and  taxa- 
tion ;  by  the  other,  according  to  a  basis  of  white  popu- 
lation, leaving  subsequent  apportionments  to  be  accord- 
ing to  qualified  voters — and  for  a  purpose  quite  obvious, 
this  latter  scheme  contains  the  announcement  of  certain 
wise  saws  about  the  uniformity  of  the  right  of  suffrage 
and  the  equality  of  voters. 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  members  of  the  house  of 
delegates,  one  proposes  to  give  to  the  east  a  majority  of 
fourteen,  and  of  the  fifty-one  senators  a  majority  of  six  ; 
whilst,  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  members  pro- 
posed by  the  second,  the  west  is  to  have  eighty-five,  and 
the  east  seventy -one,  thus  exactly  turning  the  tables 
and  so  of  the  senate.  In  this  posture  of  affairs,  the  sub- 
stitute was  offered,  not  designed  to  change  from  the 
basis  proposed  by  the  first,  but  simply  to  disembarrass 
the  question  of  unnecessary  details.  Accordingly,  whilst 
blanks  are  left  in  the  previous  section,  where  the  details 
may  be  hereafter  supplied,  the  fourth  section  declares 
"  that  representation  in  both  legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  amongst  the  counties,  cities  and  towns  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  each,  deducting  from 
such  taxes  all  taxes  paid  on  licenses  and  law  process." 
The  rule  for  making  the  apportionment  is  contemplated, 
but  a  blank  is  left  to  be  filled  hereafter,  according  to 
whatever  adjustment  of  the  fraction  the  committee  may 
determine.  A  limitation  is  also  contemplated  upon  the 
representation  of  cities,  but  the  precise  limit  not  defined, 
and  so  too  a  rule  is  prescribed  for  the  estimation  of  the 
taxes  in  future  apportionments.  But  great  fault  has 
been  found  with  these.  I  mean  not  to  prolong  this  dis- 
cussion by  defending  these  features  now,  but  with  the 
permission  of  the  committee,  will  strike  them  from  the 
scheme.  My  purpose  is  to  get  a  free,  certain,  unembar- 
rassed vote  of  this  body  upon  the  principle  of  constitu- 
ting the  legislative  department  with  reference  to  taxes 
as  well  as  persons.    In  what  proportions  these  elements 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


341 


shall  be  combined,  the  substitute  does  not  declare ;  that 
will  remain  to  be  determined  hereafter ;  but  I  may  be 
permitted  to  say  in  advance,  that  I  can  see  no  reason,  if 
the  mixed  basis  be  adopted,  why  it  should  not  be  com- 
pounded equally  of  the  elements  that  compose  it.  Drop- 
ping, for  the  present,  the  first  scheme  designated  in  the 
report  as  letter  A,  and  premising  that  I  stand  in  no 
wise  responsible  for  the  apportionment  presented  by  it, 
nor  in  any  manner  committed  to  yield  it  my  support,  in 
the  pursuit  of  the  argument,  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  brief 
contrast  between  the  plan  of  the  substitute  and  that  of 
the  second  scheme,  designated  as  letter  B. 

This  scheme,  as  has  been  already  stated,  discards  al- 
together the  element  of  taxation,  and  presents  an  ap- 
portionment according  to  the  white  inhabitants  or,  what 
is  the  same  in  effect,  the  qualified  voters.  Its  operation 
will  be  to  transfer,  at  once,  the  legislative  control  of  the 
State  to  the  western  division,  it  being  ascertained  that  a 
majority  of  our  white  inhabitants  reside  in  those  sections. 
The  operation  of  the  substitute  will  be  to  retain  the 
control  in  the  eastern  divisions  where  it  now  is,  it  being 
known  that  these  divisions  pay  towards  the  support  of 
government  a  proportion  so  much  beyond  what  is  paid 
by  the  western.  The  first  will  surrender  into  the  hands 
of  a  numerical  majority  of  the  white  inhabitants,  with- 
out respect  to  what  they  pay,  the  control  of  the  purse ; 
the  substitute  will  retain  the  control  with  the  minority, 
so  long  as  that  minority  shall  continue  to  be  loaded,  as 
at  present,  with  such  enormous  disproportion  of  the 
common  burdens.  But  when  the  disproportion  dimin- 
ishes, when  the  majority  comes  to  participate  more  largely 
in  the  burthens  of  the  State,  long  before  they  reach 
equality,  by  the  terms  of  the  substitute  the  power  will 
shift  Is  there  anything  monstrous  in  this  arrangement  ? 
Is  there  any  just  ground  for  the  denunciations  with  which 
it  has  been  assailed  ?  The  entire  population  of  the  State 
is  set  down  at  1,429,463,  of  this  863,065,  being  a  majo- 
rity of  297,267  of  the  whole,  are  contained  in  the  two 
eastern  divisions,  and  this  majority  pays  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  entire  revenue  of  the  State.  Why  should 
it  not  have  a  majority  of  the  representatives?  Part  of 
them,  it  is  said,  are  slaves  ;  but  if  slaves  are  be  dis- 
carded in  the  apportionment  of  representation  let  them 
be  discarded  also  in  the  apportionment  of  taxes — leave 
them  out  altogether.  Will  this  suit  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  ?  Oh,  no,  answers  the  gentleman  from  Au- 
gusta, (Mr.  Sheffey,)  such  an  arrangement  would 
heighten  the  tax  on  lands,  and  the  western  lands  are  now 
taxed  to  the  extremity  of  what  they  can  bear.  Slaves 
are  wanted  for  taxes ;  as  a  source  of  revenue  they  are 
far  too  fruitful  to  be  surrendered.  But  see  how  un- 
equally they  are  distributed.  Out  of  464,693  only  63,230 
are  held  in  the  west,  leaving  the  large  number  of 
401,371  for  the  share  of  the  east.  Does  this  striking 
inequality  in  the  distribution  of  this  species  of  property 
explain  the  reason  for  the  tenacity  with  which  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  insist  upon  retaining  their  taxa- 
ble quality?  If  you  will  have  representation  appor- 
tioned according  to  white  population,  distribute  taxes 
according  to  that  same  ratio.  We  will  be  content.  If 
you  will  vote  more,  pay  more — follow  out  your  own 
principles  to  their  legitimate  results ;  follow  them  not 
only  so  far  as  they  confer  advantages,  but  follow  them 
also  when  they  impose  burthens.  Be  just  and  reason- 
able— let  equity  govern  your  councils,  and  we  will 
make  no  complaint.  We  are  not  waging  an  unprinci- 
pled struggle  for  power,  but  we  are  willing  to  surren- 
der it ;  when  you  will  submit  to  bear  its  burthens  we 
will  be  content  to  see  you  enjoy  its  privileges.  But  this 
will  not  suit  you.  You  want  the  privileges  and  enjoy- 
ments without  the  burthens;  you  want  others  to  sow 
that  you  may  reap,  or  rather  you  want  others  both  to 
sow  and  reap,  and  permit  you  to  take  the  fruits  of  their 
toil.  And  this  is  claimed  in  the  name  of  justice  and 
equality,,  and  in  the  name  of  democracy;  and  we  who 
venture  an  opposition  to  the  extravagant  demand,  are 
roundly  denounced  as  aristocrats  and  monarchists.  We 


are  charged  with  departing  from  ,those  principles  of 
liberty  and  free  government  which  our  fathers  of  the 
revolution  held  sacred,  and  of  despoiling  their  rich  le- 
gacy of  that  which  imparted  its  choicest  blessing.  Not 
satisfied  with  the  appeal  to  our  revolutionary  history, 
the  advocates  of  the  white  basis  have  searched  back 
into  those  rights  which  they  say  belonged  to  man  by 
nature,  and  by  a  strange  system  of  argumentation,  they 
derive  from  nature  a  right  to  exercise  dominion  over 
interests  that  spring  from  the  relations  of  society.  Gov- 
ernment is  surely  a  creature  of  society ;  it  did  not  and 
could  not  exist  antecedent  to  it.  The  rights  that  spring 
from  it  are  purely  conventional.  Such,  undoubtedly, 
are  the  right  of  representation  and  power  of  legisla- 
tion; and  yet,  if  I  understand  the  argument,  it  is  insisted 
that  there  is,  in  some  way,  to  be  discovered  in  the  laws 
of  man's  nature,  an  inherent  right  in  the  majority — that 
is  to  say,  a  natural  right — to  exercise  the  conventional 
right  of  representation ,  and  possess  the  control  of  legis- 
lation. If  there  be  anything  short  of  absurdity  in  all 
this,  I  confess  my  inability  to  discover  it.  It  may  be 
that  it  is  too  sublimated  and  refined  for  my  plain  under- 
standing, but  until  some  power  shall  illumine  my  dark- 
ness, and  give  me  to  see  with  other's  wit,  I  must  keep  to 
the  beaten  track,  and  believe  that  we  are  not  to. deal 
with  man  in  a  state  of  nature,  or  settle  what  rights  per- 
tain to  him  in  that  state,  but  to  adjust  a  government 
which  in  our  judgments  will  best  suit  his  present  condi- 
tion, and  in  time  to  come  best  advance  his  happiness  and 
prosperity. 

This  code  of  nature  proves  too  much ;  if  it  authorizes 
the  majority  to  usurp  dominion  over  one  conventional 
right  it  will  allow  the  same  dominion  over  another. 
Governmental  rights  are  not  more  conventional  than 
proprietary  rights,  and  the  reasoning  that  will  subject  the 
first  to  the  usurpation  of  numbers  will  expose  the  second 
defenceless  to  their  rapacity.  The  natural  right  to 
seize  my  property  can  be  as  easily  justified  by  the 
code  of  nature  as  the  natural  right  to  command  my 
person.  Neither,  in  truth,  has  any  existence  in  fact; 
but  it  is  vain  to  discuss  these  things  ;  it  is  for  a  practical 
purpose  we  have  met  here,  and  we  should  address  our- 
selves to  its  accomplishment  in  a  practical  way. 

We  have  been  referred  repeatedly  during  the  debate 
to  what  has  been  done  on  this  subject  by  other  States, 
and  their  constitutions  have  been  held  up  to  us  as  ex- 
amples to  be  followed.  Much  information,  undoubtedly, 
may  be  derived  from  that  source ;  the  experience  of 
others  may  supply  wisdom  to  us,  but  in  studying  the 
constitutions  of  other  States,  and  drawing  instruction 
from  the  experience  of  their  workings,  we  should  be 
careful  not  to  be  led  astray  by  f.dse  analogies.  In  no 
other  quarter  of  the  globe,  it  is  admitted,  have  greater 
advances  been  made  in  the  science  of  government,  and 
no  where  can  this  most  difficult  of  all  studies  be  more 
profitably  prosecuted  than  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
various  systems  established  in  the  different  States.  But 
this  science  differs  essentially  from  all  other  sciences — 
a  perfect  model  any  where  is  not  a  perfect  model  every 
where,  for  although  the  principles  of  free  government 
are  the  same  everywhere,  the  form  must  be  adjusted  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  people  for  whom  it  is  to  be  es- 
tablished, and  consequently  be  made  to  vary  as  circum- 
stances vary,  and  in  every  case  be  modified  to  suit  the 
peculiar  conditions  of  society.  The  States  of  this  Union 
spread  over  the  greater  part  of  an  entire  continent,  and 
contain  within  their  limits  an  endless  variety  of  climate, 
soil  and  production.  The  separate  communities  that 
compose  them  devote  themselves  often  to  different  pur- 
suits, and  experience  interests  as  diversified  as  the  coun- 
try they  inhabit.  We  may,  therefore,  expect  to  find  in 
their  numerous  constitutions  endless  varieties  in  the 
construction  of  their  corresponding  parts.  Certain  pro- 
visions are  common  to  all.  Three  great  departments 
are  established,  and  a  separation  declared  of  the  powers 
respectively  to  be  exercised  by  each ;  the  representa- 
tive and  elective  features  secured;  these  are  the  great 


342 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


principles  that  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  free  govern- 
ment. But  the  manner  in  which  they  are  carried  out  in 
detail  varies  with  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  sepa- 
rate communities,  and  to  some  extent  with  the  accident- 
al habits  of  thought  of  the  chief  agents  employed  in 
their  structure,  and  this  observation  is  especially  true 
of  the  apportionment  of  representation.  The  methods 
of  apportionment  are  nearly  as  varying  as  the  constitu- 
tions are  numerous,  yet  in  all  these  will  be  discovered 
a  uniform  obedience  to  that  controlling  law  which  re- 
quires the  constitutions  of  government  to  conform  to 
the  existing  conditions  and  exigencies  of  the  people  over 
whom  it  is  to  operate.  The  legislative  department,  un- 
der any  form  of  government,  must  always  exercise  a 
large  class  of  power,  and  be  necessarily  entrusted  with 
a  liberal  discretion.  Its  action  may  affect  important  in- 
terests, and  no  limitations  upon  its  power  can  absolute- 
ly secure  it  from  abuse.  In  free  governments  the  most 
available  security  is  found  to  .be  in  the  representative 
system,  the  discovery  of  comparatively  modern  times, 
whereby  through  the  means  of  frequent  elections  those 
who  exercise  the  great  powers  of  legislation  are  taken 
periodically  from  the  body  of  the  people,  and  made 
to  harmonize  in  interests  and  opinions  with  the  masses 
for  whom  they  act.  By  the  apportionment  of  represen- 
tation the  power  of  legislation  is  distributed  amongst 
the  individuals,  or  communities  that  compose  the  State, 
and  it  may  be  readily  perceived  to  what  a  great  extent 
the  varying  provisions  on  this  head,  found  in  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  several  States,  are  affected  by  the  pe- 
culiar conditions  of  the  people  themselves.  When 
homogeneous  interests  pervade  the  State,  and  similar 
pursuits  occupy  its  people,  the  matter  of  apportionment 
can  rarely  present  a  difficulty;  any  ratio  would  give  a 
fair  exponent  of  its  interests,  and  no  conflict  would  arise 
and  no  injustice  be  hazarded  in  whatever  manner  the 
thing  should  be  settled.  The  difficulty  arises  when  dis- 
tinct communities  compose  the  State,  and  peculiarity, 
diversity,  and  antagonism  mark  their  interests.  Here 
we  are  to  remember  that  great  principle  of  political 
science  which  requires  every  form  of  government  to  be 
adapted  to  the  condition  of  the  people,  and  which  re- 
quires man  to  be  considered,  not  only  in  his  general  na- 
ture, but  as  modified  by  the  society  in  which  he  lives 
and  the  diversified  influenees  which  surround  him. 

With  the  lights  of  history  before  us,  and  the  teach- 
ings of  the  great  minds  that  have  impressed  themselves 
on  the  ages  in  which  they  lived,  however  humiliating  it 
may  prove  to  our  self-love,  we  are  forced  to  acknowl- 
edge that  "reason,  justice  and  equity  never  had  weight 
enough  on  the  face  of  the  earth  to  govern  the  councils 
of  men.  It  is  interest  alone  which  does  it,  and  it  is  in- 
terest alone  which  can  be  trusted."  In  all  the  affairs 
of  life  we  are  governed  by  this  consideration;  we  re- 
quire all  judicial  and  executive  officers  to  be  either  lift- 
ed above  influences  calculated  to  affect  their  action, 
or,  by  special  arrangement,  provide  security  for  their 
faithfulness.  In  private  and  in  public  affairs,  we  secure, 
if  possible,  the  services  of  agents  whose  interests  in- 
cline them  to  be  faithful,  and  shun  all  such  as  are  inter- 
ested to  be  otherwise.  Interest  is  the  main  spring  of 
human  action  ;  it  brings  man  into  society  and  subjects 
him  to  government ;  it  is  a  great  moral  law  that  per- 
vades the  universe  ;  christian  and  heathen,  civilized  and 
savage  life  are  equally  subject  to  it ;  in  it  all  things  hu  - 
man have  their  origin,  and  by  it  are  fashioned  for  the 
purposes  of  life  ;  and  if,  in  the  organization  of  govern- 
ment, we  discard  all  consideration  of  this  great  influ- 
ence, we  lose  sight  of  the  very  principle  itself  out  of 
which  the  system  springs.  It  demands  no  great  force 
of  intellect  to  determine  what  quantity  of  power  is  ne- 
cessary to  be  called  into  action  for  the  purposes  of  gov- 
ernment ;  the  difficulty  lies  in  guarding  those  powers 
from  abuse,  and  the  task  of  devising  effectual  guards, 
may  well  tax  the  ingenuity  and  exhaust  the  resources 
of  the  most  fertile  mind.  When  we  have  separated  the 
three  great  departments  and  imposed  limitations  upon 
their  powers,  we  have  taken  but  eo  many  steps  in  out- 


progress,  and  made  but  a  small  advancement  towards 
the  accomplishment  of  the  end.    Separate  them  as  you 
will,  limit  them  as  you  may,  still  large  powers  must  be 
called  into  action  and  extensive  discretion  entrusted  to 
the  agents.    Abandoned  to  this  discretion,  there  is  no 
safety  against  abuse  but  in  the  character  of  the  agents 
and  the  influences  to  which  they  are  subject.    It  will 
be  at  once  perceived  how  important  is  the  mode  of  their 
selection.    In  respect  of  executive  and  judicial  agents, 
much  diversity  of  opinion  prevails,  but  all  are  agreed 
as  to  the  manner  of  selecting  those  who  are  to  fill  the 
halls  of  legislation.    They  are  to  be  taken  from  the 
masses,  to  be  chosen  by  their  fellows,  and  hold  office 
for  a  limited  time,  at  the  end  of  which  they  are  to  re- 
turn to  their  former  condition,  and  the  vacancies  to  be 
supplied  by  other  elections.    In  this  way  the  law  ma- 
kers are  made  subject  to  the  laws  which  they  enact,  and 
to  feel  and  participate  in  the  burthens  they  impose,  and 
thus  are  restrained  from  oppression  and  abuse.    This  is 
the  very  language  of  the  bill  of  rights  where  it  announ- 
ces the  cardinal  principle  in  the  arrangement  of  the  law- 
making department.    Analyze  it,  and  what  is  it  but  the 
recognition  of  the  great  moral  truth  which  has  already 
been  stated?    What  is  it,  but  the  affirmation  that  rea-  - 
son,  justice  and  equity  have  not  force  enough  to  govern 
the  councils  of  men  ;  that  it  is  interest  alone  whicn  does 
it,  and  it  is  interest  alone  which  can  be  trusted.  Expe- 
rience of  this  truth  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  repre- 
sentative system,  and  it  is  the  foundation  on  which  it 
rests.    Election  districts  are  defined,  representatives 
are  chosen  separately  by  the  people  of  the  districts,  and 
it  is  expected  they  will  partake  of  their  interests,  re- 
flect their  opinions,  and  in  their  official  acts  conform  to 
their  wishes.    Together  they  represent  all  the  varied 
interests  of  the  State,  and  in  their  proceedings  recog- 
nize the  rule  of  the  majority.    It  is  part  of  the  repre- 
sentative principle  that  a  majority  of  the  elected  are 
entitled  to  govern,  but  this  proceeds  upon  the  idea  that 
the  majority  of  members  represent  the  majority  of  in- 
terests, and  may  be,  therefore,  safely  entrusted  with 
the  control.    It  is  the  majority  of  interests,  therefore, 
which  is  chiefly  respected  in  the  representative  system, 
and  it  follows  that  when  you  give  the  governing  power 
to  the  majority  of  members,  you  must  so  order  their 
election  as  to  secure  in  their  persons  a  proportional  rep- 
resentation of  the  great  interests  of  the  State.  That 
condition  of  sooiety  is  most  conducive  to  good  govern- 
ment in  which  no  one  interest  in  the  State  is  irresisti- 
ble.   The  moment  that  any  particular  interest  gets  the 
ascendancy  and  becomes  dominant,  all  others  are  liable 
to  encroachments  from  it,  and  the  substantial  blessings 
of  freedom  are  in  danger  of  being  lost.    In  such  a  condi- 
tion of  things,  public  confidence  will  withdraw  itself 
from  the  constituted  authorities,  and  opposition,  distrust 
and  hatred  paralyze  the  administration  of  affairs.  Ap- 
prehension of  such  a  state  of  things  interposed  the 
greatest  obstacle  to  the  formation  of  the  federal  consti- 
tution, and  the  establishment  of  the  government  which 
converted  the  inhabitants  of  the  several  States  of  the 
confederacy  into  one  people.    Under  the  articles  of 
confederation,  the  States  possessing  peculiar  and  oppo- 
sing interests,  experienced  all  the  evils  that  spring  from 
mistrust  and  jealousy,  and  that  plan  was  soon  felt  to  be 
insufficient  for  the  purposes  of  good  government.  To 
supply  what  was  wanting,  the  States  came  together  in 
convention,  but  in  that  body  they  stood  as  separate 
States,  affected  by  all  the  jealousies  and  mistrusts  which 
they  had  experienced  in  the  confederacy.    As  each  State 
furnished  its  own  quota  for  the  common  benefit,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  question  most  interesting  to  the 
parties  and  most  difficult  of  satisfactory  adjustment  re- 
lated to  the  proportion  of  money  which  each  was  to  fur- 
nish, and  the  manner  of  voting  in  congress.    The  de- 
bates in  the  congress  of  1716,  on  the  declaration  of  in- 
dependence and  the  articles  of  confederation,  preserved 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  furnish  the  only  history  now  extant, 
of  the  opinions  of  the  early  actors  in  the  great  drama 
of  the  revolution  upon  these  interesting  topics,  and  they 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


343 


disclose  the  full  force  of  all  those  sectional  influences 
that  belonged  to  our  condition.  It  was  in  the  debate 
on  the  eleventh  article  which  fixed  the  rate  of  pecuni- 
ary contribution  that  Southern  members  started  the 
idea,  that  in  determining  the  ratio  of  contribution,  a 
part  only  of  the  slave  inhabitants  of  the  Southern 
States  should  be  computed.  The  purpose  was  to  save 
these  States  from  undue  contribution.  It  was  conceded 
that  the  contributions  ought  to  be  in  proportion  to  the 
wealth  of  each,  and  that  ordinarily  the  number  of  in- 
habitants was  a  fair  criterion  of  wealth,  but  it  was  in- 
sisted that  slave  labor  was  not  as  productive  as  free  la- 
bor, and  as  a  large  portion  of  the  population  of  the 
Southern  States  were  slaves,  it  would  not  be  just  to 
count  all  of  that  population  in  fixing  the  ratio  of  con- 
tribution. The  article  was  first  adopted  as  originally 
reported,  whereby  all  charges  of  the  war,  and  all  other 
expenses  incurred  for  the  common  defence  and  general 
welfare  were  agreed  to  be  supplied  by  the  States  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  every  age, 
sex  and  quality,  except  Indians  not  paying  taxes  ;  and 
it  was  afterwards  settled  by  the  seventeenth  article, 
that  in  determining  questions,  each  State  should  have 
one  vote.  It  was  strenuously  insisted  that  the  rule  of 
voting  should  be  the  same  as  the  rule  of  taxing,  and  it 
was  at  last  given  up  as  a  concession  to  the  smaller 
States  which  the  urgency  of  the  times  made  necessary. 
In  the  debate  on  the  eleventh  article,  John  Adams  advo- 
cated the  counting  of  all  the  inhabitants,  slave  as  well 
as  free,  insisting  that  the  entire  number  of  the  people 
was  the  fairest  index  to  the  wealth  of  every  State  ; 
and  when  the  seventeenth  article  came  up  for  consid- 
eration, along  with  Mr.  Chase,  Dr.  Franklin,  Dr.  Rush 
and  Mr.  Wilson,  he  supported  the  proposition  to  con- 
form the  rule  of  voting  to  the  rule  of  taxing.  After 
stating  in  the  words  already  quoted,  the  liability  of 
men  to  be  swayed  by  their  interests,  he  used  these 
striking  expressions,  "that  therefore  the  interests  with- 
in doors  should  be  the  mathematical  representative  of 
the  interest  without  doors."  And  Dr.  Franklin  said, 
"  he  thought  it  very  extraordinary  language  to  be  held 
by  any  State,  that  they  would  not  confederate  with 
us,  unless  we  would  let  them  dispose  of  our  money. 
Certainly,  if  we  vote  equally,  we  ought  to  pay  equally." 

In  the  discussions  with  the  mother  country,  preceding 
the  revolution,  no  topics  were  more  thoroughly  treated 
than  taxation  and  representation,  and  the  proper  rela- 
tion which  the  one  bore  to  the  other  was  considered  and 
explained  by  the  greatest  minds  which  that  eventful  pe- 
riod called  into  action.  The  history  of  that  period 
proves  that  the  men  of  the  revolution,  the  fathers  of 
the  republic,  regarded  it  as  a  fundamental  principle  of 
free  government,  that  taxation  and  representation  should 
go  together,  and  upon  that  founded  the  great  American 
system  which  they  established.  It  was  this  that  dis- 
tinguished their  system  from  all  others.  States  there- 
tofore had  been  oppressed  by  oligarchies  and  monarch- 
ies, and  torn  by  democracies,  then,  for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  experiment  was  to  be  made  of 
a  free  representative  republican  form  of  government. 
The  experience  of  more  than  sixty  years  attests  the 
wisdom  of  their  work,  for  never  in  the  history  of  man, 
has  any  government  secured  to  a  people  in  equal  de- 
gree, the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means 
of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  pursuing  and 
obtaining  happiness  and  safety ;  and  never  before  or 
since  has  any  form  of  government  been  devised  which 
is  so  effectually  secured  against  the  danger  of  mal-ad- 
minstration.  A  system  thus  commended  to  us,  and 
which  for  so  many  years,  has  been  productive  of  these 
great  blessings,  surely  ought  to  be  sacredly  cherished, 
and  transmitted,  unimpaired,  to  posterity.  Whilst  we 
may  modify  details  and  change  such  features  of  the 
structure  as  experience  may  recommend  to  be  changed, 
and  the  progress  of  the  age  demand,  we  ought  to  hold 
sacred  the  great  principle  upon  which  the  system  rests  ; 
for  once  surrender  that  and  we  abandon  ourselves  to 


the  sport  of  exploded  experiments,  lose  the  rich  legacy 
of  our  fathers,  and  entail  upon  posterity  the  woes  un- 
numbered, that  in  every  age  have  inflicted  those  who 
have  essayed  the  experiment  of  fierce,;  unchecked  de- 
mocracy. 

Subsequently  to  the  adoption  of  the  articles  of  con- 
federation, by  an  act  of  congress,  agreed  to  by  eleven 
States,  three-fifths  only  of  the  slave  population  were 
computed  in  apportioning  the  quotas  of  revenue  amongst 
the  States.  This  was  done  at  a  time  when  each  State 
had  an  equal  representation  in  the  congress,  audit  re- 
sulted much  to  the  benefit  of  the  southern  States.  It 
is  useless  now  to  inquire  into  the  soundness  of  the  opin- 
ions that  led  to  this  adjustment ;  it  was  adopted  at  the 
instance  of  the  southern  members.  Politically  regard- 
ed, it  proved  to  be  a  blunder,  since  in  the  end  it  was 
the  means  of  depriving  us  of  a  considerable  representa- 
tion that  we  should  otherwise  have  got  in  the  popular 
branch  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  and  a  pro- 
portionate influence  in  the  choice  of  our  chief  executive 
magistrate,  without  in  the  least  degree  lessening  the 
amount  of  our  contributions  to  the  public  treasury.  It 
was  everywhere  conceded  that  taxation  should  be  ap- 
portioned amongst  the  States  according  to  the  wealth 
of  each,  and  this  computation  of  inhabitants  being  set- 
tled as  a  just  exponent  of  wealth,  it  was  adopted  of 
course,  as  a  proper  ratio  of  taxation.  When,  therefore, 
the  federal  convention  assembled,  they  found  this  im- 
portant question,  in  a  manner,  already  adjusted,  and 
that  adjustment  controlled  the  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentation, for  the  principle  was  conceded  that  taxation 
and  representation  should  go  together,  and  be  appor- 
tioned according  to  one  uniform  ratio ;  and  it  was  de- 
clared accordingly,  in  the  constitution,  that  "  represen- 
tatives and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union, 
according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be 
determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  per- 
sons, including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of 
years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of 
all  other  persons." 

In  the  constitutions  of  the  several  States  we  find  a 
general  conformity  to  this  principle ;  when  numbers 
have  been  taken  as  the  basis  of  representation,  numbers 
have  been  considered  as  a  fair  exponent  of  wealth,  but 
when  owing  to  the  peculiar  condition  of  the  community, 
numbers  are  not  a  fair  exponent,  some  other  basis  has 
been  resorted  to.  In  determining  for  ourselves,  there- 
fore, a  proper  apportionment  of  representation,  we  ought 
first  to  ascertain  in  what  manner  the  wealth  of  the 
community  is  distributed  over  its  several  parts,  fix  up- 
on some  fair  exponent  of  its  value,  and  derive  from  that 
the  ratio  of  adjustment.  Of  all  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment, the  money  power  is  most  liable  to  abuse ;  the  ex- 
perience of  every  day  attests  it ;  laws  relating  to  per- 
sonal rights  must  necessarily  affect  all  alike,  and  under 
no  plan  of  apportionment  would  these  rights  be  endan- 
gered ;  it  is  the  imposition  of  pecuniary  burthens,  and 
the  disposition  of  them  afterwards,  that  tends  to  ine- 
quality and  invites  to  oppression,  and  to  avoid  this 
danger  it  is  necessary  that  the  interest  within  doors 
should  be  the  representative  of  the  interest  without 
doors. 

Had  the  national  revenue  been  supplied  by  direct 
taxes,  representation  in  congress  would  have  been  ap- 
portioned amongst  the  States  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  contributions  of  each,  but  looking  for  supplies  main- 
ly to  duties  upon  importations,  the  Convention  was  un- 
der the  necessity  of  assuming  some  exponent  of  the 
wealth  of  each,  and  making  that  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation. We  are  not  involved  in  the  same  difficulty;  our 
revenue  can  only  be  supplied  by  direct  taxes,  and  the 
amounts  supplied  by  the  several  divisions  of  the  State 
can  be  safely  taken  as  the  measure  of  the  wealth  of 
each.  If  we  were  to  insist,  therefore,  that  representa- 
tion should  be  apportioned  throughout  the  State  accord- 
ing to  the  ratio  of  taxation,  we  should  be  strictly  with- 


344 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


in  the  principle  of  the  federal  constitution,  and  we  make 
a  concession  when  we  agree  to  a  ratio  combined  of  white 
population  and  taxes  together.  If  white  population 
be  insisted  on  as  the  only  basis  of  representation,  make 
white  population  the  only  basis  of  taxation;  if  slaves  be 
disregarded  in  one,  let  them  be  disregarded  in  both.  I 
say  again,  if  you  will  have  more  votes,  pay  more  money. 
But  whilst  slaves  are  retained  as  subjects  of  taxation, 
and  the  eastern  part  of  the  State  is  thereby  made  to 
pay  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  public  revenue,  we  will 
never  consent  to  a  division  of  power,  which  is  to  sub- 
ject us  to  the  domination  of  the  western  part  which 
pays  less  than  one-third.  With  an  apportionment  of 
representation  as  provided  by  the  substitute,  there  will 
be  no  danger  of  abuse  of  power.  Embracing  a  large 
extent  of  country,  stretching  from  the  mountains  to  the 
sea-board,  eastern  Virginia  partakes  largely  of  all  the 
great  interests  which  make  up  the  State— agricultural, 
commercial  and  manufacturing — and  these  are  so  distri- 
buted that  no  one  can  be  said  to  be  irresistible  by  itself, 
or  likely  to  practice  oppression  upon  the  others.  The 
inhabitants  of  this  part  of  the  State  to  a  very  conside- 
rable extent,  are  interested  in  internal  improvements, 
and  there  is  no  danger  that,  under  any  arrangement 
by  which  the  power  of  legislation  will  be  left  where  it 
is,  this  great  system  will  be  neglected ;  past  experience 
shows  that  the  tendency  in  this  direction  is  rather  to 
excess.  If  we  look  to  the  works  to  which  State  contri- 
butions have  been  made,  we  shall  find  that  the  western 
divisions  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  partiality  or  in- 
justice ;  a  liberal  share  has  been  contributed  to  supply 
their  necessities.  A  macadamized  road  and  a  railroad 
piercing  the  same  country,  develop  the  resources  of  the 
south-west,  the  entire  cost  of  one,  and  three-fifths  of 
the'  cost  of  the  other,  are  borne  by  the  State.  A  rail- 
road is  under  construction  by  which  the  banks  of  the 
Ohio  are  to  be  connected  with  the  shores  of  the  ocean, 
the  western  section  of  which,  with  the  costly  tunnel  at 
the  Blue  Ridge,  will  be  made  by  the  State.  To  say 
nothing,  therefore,  of  the  enormous  expenditure  on  the 
James  river  canal,  which  is  really  a  western  improve- 
ment, and  the  countless  appropriations  to  roads  in  the 
valley  and  the  north-west,  these  may  confidently  be 
relied  upon  to  defend  the  present  allotment  of  power 
against  any  well  founded  cause  of  complaint.  It  is  in 
vain  to  pretend  that,  with  the  power  in  the  east,  the 
western  people  will  be  in  danger  of  oppression  ;  so  far 
as  the  rights  of  persons  are  concerned,  either  3ide  may 
trust  the  other,  for  these  interests  are  identical,  and 
self-interest,  that  controlling  law  of  our  nature,  affords 
its  protection.  But  it  is  otherwise  as  to  the  rights  of 
property — they  are  unequally  distributed  between  the 
two  sections,  and  at  the  same  time  marked  by  striking 
diversities.  If,  under  these  circumstances,  we  give  to 
the  minority  of  these  great  interests  dominion  over  the 
majority,  must  we  not  encounter  the  hazard  of  injustice 
and  oppression  ?  The  danger  lies  in  the  too  lavish  ex- 
penditure of  the  public  money,  and  the  onerous  assess- 
ments consequent  upon  its  indulgence,  and  the  source 
of  the  danger  is  in  the  boundless  wants  of  the  west  for 
internal  improvements,  and  the^  enormous  cost  necessa- 
ry for  their  construction. 

The  State's  contributions  to  these  works,  has,  in  lat- 
ter years,  been  raised  from  two-fifths,  the  former  rate, 
to  three-fifths  ;  but  not  satisfied  with  this,  the  west  de- 
mands all  improvements  in  that  section  to  be  made  on 
State  account,  insisting  that  the  absence  of  accumula- 
ted capital  in  that  section,  and  the  agricultural  nature 
of  the  population,  make  it  impossible  for  them  to  sup- 
ply the  individual  subscriptions  necessary  to  carry  on 
the  works  upon  the  three  and  two--fifths  principle.  Give 
,  to  the  west  control  over  the  public  purse,  and  what  but 
their  wants  will  measure  their  exactions  ?  I  attribute 
no  qualities  to  the  people  of  the  west,  calculated,  in 
any  way,  to  distinguish  them  injuriously  from  their 
brothers  of  thp  east.  For  intelligence,  manliness,  and 
virtue,  I  accord  to  them  all  that  their  warmest  friends 
£an  claim  in  their  behalf.    In  the  vast  increase  of  their 


population,  the  rapid  growth  of  their  agriculture,  and 
general  advancement  of  their  prosperity,  I  experience 
the  satisfaction  of  a  brother  and  the  just  pride  of  a  Vir- 
ginian. It  is  to  that  quarter  I  most  look  for  those  ac- 
cessions which  are  to  lift  the  State  from  its  sunken 
condition,  and  speed  her  forward  until  she  shall  be 
made  to  emulate  the  most  successful  in  her  contributions 
to  the  great  cause  of  human  improvement.  Indeed, 
when  I  contemplate  the  dangers  that  threaten  the  glo- 
rious Union  of  which  she  is  a  member,  and  detect  the 
proclivity  to  disunion  sentiments  that  manifests  itself 
in  portions  of  the  east,  it  is  with  a  heart  full  of  thank- 
fulness to  a  beneficent  Providence,  that  I  recognize  in 
the  great  and  increasing  west,  a  patriotic  devotion  to 
this  institution  of  our  fathers,  that  forbids  us  to  doubt, 
that  in  whatever  peril  it  may  stand,  Virginia  will  prove 
true  to  the  great  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in- 
volved is  its  integrity. 

Sincerely  entertaining  these  feelings  towards  the 
west,  I  nevertheless  think,  in  our  present  condition, 
the  people  of  that  section  would  be  an  unsafe  deposito- 
ry of  the  power  of  legislation.  When  pressed  the  oth- 
er day,  under  very  extraordinary  circumstances,  by  the 
gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  to  state  a 
reason  for  claiming  a  consideration  for  property  in  the 
apportionment  of  representation,  I  answered  in  short 
that  it  was  to  secure  good  government,  and  guard  our 
proprietary  interests,  which  would  be  in  danger  of  be- 
ing plundered,  if  left  at  the  mercy  of  an  unchecked, 
dominant,  numerical  majority-  A  more  civil  phrase 
might  certainly  have  been  employed,  but  it  was  intend- 
ed in  no  offensive  sense ;  all  that  I  meant  was,  to  con- 
vey a  clear  sense  of  the  danger  that  I  apprehended  from 
the  success  of  an  experiment  by  which  the  tax -laying 
and  tax-appropriating  powers  were  to  be  confided  to 
one  section,  whilst  the  tax-paying  duty  was  to  be  chief- 
ly confined  to  the  other.  In  such  a  condition,  no  intel- 
ligence, no  probity,  no  virtue  would  be  safe  against  the 
ever-existing  temptation  to  abuse.  When  necessities 
are  urgent,  reasons  will  never  be  wanting  to  satisfy  the 
judgment  of  masses,  and  the  wishes  of  the  constituent 
must  inevitably  come  to  be  expressed  in  the  represen- 
tative body.  This  is  the  law  of  the  representative  sys- 
tem, and  it  would  indeed  *be  strange,  if,  in  the  impor- 
tant matter  of  taxation,  the  system  should  falsify  the 
first  great  law  of  its  own  creation.  We  have  been  ear- 
nestly entreated  to  allay  these  fears,  and  confidently 
assured  of  the  reason,  justice  and  equity  of  the  west, 
but  when  have  these  ever  had  force  enough  to  govern 
the  councils  of  men ;  undisturbed  by  interest,  they 
would  at  best  prove  but  frail  securities  \  but  when  ex- 
posed to  that  influence,  how  long  would  the  scales  hang 
equal?  In  the  ardent  pursuit  of  a  favorite  object,  our 
friends  on  the  other  side  lose  sight  of  considerations 
that  otherwise  they  could  not  fail  to  perceive;  they 
greatly  overrate  their  own  self-denying  virtues,  or  un- 
derrate our  sagacity  ;  and  in  either  ease  commit  a  blun- 
der, for  they  are  not  lifted  so  high  as  to  be  exempt  from 
the  common  frailties  incident  to  their  nature,  nor  are 
we  so  blind  as  not  to  see  the  danger  which  threatens. 
Discard  property  altogether  as  an  element  of  represen- 
tation, and  make  the  apportionment  upon  population  as 
proposed,  and  with  this,  continue  the  present  unequal 
contribution  of  taxes,  and  he  is  blind  who  does  not  see 
that  throughout  the  extreme  west,  the  public  treasury 
will  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  vast  fund  for  purposes  of 
electioneering,  and  he  will  be  most  popular  at  home 
who  shall  thrust  the  representative  arm  deepest  into 
the  public  fisc.  How  else  are  we  to  understand  the  gen- 
tleman from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,)  who  opened  this 
debate  ?  We  all  remember  the  fervid  eloquence  with 
which  he  pictured  to  our  minds  the  vast  capacities  and 
illimitable  resources  of  his  cherished  west,  its  fertile 
lands,  its  rich  minerals,  wanting  only  the  hand  ©f  man 
to  develop  their  wealth.  We  remember  the  warmth 
with  which  he  exclaimed — as  in  imagination  he  already 
clutched  the  rich  prize — that  it  wanted  only  the  success 
of  his  favorite  basis  to  cause  all  these  to  spring  into  in- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


345 


stant  life.  What  is  there  in  this  white  basis  that  is  to 
accomplish  so  much  ?  Is  there  a  magic  in  it.  which  is  to 
level  mountains,  make  roads,  dig  cana's,  and  disembowel 
from  the  earth  its  mineral  treasures  ?  By  what  enchant- 
ment is  the  wonderful  change  to  be  effected,  and  this 
glowing  picture  to  start  before  the  sight  \  The  gentle- 
man, I  am  sure,  was  lookiug  to  no  supernatural  agency, 
but  contemplating  the  accomplishment  of  results  by 
human  means,  and  the  great  agent  in  his  mind  was  the 
money  of  the  State, — it  is  too  much  to  say  the  money 
•of  the  east  ?  If  we  state  an  account  of  the  public  ex- 
penditures— such  as  belong  properly  to  the  civil  list — 
and  charge  to  the  trans-Alleghany  counties  their  fair 
proportion,  we  will  exhaust  their  contribution  to  the 
public  treasure,  upon  any  rate  of  taxation  yet  adapted, 
and  leave  the  entire  burden  of  the  works  of  improve- 
ment upon  the  other  portions  of  the  State.  In  such  a 
condition  of  things,  can  it  be  a  wise  adjustment  of  the 
constitution  to  entrust  the  control  of  the  purse  to  that 
section  ?  The  gentleman  from  Augssta,  (  Mr.  Sheffev,) 
said  the  present  apportionment  had  not  secured  the 
power  from  abuse,  and  in  support  of  his  assertion,  re- 
ferred to  the  large  sums  expended  in  the  Piedmont 
counties  upon  works  of  internal  improvement.  If  there 
had  been  any  plundering  of  the  public  treasury,  he  said, 
it  was  chargeable  uoon  the  representatives  from  those 
counties,  and  in  that  work,  he  added,  I  had  been  chief- 
est  of  them  all.  It  is  true,  that  from  the  first  time  when 
I  took  my  seat  as  a  member  of  the  general  assembly,  I 
became  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  system  of  internal 
improvement,  and  representing  one  of  the  largest  tax- 
paying  counties  of  the  State,  year  after  year  continued  j 
to  furnish  my  contribution  to  the  great  cause,  when 
not  a  cent  was  asked  for  in  behalf  of  my  immediate  consti- 
tuents, and  when  they  were  not  expected  to  derive  the 
least  local  advantage  from  the  outlay.  I  stopped  not  to 
inquire  what  locality  was  to  be  benefitted,  or  what  pe- 
culiar interest  to  be  advanced,  but  looking  to  the  State 
as  a  whole,  and  myself  as  exercising  a  commission  in 
behalf  of  all,  I  endeavored  to  govern  myself  by  those 
liberal  and  enlarged  considerations  that  belong  to  the 
statesman.  In  later  days,  my  immediate  constituents 
have  partaken  of  the  benefits  of  this  system,  and  under 
the  blessing  of  a  public  liberality,  are  about  to  emerge 
froni  the  difficulties  that  have  so  long  oppressed  them, 
to  see  their  agriculture  spring  into  new  life,  and  the 
generous  earth  yield  to  industrious  husbandry,  the 
fruits  with  which  it  is  God's  will  on  earJh  that  patient 
toil  should  ever  be  rewarded.  Charge  to  that  division 
all  the  expenditures  for  the  works  constructed  therein, 
then  turn  to  your  tax  lists,  not  of  to-day  only,  or  of 
yesterday,  but  of  years  gone  by,  and  see  how  the  ac- 
count will  stand. 

If  large  expenditures  have  been  made  in  the  Pied 
mont,  that  division  has  contributed  largely  towards  the 
common  burdens.  But  is  it  fair  to  charge  all  these 
works  to  the  counties  through  which  they  pass  ?  Is 
the  James  river  canal  exclusively  a  Piedmont  improve- 
ment ?  Is  the  central  railroad  exnjcsively  a  Piedmont 
improvement  ?  Does  not  every  gentleman  know  to  the 
contrary  {  Could  the  Piedmont  counties  have  alone 
forced  through  the  bills  required  for  their  construction  ? 
Are  they  not  in  part  tide  water  improvements,  and  as 
such  have  they  not  been  pushed  forward  by  tide  water 
votes,  and  are  they  not  in  part  western  improvements, 
and  is  not  their  success  due  to  the  constant,  untiring- 
united  support  from  that  section  of  the  State  ?  The 
gentleman  from  Augusta  well  knows  how  bills  for  works 
of  improvements  are  carried  through  the  general  as- 
sembly ;  and  he  knows  that  it  is  always  by  western 
votes  ;  and -if  extravagant  and  improper  appropriations 
are  got  through  to  satisfy  eastern  sections,  it  is  because 
western  applications  are  expected  thereby,  to  be 
crowned  with  success.  What  is  it  to  a  member  repre- 
senting a  western  county,  the  sum  total  of  whose  taxes 
fall  short  of  paying  county  charges,  that  an  appropria 
tion  is  made  for  an  expenditure  elsewhere  of  §500,000, 


provided  he  gets  $500  for  some  road  in  his  county  ?  -T 
agree  that  much  abuse  has  crept  into  the  system.  The 
difficulties  with  which  its  friends  have  had  to  contend  ; 
the  diversified  and  antagonistic  interest  of  the  various 
sections,  and  the  bigoted  opposition  of  gentlemen  from 
those  quarters  in  which  improvements  are  not  needed, 
have  compelled  the  friends  of  the  system  to  push  it 
forward  by  a  practice  of  legislative  log-rolling,  for  they 
have  had  to  choose  between  this  practice,  with  all  its 
objections,  and  the  total  abandonment  of  the  system  it- 
self. For  myse  f,  I  desire  to  see  the  errors  of  the  past 
corrected  ;  I  desire  to  see  our  statesmeu  addressing 
themselves  practically  to  the  condition  in  which  the 
State  is  found,  leaving  to  federal  agents  the  manage- 
ment of  federal  affairs,  and  leni:ng 'their  best  efforts  to 
the  developement  of  her  domestic  resources.  This  can 
only  be  done  by  works  of  in  ern?i  improvement,  and 
these  can  only  be  successfully  prosecuted  by  liberal 
contributions  from  the  State,  and  upon  this  eonviction 
I  have  held  on  my  course.  If,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta  says,  I  have  been  the  Marmion  of  the  system, 
[  never  wanted  a  Chester  or  a  Stanley  to  charge  at  my 
bidding,  when  Augusta  filled  two  seats  in  the  halls  of 
legislation. 

But  if  from  this  source  abuses  have  crept  into  the 
State,  and  even  under  the  present  apportionment,  one 
section  has  prosecuted  successfully,  as  the  gentleman 
charges,  a  course  of  plunder  upon  another,  does  it  not 
show  how  difficult  is  the  task  of  repressing  legislative 
licentiousness,  and  how  fatal  are  the  cousequences  of 
departing  from  the  rule  which  prescribes  that  the  in- 
terest within  doors  should  be  the  mathematical  repre- 
sentative of  the  interest  without  doors  ?  Had  the  ad- 
justment of  representation  been  made  to  conform  to 
this  rule,  the  abuse  complained  of  could  never  have 
been  committed.  But  what  remedy  for  the  evil  does 
the  gentleman  propose  ?  To  adjust  the  balance  evenly 
and  secure  an  equilibrium  ?  No  !  but  to  disturb  it  still 
more  :  to  diminish  the  influence  of  property,  and  in- 
crease that  of  numbers  who  will  burthen  it ;  to  take 
from  Piedmont  which  pays  so  largely,  and  has  received 
so  much,  and  give  to  trans-Alleghany,  which  pays  so 
little  and  wants  so  much.  That  is  the  remedy  which 
the  new  friends  of  the  tide  water  propose  for  their 
grievances.  The  people  of  that  section  will  be  apt  to 
answer  in  the  language  of  the  entangled  fox  when  the 
officious  swallow  proffered  to  drive  off  the  flies  that 
had  settled  about  his  head.  By  no  means,  said  the  fox, 
these  are  already  gorged,  and  by  driving  the  in  away 
you  will  but  make  way  for  a  more  hungry  swarm  which 
will  suck  the  last  drop  of  blood  from  my  veins.  I  re- 
gret that  duties  elsewhere  prevented  me  from  hearing 
all  of  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  but 
I  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  a  part  of  what  he  said  on 
this  branch  of  his  subject.  I  witnessed  the  attack  upon 
Piedmont,  and  the  overture  to  Tidewater,  and  remark- 
ed the  manifestations  of  satisfaction  elicited  from  the 
gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise.)  If  I  mistake 
not.  that  gentleman,  in  an  address  to  his  constituents, 
put  forth  sentiments  similar  to  those  just  uttered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  and  advisd  the  Tide  water 
district  to  break  up  its  ancient  alliance  with  Piedmont, 
and  form  a  new  one  with  the  trans-Alleghany ;  not,  if  I 
recollect  rightly,  to  put  down  the  practice  of  log-roll- 
ing, but  by  means  of  the  new  combination,  to  prosecute 
it  on  a  larger  scale  To  make  improvements  connect- 
ing the  far  west  with  the  near  east,  and  thus  build  up 
cities  on  the  sea  board.  Now  I  will  answer. that  gen- 
tleman as  I  answered  the  gentleman  from  Augusta, 
with  a  fable,  from  the  moral  of  which  he  may  learn  a 
useful  lesssou,  "  A  woodman  came  into  a  forest  to 
ask  the  trees  to  give  him  a  handle  foi;  his  axe.  It 
seemed  so  modest  a  request  that  the  principal  trees  at 
once  agreed  to  it,  and  it  was  settled  among  them  that 
the  plain,  homely  ash  should  furnish  what  was  wanted. 
No  sooner  had  the  woodman  fitted  the  staff  to  his  pur- 
pose than  he  began  laying  about  him  on  all  sides,  fel- 


346 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ling  the  noblest  trees  in  the  wood.  The  oak  now  seeing 
the  whole  matter,  too  late,  whispered  to  the  cedar,  the 
first  concession  has  lost  all ;  if  we  had  not  sacrificed  our 
humble  neighbor  we  might  have  yet  stood  for  years  our- 
selves." 


I  have  trespassed  already  very  far  upon  the  patience 
of  the  committee,  but,  at  the  hazard  of  being  thought 
unreasonable,  I  must  beg  their  indulgence  yet  further. 
The  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,)  asserted 
that  the  principle  impressed  upon  the  present  constitu- 
tion by  the  statement  of  1829  and  188U,  was  eminently 
aristocratic  and  anti  republican,  and  he  drew  an  injuri- 
ous contrast  between  the  liberty  which  we  enjoy  under 
it,  and  that  liberty  which  the  patriots  of  the  revolution 
transmitted  to  us  as  the  priceless  inheritance  of  that 
great  struggle.    I  know  not  from  what  source  the  gen- 
tleman derives  his  information,  but  I  do  know,  that  in 
the  articles  of  confederation,  to  which  they  assented,  in 
the  constitution  which  they  established,  and  in  the  au- 
thentic reports  of  their  debates,  no  justification  can  be 
found  for  the  contrast.    The  right  of  a  mere  numerical 
majority  of  persons,  without  regard  to  their  state  in 
the  community,  to  usurp  the  administration  of  affairs, 
had  no  place  amongst  the  principles  of  that  republican 
system  which  the  patriots  of  1776  established  upon  this 
continent.    That  is  a  feature  of  democracy,  a  broad  and 
intelligible  feature,  which  distinguishes  that  form  of 
government  from  all  others,  to  be  seen  in  full  luxuri- 
ance in  those  democracies  which,  in  former  times,  stud- 
ded the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean.    Divided  into  sep- 
arate States,  ancient  Greece,  in  all  its  parts,  was  sub- 
ject to  democratic  rule.    Collected  together,  in  cities 
or  inhabiting  territories  of  small  extent,  each  commu- 
nity administered  its  affairs  according  to  the  unchecked 
will  of  a  numerical  majority  ;  assembled  in  the  market 
places  they  made  laws,  adjudged  cases,  and  ordered  ex- 
ecutions ;  the  masses  ruled  everything,  and  their  sover- 
eign will  was  the  supreme  law.  If  we  would  study  the 
requite  of  democratic  government,  and  the  tendency  of 
the  democratic  spirit,  we  should  read  the  history  of  the 
age,  progress,  and  fall  of  those  ancient  States;  their  ag- 
gressions without,  their  turbulence  within  ;  their  wars 
of  classes,  and  cruel  oppressions;  their  confiscations  of 
property,  and  the  countless  evils  springing  from  the  li- 
centious dominion  which  supplied  the  rank  soil  that 
nourished  their  passions  ;  and  finally,  we  should  read  it 
in  the  arbitrary  sway  of  the  tyrants  who  established 
dynasties  upon  their  ruins,  under  whose  despotic  rule 
the  masses  themselves  sought  protection  from  their 
own  intolerable  excesses.    If  we  would  pursue  the  sub- 
ject and  prosecute  researches  into  more  modern  times, 
we  may  draw  a  fruitful  lesson  upon  democracy  from 
the  blood-stained  records  of  revolutionary  France. 

No  set  of  men  on  earth  were  ever  more  deeply  im- 
pressed with  the  dangerous  tendency  of  the  democratic 
spirit,  than  the  founders  of  our  American  system,  or  ever 
more  sedulously  guarded  against  the  evil  which  it 
threatened.  The  debates  in  the  federal  convention 
show  that  the  members  most  friendly  to  a  liberal  plan 
of  government  were  as  loud  as  any  in  their  denunciations 
of  the  vices  of  democracy,  and  the  constitution  shows, 
throughout  its  provisions,  numerous  and  stringent  checks 
upon  that  unlicensed  popular  will,  out  of  which  all  these 
vices  spring.  The  manner  of  electing  the  president  and 
his  tenure  of  office,  the  manner  of  appointing  senators 
and  the  tenure  of  their  office,  the  manner  of  electing 
members  of  the  house  of  representatives  and  their  tenure 
of  office,  and  the  manner  of  constituting  the  judiciary, 
are  all  so  many  limitations  upon  the  popular  power  and 
checks  upon  the  will  of  the  numerical  majority.  If, 
therefore,  the  government  of  this  State  be  anti-repubii- 
can  and  aristocratic,  that  of  the  United  States  is  emi- 
nently so,  and  instead  of  appealing  to  the  principles  of 
our  fathers,  the  gentleman  ought  to  hurl  his  loudest  de- 
nunciations against  their  works.  To  carry  out  the  doc- 
trine of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  we  would  be  un- 
der the  necessity  of  reforming  our  entire  system.  They 


claim  supreme  control  in  the  administration  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  the  numerical  majority,  and  to  set  up  this 
control,  we  must  not  only  give  them  the  election  by 
general  ticket  of  every  official  agent,  but  make  each 
one  hold  his  office  at  their  pleasure.  For  the  moment 
we  prescribe  a  fixed  tenure  of  office,  the  agent  who  fills 
it,  within  the  scope  of  his  power;  is  independent  of  the 
majoirty,  and  not  subject  to  their  will ;  and  this  so  with- 
out reference  to  the  manner  of  election.  But  when  we 
divide  the  State  into  counties  and  districts  and  provide 
for  separate  elections  in  each,  we  impose  another  re- 
straint upon  the  numerical  majority,  because  local  in- 
fluences will  affect  elections,  and  separate  interests  come 
to  be  represented  in  the  conflict  of  which,  when  the  re- 
presentatives are  assembled,  the  will  of  the  numerical 
majority  must  often  be  defeated.  To  carry  out  their 
doctrine  and  be  consistent  with  their  professions,  gen- 
tlemen must  advocate  these  changes  and  recommend  to 
the  people  a  constitution  fashioned  after  the  most  ap- 
proved model  of  ancient  Greece,  when  all  elections 
shall  proceed  by  general  ticket,  and  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation be  filled  by  the  supple  agents  of  the  dominant, 
numerical,  moneyless  majority.  No  one  here  will  desire 
this  change,  certainly  no  one  will  be  hardy  enough  to 
avow  the  desire,  yet  I  say  it  is  a  consequence  which 
flows  directly  from  the  doctrine  maintained. 

Election  by  districts  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  repub- 
lican government,  and  it  is  founded  upon  the  policy  of 
giving  representation  to  separate  interests.  Another 
principle  is,  that  in  deliberative  assemblies  the  majori- 
ty is  to  govern,  and  this  is  founded  on  the  idea  that  a 
majority  of  members  will  represent  the  majority  of  in- 
terests, and  may  therefore  be  safely  entrusted  with  the 
power  of  control.  Hence  the  necessity  arises  of  arrang- 
ing the  election  districts  so  that  a  majority  of  the  per- 
sons elected  will  represent  the  majority  of  interests,  for 
if  this  be  neglected,  the  security  against  abuse  will  be 
defeated,  which  this  system  of  government  is  intended 
to  provide,  and  its  most  important  principle  violated. 
With  a  legislature  constituted  so  that  a  majority  of  its 
members  will  represent  the  majority  of  interests,  we 
may  safely  confide  our  affairs  to  its  discretion  ;  but  if 
constituted  so  that  the  majority  of  members  will  repre- 
sent only  a  minority  of  interests,  we  must  seek  for  safe- 
ty in  restraint  and  limitations  upon  its  powers.  The 
advocates  of  the  white  basis  say  that'  they  are  willing 
to  submit  to  restraint,  but  of  what  nature  they  do  not 
inform  us ;  I  apprehend  they  will  never  consent  to  such 
restraints  as  will  furnish  security  against  the  danger 
which  is  anticipated ;  restraints  which  will  debar  th& 
the  legislature  from  appropriating,  according  to  the 
pleasure  of  a  majority,  the  money  of  the  east,  to  works 
of  internal  improvement  in  the  west.  That  restraints 
effectual  for  this  purpose  may  be  devised,  I  will  not  de- 
ny, but  to  have  any  effect  they  must  be  such  as  to  re- 
strain the  powers  of  legislation  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
paralyze  it  for  many  useful  purposes,  and  strangle  in  its 
unfinished  condition  the  entire  system  of  improvement 
within  us.  If  they  succeed  in  their  purpose,  gentlemen 
may  find  too  late  that  their  favorite  basis  has  been 
purchased  at  a  price  above  its  value,  a  price  that  will 
dash  to  earth  their  own  eager  anticipations  and  prove 
the  destruction  of  the  best  interests  of  those  in  whose 
behalf  they  are  conducting  this  struggle.  Wo  one  who 
knows  the  opinions  of  this  body  and  the  influences  un- 
der which  we  act,  but  must  know  that  if  the  legisla- 
tive power  shifts  to  the  west  in  the  present  condition  of 
the  State,  it  will  be  tied  up  by  all  manner  of  restraints 
and  be  wholly  unproductive  of  benefit.  The  people  of 
the  west  will  exclaim  with  Macbeth — 


"  Upon  my  head  they  placed  a  fruitless  .crown, 
And  put  a  barren  sceptre  in  my  gripe." 

We  shall  not  be  satisfied,  I  think,  with  the  guarantees 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley,  (Mr.  Faulk- 
ner.) It  struck  me  as  an  odd  sort  of  protection  against 
the  abuses  which  are  apprehended,  to  subject  us,  upen 
the  appropriations  of  money  for  works  of  internal  im- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION 


347 


provement,  to  the  absolute  will  of  the  numerical  major- 
ity, depriving  us  entirely  of  that  chance  for  protection 
which,  even  under  the  white  basis,  we  might  obtain 
from  the  diversified  interests  represented  in  the  legisla- 
ture. It  struck  me  further  as  an  odd  sort  of  protec- 
tion, that  we  are  to  be  made,  not  only  to  provide  the 
means  for  constructing  these  improvements  in  our  gen- 
eration, but  actually  to  pay  the  principal  costs  before 
the  works  can  develop  the  taxable  resources  of  the  re- 
gions in  whicli  they  are  made,  and  whilst  the  present  un- 
equal rate  of  taxation  prevails.  I  mean  not,  however, 
to  go  into  any  argument  upon  these  guarantees,  but  when 
they  come  up  for  consideration,  I  will  listen  with  great 
pleasure  to  the  gentleman  when  he  explains  them. 

Every  view  in  which  I  look  at  this  subject,  satisfies 
me  that  the  plan  of  the  substitute  is  best.  It  will  give 
the  control  of  legislation  to  the  majority  of  interests ; 
it  will  leave  to  that  majority  a  liberal  discretion,  and 
enable  us  to  resuscitate  the  dormant  energies  of  the 
State,  and  push  her  forward  in  the  race  for  supremacy  ; 
it  will  insure  the  stability  of  our  internal  improvements  ; 
it  strikes  down  the  present  arbitrary  allotment  of  pow- 
er, abolishes  all  divisions,  and  establishes  a  rule  of  ap- 
portionment which  works  with  perfect  equality,  and 
which,  at  do  distant  day,  will  transfer  the  power  to  the 
west.  In  the  arrangements  of  other  parts  of  the  con- 
stitution, we  shall  give  to  the  people  the  election  of  all 
of  the  principal  officers  of  government,  and  remove  that 
fruitful  source  of  complaint.  Senators  of  the  United 
States  must  continue  to  be  appointed  by  the  legislature 
but  in  these,  party  divisions  in  all  time,  will  secure  to 
the  west  a  fair  participation.  I  can  perceive  no  reason, 
therefore,  why  a  constitution  upon  the  mixed  basis 
should  not  satisfy  the  west.  I  believe  it  will  satisfy 
the  State,  and  fairly  presented,  will  unite  in  support  of 
it,  a  large  majority  of  those  who  are  regarded  by  the 
other  side,  as  alone  possessing  the  sovereign  power.  I 
express  this  opinion  from  my  own  observation,  and  I 
derive  confidence  from  it  from  the  conduct  of  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  If  they 
believe  we  are  outraging  the  wishes  of  the  majority, 
they  must  be  satisfied  that  our  work  will  be  rejected, 
because  they  know  it  will  have  no  force  unless  the  ma- 
jority adopt  it.  Then  what  just  occasion  is  there  for 
all  this  excitement  and  loud  denunciation  ?  What  occa- 
sion is  there  for  threats  of  withdrawal,  if  this  question 
is  ruled  against  them  ?  Gentlemen  may  state  here 
what  they  will  about  the  opinion  of  the  people  ;  I  have 
an  abiding  confidence  in  their  moderation,  good  sense, 
and  patriotism,  and,  therefore,  shall  adhere  to  the  be- 
lief that  a  constitution  on  the  principle  of  the  substi- 
tute will  be  acceptable  to  them,  and  am  willing  to  try 
the  issue  at  the  polls. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  LUCAS,  the  committee  then  rose. 

CHANGE  OF  THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  move,  that  when  the  Convention  ad 
journ,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morn 
ing,  and  every  succeeding  day  hereafter,  until  other- 
wise ordered.  On  that  motion  I  ask  for  the  yeaa  and 
nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 
The  question  being  taken,  there  were — yeas  52,  nays 
35 — as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Arthur,  Banks 
Barbour,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock,  Burges,  Caperton,  Car 
ter,  of  Russell,  Carter,  of  Loudoun,  Chambers,  Con 
way,  Edmunds,  Faulkner,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz 
Gaily,  M.  Garnett,  Hall  ,Hunter,  Jacob,  Kinney,  Leake 
Lionberger,  Lynch,  McCamant,  McCandlish,  Martin  of 
Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry,  Moncure,  Morris,  Neeson, 
Price,  Rives,  Shell,  Sloan  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Stephen- 
son, Stewart  of  Morgan,  Straughan,  Summers,  Tate, 
Trigg,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  Wil- 
ley,  Wingfield"  and  Wise — 52. 

Nays — Messrs.  Mason,  (Pres't.),  Bird  of  Shenandoah, 
Braxton,  Byrd  of  Frederick,  Camden,  Chambliss,  Chil- 


ton, Cocke,  Cox,  Davis,  Edwards,  Finney,  Fisher,  Gar- 
land, M.  R.  H.  Garnett,  Goode,  Janney,  Jones,  Letcher, 
Lucas,  Lyons,  McComas,  Moore,  Petty,  Saunders, 
Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Smith, 
of  Norfolk  county,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Suodgrass,  South- 
all,  Strother,  White,  Whittle,  and  Worsham— 35. 
So  the  motion  prevailed. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  10  o'clock. 

WEDNESDAY,  February  26,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Earley,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap-. 
proved. 

GRANT  OF  THE  USE  OF  THE  HALL. 

Mr.  FUQUA.  I  have  been  requested  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Southern  Rights  Association  to  ask  of  the 
Convention  the  use  of  this  hail  on  Friday  evening 
next.    I  therefore  respectfully  submit  the  request. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  If  the  gentleman  desires  the 
use  of  this  building,  I  think  the  better  plan  would  be  to 
apply  to  the  owners  of  it.  All  that  is  requisite  for  him  to 
do  here  is,  to  ask  the  concurrence  of  the  Convention  in 
granting  the  use  of  the  hall. 

Mr.  FUQUA.  The  gentleman  is,  perhaps,  correct'. 
I  will  then  get  the  concurrence  of  the  Convention,  which 
is  all  that  I  ask.  I  will  then  modify  my  request,  and 
ask  that  this  Convention  yield  their  assent  to  the  use 
of  this  hail  on  Friday  evening  next,  to  the  Southern 
Rights  Association. 

The  request  was  granted. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  ^ 

The  Convention  then  resumed  the  consideration,  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,)  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier. 
Mr.  LUCAS  having  the  floor- 
Mr.  FAULKNER.  My  colleague,  at  my  request,  has 
very  kindly  yielded  the  floor  for  a  few  moments,  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  me  to  correct  a  manifest  misappre- 
hension of  the  effect  of  some  propositions  submitted  by 
me  to  this  body  a  few  days  ago,  under  "which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  judging  from  the 
character  of  his  remarks  upon  yesterday,  appears  to  be 
laboring. 

The  propositions  I  submitted  related  to  the  subject 
of  limiting  the  power  of  the  legislative  department  to 
contract  of  debts  in  future  ;  and  an  unwillingness  to  in- 
terrupt the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  during  the  contin- 
uance of  his  very  able  and  fervid  argument,  and  the 
late  hour  at  which  he  closed  them,  prevented  me  from 
making  the  explanation  on  yesterday  which  I  now  pro- 
pose to  make.  I  had  supposed,  judging  from  the  opin- 
ions that  gentleman  is  known  to  entertain  upon  the 
subject  of  a  liberal,  I  will  not  say,  an  extravagant  sys 
tern  of  internal  improvements — that  if  he  had  had  any 
objection  to  the  scheme  I  offered,  it  would  have  been  to 
the  number  and  stringency  of  the  safeguards  I  pro- 
posed to  throw  around  the  exercise  of  the  power  just 
alluded  to.  But  in  his  remarks  upon  yesterday,  he 
treated  these  propositions  as  calculated  to  throw  wider 
open  the  floodgates  of  expenditure,  so  that  I  am  sure 
that  he  could  not  have  examined  my  scheme  with  his 
usual  care  and  accuracy.  I  stated  distinctly,  when  I 
submitted  those  propositions,  that  I  designed  pressing 
them  upon  the  consideration  of  the  Convention  without 
the  slightest  reference  to  the  question,  whether  the  east 
or  the  west  should  succeed  in  the  contest  now  going  on 
upon  this  floor.  I  said  that  our  experience  in  the  le- 
gislation of  the  State  during  the  last  twenty-years  had 
sufficiently  proved  in  my  opinion,  that  the  possession  of 


348 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


4 


the  control  of  the  legislature  by  an  eastern  majority 
had  been  no  safeguard  against  the  abuse  of  that  power 
of  reckless  and  injudicious  appropriation,  and  that  I 
had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  if  that  power  were 
transferred  to  the  west,  without  proper  limitation,  it 
might  not  be  equally  liable  to  abuse ;  and,  therefore,  in 
presenting  these  propositions,  I  distinctly  stated  that 
I  designed  pressing  them  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
Contention  without  the  slightest,  regard  to  the  fact  as 
to  which  party  should  succeed  in  the  pending  contro- 
versy. 

The  second  error  which  the  gentleman  committed  in 
treating  of  these  propositions  was,  in  representing  them 
as  yielding  the  power  of  appropriation  to  the  uncheck- 
ed and  uncontrolled  action  of  the  popular  majority  of 
voters  at  the  polls. 

Now  I  claim  no  merit  for  introducing  this  plan  ;  I 
claim  not  the  credit  of  its  paternity ;  and  I  desire  in  a 
few  words  to  explain  it  to  the  Convention  so  that  if 
gentlemen  choose  to  make  reference  to  it  they  may  do 
it  understandingly.  The  plan  proposes  that  the  legis- 
lature shall  have  no  power  to  contract  debts  beyond 
the  fixed  sum  of  one  million  of  dollars,  unless  for  the 
purpose  of  repelling  invasion,  suppressing  insurrection, 
or  defending  the  State  in  case  of  war.  This  refers  to 
debts  hereafter  to  be  contracted.  It  then  proposes,  in 
reference  to  debts  that  exceed  that  amount,  that  before 
the  legislature  shall  have  power  to  contract  such  debts 
that  the  law  shall  in  the  first  place  explicitly '  authorize 
the  creation  of  that  debt  for  some  specific  object  or 
work:  secondly,  that  that  law  shall  provide  at  the 
same  time,  for  the  imposition  and  collection  of  ara  an- 
nual tax,  sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  debt  thus 
created,  and  discharge  the  principal  within  a  period  of 
eighteen  years  ;  and  thirdly,  that  this  law  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  sanction  of  the  legislative  department  until  it 
revives  the  vote  of  a  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  both  branches  of  the  general  assembly,  a  major- 
ity that  will  practically  amount  to  at  least  a  two-third 
vote,  and  that  the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be  recorded  on 
the  passage  of  the  law.  These  are  very  important  safe- 
guards so  far;  but  the  scheme  proceeds  a  step  further, 
and  declares  that  this  law,  thus  creating  a  debt  binding 
upon  the  commonwealth  shall  not  go  into  effect  until 
submitted  to  the  people  at  the  polls,  and  there  sanc- 
tioned by  them  ;  and  it  expressly  provides  that  no  two 
laws  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  at  one  general 
election.  Without  meaning  to  enter  further  into  an  ex- 
planation of  the  merits  of  this  scheme,  for  I  would  not 
trespass  so  far  upon  the  courtesy  of  my  colleague  as  to 
do  so  now,  I  will  simply  state  that  at  least  three  results 
will  follow  its  adoption  ;  whether  the  results  be  desira- 
ble or  not  it  is  for  this  Convention  to  determine  in  the 
first  place,  and  afterwards  for  the  people.  They  would 
be  these :  The  first  result  would  be  to  cut  up  by  the 
roots  all  those  petty  and  local  appropriations  of  which 
our  statute  book  furnishes  so  many  and  striking  illustra- 
tions. It  is  idle  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  appro- 
priations of  that  character  could  pass  through  the  ordeal 
prescribed  by  these  propositions.  The  next  result  that 
would  follow  would  be  the  eradication  from  the  halls  of 
legislation  of  the  whole  practice  of  log-rolling  and  the 
entire  system  of  lobby  membership.  The  third  result 
that  would  follow  would  be  the  concentration  of  the 
energies  and  resources  of  this  State  upon  those  great 
works  of  internal  improvement,  which  are  alone  worthy, 
in  my  judgment,  of  the  patronage  of  the  State,  and  [ 
which  certainly  alone  could  receive  the  sanction  of  the 
voice  of  the  people  at  the  polls.  1  do  not  know  how 
some  gentlemen  may  regard  the  idea  of  submitting 
questions  of  this  kind  to  the  direct  vote  of  the  people, 
but  it  has  always  been  viewed  with  favor  by  me.  I  be- 
lieve that  salutary  influences  would  result  from  bringing 
the  minds  of  the  people  directly  to  the  comprehension 
and  study  of  these  questions  of  internal  concern  and  do- 
mestic policy,  and  that  they  would  be  found  upon  all 
occasions  to  possess  intelligence  and  liberality  enough 
to  decide  upon  any  scheme  worthy  of  their  considera- 1 


tion  at  all,  with  judgment  and  fairness,  and  of  giving  to 
it  precisely  that  s  pport  'to  which  it  would  fee  entitled 
and  no  more.  I  have  deemed  it  proper  to  make  this 
brief  explanation  in  order  that  gentlemen  may  under- 
stand the  scheme  properly  and  consider  it  upon  its 
merits  ;  and  I  would  state  that  I  hold  myself  prepared 
to  abandon  it  at  any  moment,  if  another  scheme  look- 
iug  to  the  same  results,  and  which,  in  my  judgment, 
will  better  accomplish  the  objects  designed,  shall  be 
presented.  All  I  desire  is,  that  the  evil  which  I  pro- 
pose to  remedy,  shall  receive  the  consideration  of  this 
Convention  and  be  acted  upon  in  some  form  by  it. 

Mr.  LUCAS.  I  certainly  should  not  ask  indulgence 
of  the  committee,  if  I  could  reconcile  it  to  my  sense  of 
duty  to  give  a  silent  vote  upon  the  important  subject 
under  consideration.  I  feel  very  sensibly  my  individual 
humility  in  this  body ;  and  I  am  aware  I  cannot  hope  to 
requite  for  the  time  I  may  consume  in  expressing  my 
views.  1  did  not  aspire  or  expect  to  preseut  myself  in 
the  position  circumstances  have  placed  me,  in  having 
to  succeed  the  able  and  distinguished  gentleman  from 
.Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.)  But  it  was  not  for  me  to  forego 
my  intention  to  speak,  after  my  effort,  on  the  day  be- 
fore he  rose,  to  obtain  the  floor,  and  fall  back  from  the 
attitude  I  had  assumed.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  at- 
tempt to  follow  that  gentleman  through  his  long  and 
very  able  speech.  Yet,  I  do  propose  to  change,  to  some 
considerable  extent,  the  course  of  remark  I  had  intend- 
ed to  pursue  and  to  notice  some  of  the  principal  argu- 
ments which  he  submitted. 

I  come  from  the  low  err  end  of  the  valley,  where  na- 
ture has  been  so  kind  and  bountiful — where  "  the  rich 
woods,"  so  called,  attracted  in  his  youth  the  Father  of 
his  Country,  before  he  had  earned  that  name  or  any  part 
of  his  renown.  Where  are  the  homes  that  were,  of  ma- 
ny of  the  most  illustrious  heroes  of  the  revolution — the 
brave  old  General  Morgan,  and  Gates,  and  Lee,  and  Ste- 
phens, and  Dark,  and  others  little  less  distinguished,  all 
had  their  homes  within  the  district  which  I  have  the 
honor  in  part  to  represent.  And  there  the  mortal  re  • 
mains  of  the  most  of  them  now  repose  in  peace  beneath 
the  green  turf  of  their  own  favored  valley,  their  memo- 
ries not  forgotten  nor  their  achievements  •  these  still 
live ;  nor  has  the  genius  of  their  immortal  spirits  fled. 
That  too  is  still  with  us,  sitting  in  eternal  wake,  we 
fondly  trust,  keeping  ceaseless  vigils  to  inspire  our  bo- 
soms with  a  love  of  liberty  and  equality.  This  is  the 
district  from  which  I  have  the  honor  to  come ;  one  I 
say  rich  in  soil  and  renown,  and  in  all  the  beauties  and 
bounties  of  nature  which  a  man  could  desire  for  a  heri- 
tage and  a  home  upon  this  earth. 

I  deem  it  neither  bad  taste  nor  inappropriate  to  bring 
up  these  reminiscences,  in  alluding  to  the  peculiar  situ- 
ation and  various  advantages  of  my  district.  Indeed, 
what  1  heard  yesterday  and  the  day  before  in  this  house 
recalled  them,  and  they  now  naturally  arise  and  connect 
themselves  with  my  view  of  the  very  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject and  the  great  principle  involved  in  the  question 
under  discussion,  which  1  hold  to  be  what  is  the  true 
republican  basis  of  representation  for  the  represe  ntative 
government  of  a  free  State,  and  which  I  verily  believe 
involves  the  very  same  principle  for  which  our  fore- 
fathers fought  and  bled.  I  hope,  in  that  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation which  should  prevail  in  this  committee,  I  shall 
be  pardoned  for  this  unreserved  annunciation.  It  is  no- 
hasty  opinion  I  advance,  but  one  long  entertained — one 
that  has  grown  up  with  me  and  strengthened  with  my 
age.  And  although  others,  not  too  humble  like  myself, 
to  indulge  the  hope  of  preferment,  might  be  more  pru- 
dent, I  feel  no  such  restraint,  for  I  have  nothing  to  ask 
for,  nothing  to  hope  for,  nothing  to  expect,  politically, 
and  no  motive  to  shrink  from  the  freest  avowal  of  my 
sentiments. 

I  am  here  without  effort,  solicitation  or  desire — with- 
out a  single  aspiration  that  would  have  led  me  from  my 
home,  where  centre  all  my  earthly  hopes  and  affections, 
here  it  is  my  pleasure  to  hear  almost  unceasingly,  not 
the  discord  that  salutes  me  here,  but  the  social  sound 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


349 


of  the  mingling  flood,  of  the  wedded  waters  of  old  Po- :  equally,  by  a  geographical  line  marked  by  a  mountain, 
tomac  and  Shenandoah,  allow  me  to  say,  not  more  con-  as  though,  as  was  aptly  remarked  by  the  distinguished 
genial  or  happy  in  their  union,  nor  identical  in  their  ,  gentleman  from  Henrico,  at  an  early  stage  of  our  pro- 
destiny,  when  lost  in  the  deep  bosom  of  the  ocean,  than  jceedings,  e" principles  run  with  mountains/'    I  entertain 


should  be,  I  can  say  with  as  ardent  a  love  as  glow; 
the  breast  of  her  proudest  son,  east  and  west. 
Virginia  forever! 

I  but  use  this  figure  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  sen 
timent,  and  I  will,  if  indulged,  extend  it  to  say,  that  as 


decided  opinion,  that  if  no  question  of  power  was  in- 
and  all'volved  in  this  contest  and  no  question  of  principle,  we 
could  settle  it  very  soon.    Is  there  any  doubt  of  this  ? 
| None  in  the  world  on  my  mind  ;  none. 

Well,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  mv  constituents,  if 


these  meandering  streams  of  different  source  and  seem-  governed  by  interest?,  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
ingly  once  estranged,  and  brought  together  by  some 


who  addressed  you  on  yesterday,  told  you  governs  all 
men  and  all  things,  and  lies  at  the  foundation  of  gov- 
ernment, would  occupy  precisely  the  opposite  side  to 
that  upon  w*  ich  they  have  instructed  me  to  stand  here, 
and  so  may  claim  to  be  an  exception  to  this  rule.  With 
those  great  natural  and  local  advantages — with  every 
great  work  of  improvement  nearly  already  made,  we 
desire,  which  you  know  you  were  so  emphatically  told 
yesterday  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  is  not  the  case 
with  the  east,  and  is  far  from  being  true  as  to  the  west. 


great  convulsion,  as  our  ancestors  were  by  oppression 
united  in  the  revolution,  now  consummate  their  union 
at  that  romantic  spot  so  much  admired,  will  henceforth, 
according  to  all  human  calculation,  at  least,  mangle  their 
continuous  flow  through  all  time,  so,  it  is  the  first  wish 
of  my  heart,  that  we,  as  a  people  who  have  one  origin, 
one  ancestry,  one  language,  one  renown,  and  one  coun- 
try, with  common  interests  to  unite  us  in  one  great  and 
glorious  Commonwealth,  shall  continue  for  many  ages 
and  generations  yet  to  come,  to  live  in  unity  and  har-  j  With  our  markets  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State,  and 
mony  together  under  a  common  government  and  a  com- I  yet  almost  at  our  door,  while  we  are  to  be  taxed  to 
mon  name,  aud  that  name,  I  am  sure  all  concur,  Vir-  imake  these  improvements  east  and  west,  without  direct 
ginia  and  none  other,  and  not  only  for  ages  and  genera  j  benefit  from  either  ;  in  this  situation,  it  is  manifest,  we 
tions,  but  forever  !  And  I  will  hope  and  hope  onto  the  have  more  to  fear,  in  that  respect,  from  power  in  the 
last,  that  this  is  to  be  our  destiny,  notwithstanding  what  'hands  of  the  west  than  in  those  of  the  east,  for  we  have 
I  have  heard  without  and  within  those  consecrated  j  nearly  as  large  a  slave  population  as  the  east,  and  a  far 
walls,  and  within  and  without  this  ancient,  this  time- !  larger  proportion  than  the  west,  while  our  lands  are 
honored  capitol  of  our  common  country,  around  whose  I  richer  and  higher  assessed  than  those  of  either,  and 
altars  we  are  gathered  together,  from  every  portion  of  (much  more  so  than  those  of  the  west;  and  we  all  know 
this  old  commonwealth,  to  consult,  to  deliberate,  and  I  [that  it  is  upon  these  two  great  proprietory  interests — 
trust  in  G-od,  to  act  for  the  common  good,  not  sectional  slaves  and  lands — upon  which  the  taxing  power  presses 
interests!  And  why  not  hope  it, -why  not,  when  I  can  I  most  onerously,  and  so  must  fall  with  a  heavier 
say  for  myself  and  my  respected  colleagues  and  those  'hand  upon  us  than  either  the  east  or  the  west,  who- 
whom  I  have  the  proud  honor  to  represent  in  this  assemblv,  lever  wields  the  power.  It  is  most  clearly  demonstra- 
that  it  is  no  part  of  our  nature  or  of  our  purpose  to  in-  |ble,  then,  if  we  were  to  be  governed  by  interest,  or  if  we 
dulge  even  in  embryo  for  one  moment,  the  thought  of  were  to  be  influenced  by  the  fear  of  taxation,  which 
separation  and  division.  Never,  never,  no.  never,  so  i  seems  to  be  the  main  ground  assumed  by  our  eastern 
long  as  there  shall  remain  to  us  a  single  ray  of  hope  of  brethren  for  holding  on  to  power,  that  we  should  go 
obtaining  our  just  and  equal  rights.  No,  as  for  us,  how-  j  with  them  upon  the  basis  question,  instead  of  with  the 
ever  it  may  be  with  others,  we  would  rather  sae  the  west.  To  be  still  more  explicit,  if.  in  our  opinion,  this 
hills  and  mountains  that  surround  us,  attached  as  we  |  was  simply  a  question  of  power,  as  asserted  by  the 
are  to  them,  as  nature  formed  them,  and  as  we  have  (honorable  gentleman  from  Halifax,  (Mr.  Pub.ki.vs,)  if 
been  accustomed  to  look  upon  them  even  from  our  child-  j  there  was  no  principle  iuvolved  in  it,  or  if  we  believed 
hood,  endeared  to  us  by  all  their  holy  associations  in  |  principle  was  on  the  side  of  the  east,  aud  that  a  "  ma- 
our  recollections  of  the  past  and  by  nativity,  melted  in-  Ijority  of  interests,"  as  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
to  one  vast  heap  of  ruins,  covering  in  the  mass  our  j  Fauquier  so  powerfully  contended,  in  one  section  of  the 
homes,  our  all,  even  the  graves  of  our  fathers  and  our  State,  and  n  it  numbers  over  the  whole  commonwealth 
forefathers,  leaving  tomb  nor  stone  to  tell  the  sacred  as  one  community,  was  the  true  republican  basis,  then 
spot  of  their  repose,  than  we  would  rise  up  to  sever  the  the  valley,  or  at  least  my  end  of  it,  would,  from  inter- 
bond  that  binds  this  people  in  unity,  as  the  children  of  |  est  and  principle,  be  found  on  this  question  on  the  side 


a  common  moth< 


of  the  east  instead  of  with  the  west.  These  two  pow- 
erful motives  would  impel  us.  But  we  are  not  able  to 
concur  in  the  view  that  there  is  no  principle  involved — 
that  it  is  simply  a  contest  for  power,  when,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  we  know  that  it  is  not  so.  We  cannot 
concede  that  a  minority  located  in  one  section  of  the 
State,  which  happen^,  for  the  time  being,  to  own  the  most 
wealth,  should  therefore  govern  the  State  and  the  ma- 


Occupying  this  enviable  position,  favored  with  every 
natura'  aud  artificial  advantage,"  we  only  ask  to  be  per- 
mitted to  remain  part  and  parcel  of  Virginia,  under  a 
free  and  equal  form  of  government,  truly  republican,  to 
secure  U3  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  what  we  have,  and 
under  such  a  government,  and  under  no  other,  may  hope 
for  in  future.  Well,  the  question  meets  us  here,  have 
we  such  a  government?  For  what  have  we  assem-  jority  of  the  people.  This  is  contrary  to  our  feelings 
bled?  For  what  purposes  have  we  been  chosen  and  aud  al1  our  notions  of  right.  It  would  violate  first  prin- 
delegatedto  this  old  capital,  by  a  large  majority  of  [ciples  and  the  right  of  self-government.  We  were  born 
the  electors  of  the  whole  State,  a  class  I  hope  to  |and  inspired  with  different  feelings  and  sentiments,  and 
see  enlarged.  We  have  been  sent  here,  charged  with  we  have  been  taught  dieffrently— we  have  learned  oth- 
the  sacred  duty  to  amend  and  reform  our  existing  erwise  from  the  highest  sources  and  the  highest  author- 
constitution  and  government,  in  various  and  important  ^J- 

particulars,  and  especially  its  basis  of  representation,  |  Our  bill  of  rights  expressly  declares,  that  "all  power 
because  deemed  ineffectual  for  the  great  ends  of  its  in-  is  vested  in  and  consequently  derived  from  the  people- 


stitution.  And  I  apprehend,  we  should  have  very  lit 
tie  in  the  way  to  prevent  our  arriving  and  speedily  at 
the  end  of  our  labors,  and  at  harmonious  results,  but  for 
one  difficulty,  and  that  is  this  question  of  the  basis 
which  lies  at  the  threshold.  We  cannot  take  a  step — 
we  cannot  move  an  inch,  it  appears,  until  we  settle  it, 
and  fix  the  foundation  upon  which  the  whole  govern 
ment  is  to  rest,  and  most  unfortunately  upon  this  ques 


that  magistrates  are  their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at 
all  times  amenable  to  them ;  and  that  a  majority  of  the 
community  hath  an  indubitable,  unalienable  and  inde- 
feasible right  to  reform,  alter  or  abolish  their  govern- 
ment in  such  a  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  condu- 
cive to  the  public  weal ;  that  elections  of  members  to 
serve  as  representatives  of  the  people  ought  to  be  free  ; 
and  that  all  men,  having  sufficient  evidence  of  perma- 


tion  we  stand  here  divided  into  two  parties,  and  nearly  jnsnt  common  interest  in  and  attachment  to  the  conirnu- 


350 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


nity,  have  the  right  of  suffrage."  And  the  declaration 
of  rights  made  by  the  thirty  other  States  of  this  Union — 
and  when  I  name  them,  I  certainly  need  not  tell  you 
that  there  are,  strictly  speaking,  no  other  free  States  on 
earth — all  set  forth  and  affirm  these  great  fundamental 
principles  and  eternal  truths  as  self-evident,  and  with 
three  or  four  exceptions,  have  actually  made  them  the 
basis  of  their  governments.  Yes,  the  whole  thirty,  with 
these  few  exceptions,  have  based  representation  upon 
numbers — people — and  adopted  general  suffrage,  and 
many  of  them  have  now  actually  had  more  than  half  a 
century's  experience  of  the  practical  wisdom  of  equal 
representation  and  extended  suffrage,  and  others  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century's  like  experience,  while  all 
the  rest — the  new  States — have  followed  principle,  and 
trod  in  the  light  of  their  example,  and  are  now  in  the 
full  tide  of  successful  experiment.  Yes,  all  launched 
from  this  same  free  port,  and  under  full  sail,  on  the 
same  glorious  voyage  upon  the  onward,  endless  stream 
of  time,  fully  equipped  for  their  common  destination, 
fearing  not,  under  the  smiles  of  heaven,  storm  or  tem- 
pest, shoal  or  quicksand,  but  all  sure  of  the  glittering 
prize.  Old  Virginia,  the  eldest  sister,  "the  flag  ship," 
and  the  most  sea-worthy  of  all,  lagging  back  solitary  and 
alone,  still  afraid  to  venture  upon  a  calm  and  tranquil 
sea,  and  upon  such  a  voyage — still  at  anchor  upon  her 
old  colonial  ground — unequal  representation  and  limi- 
ted suffrage — as  if  given  up  to  idle  fear  or  worse  idola- 
try; still  lingering  on  an  unsafe  and  uncertain  shore,  as 
if  afraid  of  losing  her  freight  or  some  part  of  it,  and 
afraid,  as  my  friend  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  says,  of 
the  majority  of  her  own  noble  crew,  who  would,  every 
one  of  them,  shed  their  last  drop  of  blood  in  her  de- 
fence— standing,  as  I  hope  to  show,  on  her  own  shad- 
ow in  her  own  light,'  and  frightened  at  that  shadow  ; 
in  opposition,  I  repeat  it,  to  her  own  declaration  of  rights 
and  those  of  her  thirty  sister  States — against  principle, 
example,  experience,  and  that  prosperity  and  glory 
which  would  attend  an  onward  course  in  the  plain  re- 
publican path  of  duty,  upon  this  most  glorious  voyage. 

After  the  course  of  remark  submitted  by  the  honora- 
ble gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  am  led  out  of  my  way, 
as  prescribed  for  myself.  He  has  made  it  important  to 
inquire,  how  Virginia  came  into  the  position  just  descri- 
bed, and  why  she  has  so  long  continued  in  it.  In  this 
investigation  I  beg  the  committee  to  follow  me.  Like 
the  honorable  gentleman  just  referred  to,  I  fear  nothing 
in  search  of  truth.  The  story  is  a  plain  one  and  soon 
told,  and  presents  another  instance  with  which  the  his- 
tory of  the  world  is  replete,  of  power  holding  on  to 
power,  once  obtained,  no  matter  how,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  against  both  right  and  reason  leaving  the  many 
no  alternative  but  submission  or  revolt,  which,  when 
sucess  attends,  and  their  cause  is  just,  we  all  call  glo- 
rious revolution,  not  rebellion. 

The  means  by  which  the  few  have  ever  contrived,  in 
all  ages  and  countries,  to  rule  the  many,  are  numerous 
and  various,  and  the  modes  of  self-perpetuating  power 
and  force  and  fraud,  and  a  combination  of  wealth  and 
interests,  the  chief.  With  us,  while  we  have  had  noth- 
ing of  this  sort,  and  I  take  pleasure  in  disclaiming  the 
imputation,  the  process  has  been  a  simple  one.  Yet  the 
fact  is  so.  The  few  have  ruled  the  many  in  Virginia 
from  the  beginning,  and  still  do ;  not  indeed  tyrannical- 
'  ly,  nor  oppressively,  but  still  it  is  true — as  certain  as 
there  is  a  God  in  Heaven. 

I  agree  that  the  origin  of  this  minority  rule  in  Vir- 
ginia, is  not  without  apology.  I  do  not  deny,  at  least, 
that  there  are  many  things  to  extenuate  and  even  to  ex- 
cuse in  the  circumstances  out  of  which  it  emerged. 
Yet  I  can  see  nothing  to  sanction  the  long  continuance 
of  it,  and  I  do  see  much  to  condemn  the  existing,  une- 
qual representation,  restricted  suffrage,  and  other  anti- 
republican  relics. 

Our  constitution  and  government,  as  you  are  aware, 
except  as  amended  and  changed  in  some  few  particulars 
in  1829-30,  had  its  birth  in  the  revolution.  Those 


times  of  trouble  "that  tried  men's  souls."  Our  early 
ancestors,  who  fled  to  this  western  world  from  the  per- 
secutions and  oppressions  of  the  old,  in  settling  here  irj 
a  wilderness,  brought  with  them  only  such  laws  as  were 
adapted  to  their  new  and  strange  situation.  And  few 
in  number,  at  first,  and  with  little  to  care  for  but  them- 
selves, they  indeed  needed  but  little  government  and 
law.  But  they  gradually  increased,  grew ,  and  flourished,, 
though  but  slowly,  and  improving  but  little  as  they  ad- 
vanced in  their  civil  and  political  institutions,  dependent 
as  they  were  ly^on  the  crown  to  which  they  acknow- 
ledged allegiance  still,  until  their  prosperity  attracted 
the  rapacity  of  the  mother  country,  ruled  by  a  selfish  ty- 
rant and  a  coldblooded  ministry.  Then  soon  the  substance 
of  that  prosperity  began  to  be  abstracted  under  color  of 
one  pretence  after  another,  against  their  consent,  and  ex- 
actions to  increase  and  multiply  until  longer  submission 
became  intolerable.  Then,  we  know,  they  resisted,  and 
lose  with  their  confederates,  and  threw  off  the  yoke, 
casting  it  in  the  wide  ocean  that  separated  them.  The 
contest  was  one  of  fearful  odds,  one  of  doubtful  issue, 
and  full  of  hazards,  and  while  it  was  raging,  the  old 
government  dissolved  and  abrogated,  amidst  the  heat 
and  carnage  of  this  life-struggle,  a  convention  was  called 
under  a  law  passed  by  the  last  house  of  burgesses, 
"  whose  power,"  to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Doddridge, 
"had  actually  ceased  with  the  colonial  government^ 
and  by  the  same  act  that  dissolved  it."  And  that  body, 
calling  itself  a  convention,  and  assuming  the  authority, 
and  to  their  honor  be  it  said,  made  our  first  constitu- 
tion. Our  old  constitution  was  thus  gotten  up  in  haste 
and  danger,  to  meet  the  pending  crisis,  as  a  temporary 
expedient,  intended  only  to  ride  out  the  storm,  not  to- 
last  ;  and  being  thus  gotten  up  and  designed,  as  was  said 
by  my  friend  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,)  in  opening 
this  debate,  it  is  no  reflection  upon  its  authors  to  say, 
what  is  the  truth,  that  it  was  defective  and  imperfect. 
Indeed,  as  he  truly  remarked,  "  the  wonder  is,  that  it 
was  not  more  so,  under  the  circumstances,  especially  as 
they  had  no  model  to  guide  them." 

In  fact,  it  changed  but  little  the  old  colonial  govern- 
ment which  had  sprung  up,  under  their  connection  with 
the  crown,  their  dependence  and  allegiance.  And  the 
delegates  who  made  it  were  elected  by  freeholders  hold- 
ing fifty  acres  of  cultivated  or  one  hundred  acres  of  un- 
cultivated land.  But  the  country  submitted  to  their 
authority  and  tacitly  adopted  their  work,  although  the 
constitution  was  never  submitted  to  a  formal  vote,  as  in 
truth  they  were  obliged  to,  under  the  circumstances,  if 
they  had  been  otherwise  disposed. 

But  who  were  these  first  constitution  makers?  I  say 
they  were  confessedly  but  the  representatives  of  this 
one  particular  class  of  freeholders,  a  portion  only— and 
but  a  comparatively  small  portion  only — of  the  people. 

And  what  did  they  do?  I  repeat  but  little  more,  be- 
sides repudiating  the  crown  and  their  allegiance,  than 
continue  the  same  state  of  things  before  existing — the 
same  old  freehold  government  of  the  few,  without  the 
crown — under  another  name,  it  is  true — but  scarcely 
changed  in  form,  substance,  or  power. 

They  substituted  a  house  of  delegates  for  the  old 
house  of  burgesses,  and  a  senate  for  the  old  legislative 
coumil,  confiding  to  each  precisely  the  same  powers  and 
privileges  as  possessed  by  their  predecessors,  and  prescri- 
bing for  members  the  same  qualifications  respectively, 
and  to  be  elected  by  the  same  class  of  freeholders,  and  a 
governor  for  the  Crown?  And  the  same  old  colonial  ba- 
sis of  representation  and  limited  freehold  suffrage,  they 
expressly  declared,  should  remain  the  same  as  -under  the 
old  colonial  government,  under  Which,  from  1620,  when 
the  first  house  of  burgesses  assembled  at  Jamestown, 
the  burgesses  were  elected  by  the  different  plantations 
or  settlements  in  the  colony,  paying  nc  regard  to  the 
size,  population,  or  extent  of  territory,  or  wealth  of  the 
plantation,  each  being  allowed  a  representation ;  and  un- 
til 1645,  as  many  members  as  they  chose  to  send,  no 
matter  what  its  population,  or  wealth,  or  extent  of  ter- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


351 


ritory.  In  1634,  for  the  first  time,  the  colony  was  divi-  ed,  and  such  as  are  incidental 
ded  into  shires  or  counties,  eisrht  in  number,  for  military  and  proper  to  ca-ry  them  into 


thereto,  and  necessary 
euect — that  the  State 


and  judicial  purposes  only,  which  remained  very  differ-  governments  hare  all  power  not  denied.  They  elected 
ent  as  before,  in  extent  of  territorv  and  iu  their  popula-  our  United  States  senators,  our 


tion,  and  the  same 


popula- jour  United  States  senators,  our  governors  and  council, 
representation  remaining  to  each  Judges,  generals,  and  other  officers,  and  passed  all  laws 
county;  and,  as  different  settlements,  from  time  to  time !  affecting  life  and  liberty  as  well  as  property.    Its  pow- 
spruug  up,  new  counties  were  erected  and  a  like  repre-  er,  in  the  emphatic  and  expressive  words  of  the  distin- 


sentation  allowed  to  them  ;  and,  in  like  manner  as  ap- 
plications continued  to  be  made,  the  old  counties,  or  some 
of  them,  were  divided,  with  a  like  representation,  but 
none  of  the  counties,  old  or  new.  were  restricted  as  to 
the  number  of  members  until  16i5,  a?  before  said,  when 
they  were  limited  to  four  each,  and  finally,  in  1660,  to 
two  members  each.  The  right  of  suffrage,  in  the  mean- 
time, which  had  at  first  been  enjoyed  by  all  the  inhab- 
itants, undergoing  various  changes  at  iutervals,  until 
1677,  when  the  king  sent  his  private  order  to  his  obse- 
quious governor — to  use  the  language  of  the  distin- 
guished John  R.  Cook,  in  the  last  contention — backed 
by  two  regiments  of  British  soldiers,  and  caused  it  to 
be  restricted  to  a  certain  class  of  freeholders,  from 
which  it  was  afterwards  changed,  at  intervals  until  lim- 
ited to  those  first  stated. 

Such  is  the  origin,  and  such  the  circumstances  prece- 
ding and  accompanying  the  birth  of  our  old  constitu- 
tion, and  such  the  state  of  thing?  with  which  its  fra- 
mers  had  to  deal;  and  after  expelling  the  presence  of 
king  and  parliament,  they  only  r ^-established  matters 
nearly  as  before  existing,  under  our  connexion  with  the 
crown,  giving,  in  like  manner,  to  the  new  legislature,  as 
before  possessed  by  the  old  house  of  burgesses,  the  same 
power  to  form  new  counties,  and  to  divide  old  ones,  with 
a  like  representation  of  two  members  to  each,  but  none 
as  before  existing,  to  take  away  any  representation  from 
any  county. 

This  want  of  power  in  the  new  legislature,  to  take 
from  a  county,  after  divided  and  reduced  in  size,  any 
part  of  its  representation,  not  only  continued,  but  ag- 
gravated the  old  colonial  plantation  county-converted 
bas'13  of  representation,  by  increasing  the  inequality 
still  more  under  it,  while  it  was  being  still  farther  in- 
creased by  natural  causes,  so  that  when  the  old  consti- 
tution of  1776,  which  we  hear  so  much  lauded,  was 
amended  in  1829-30,  the  least  county  in  the  State  had 
as  large  a  representation  a3  the  very  largest  county, 
each  having  two  delegates ;  and  the  representation  in 
the  senate  remained  even  more  unequal,  until  there-or- 
ganization and  favorable  change  in  that  body  in  1813. 
While  the  old  freehold  suffrage  remained  the  same  a? 
under  the  old  colonial  government,  and  continued  to  be 
exercised  and  enjoyed  by  a  portion — not  to  say  even  j 
minority — of  the  freeholding  class,  which  was  itself  a  mi 
nority  of  the  freemen  of  the  State,  so  that  the  whole 
government,  under  the  old  constitution,  until  amended 
in  1829-30,  from  the  first,  was  in  the  hands  of  this  por- 
tion only— not  to  sjv  minority  of  the  minority — of  the 
freeholders,  with  all  its  powers,  which  were  very  great. 
The  legislature  possessed  the  right  to  do  almost  any 
and  every  thing  within  State  jurisdiction,  under  the  gen- 
eral government  of  the  Union,  not  expressly  denied, 
such  as  they  should  not  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus, pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  or  any  exposte  facto  law, 
or  any  law  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the 
press,  &c,  and  with  all  the  power,  all  elections  aud  offi- 
ces were  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  legislature,  and 
withdrawn  and  taken  away  from  even  this  limited  num- 
ber of  the  people,  these  few  freeholders  (themselves  but 
a  portion  of  the  freeholding  class)  who  elected  legisla- 
tures, and  whose  government  it  was — a  government,  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say,  with  all  my  respect  and  rever- 
ence for  the  memory  of  its  illustrious  authors,  and  I 
yield  to  no  one  in  my  veneration  for  them — constituting 
beyond  ail  question  and  denial,  an  aristocracy.  Even 
the  power  of  life  and  death,  in  addition  to  that  of  un- 
limited taxation,  was  held  bv  this  old  government  oli- 
garchy, it  being  well  settled  that  while  the  federal  gov- 
ernment possesses  no  powers  but  those  expressly  grant- 


guished  John  R.  Cook,  quoted  in'the  last  convention, 
"  was  over  every  thing,  coming  home  to  the  bosom  and 
business  of  men."  It  was  an  omnipotent,  almost,  as  the 
British  Parliament,  without  even  the  check  of  kingly 
negative,  and  which,  we  all  know,  is  all  powerful,  for 
it  has  even  changed  the  descent  of  the  crown,  more  than 
once  ;  and  under  the  king,  engaged  in  war  after  war, 
and  has  entailed  a  national  debt  upon  the  people  amount- 
ing now,  although  diminished  to  some  eight  hundred 
millions  of  pounds  sterling,  and  which  it  is,  I  verily 
believe,  that  holds  that  great  consolidated  empire 
together. 

Against  this  old  constitution,  and  the  state  of  things 
existing  under  it,  even  before  the  revolution  had  fairly 
closed,  and  the  sunshine  of  peace,  after  a  seven  years' 
eclipse  of  darkness  and  blood,  had  fully  opened  upon 
the  land,  which  so  many  had  spilt  their  blood  to  re- 
deem from  a  foreign  thraldom,  the  voice  of  complaint, 
opposition  and  remonstrance  went  up,  from  various  parts 
of  the  commonwealth.    As  early  as  1731,  we  find  the 
great  "apostle  of  liberty,"  the  author  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  American  Independence,  and  our  own,  and  our 
act  of  religious  freedom — he  who  laid  the  axe  to  the 
root  of  the  odious  rule  of  primogeniture  and  entails,  to 
which  some  of  our  distinguished  statesmen  long  clung  ; 
the  philosopher,  sage  and  statesman,  whose  love  of  lib- 
erty and  equality  was  as  ardent  as  it  was  sincere,  and 
confined  to  no  country  or  clime,  but  extended  every- 
where where  man  had  a  home,  and  which  abated  not, 
even  with  the  ebbing  pulse  of  life — as  evidenced  by  his 
letter  of  1816,  to  Mr.  Kerchival — the  influence  of  which 
has  been  spoken  of  in  a  tone  of  complaint  within  these 
walls,  as  still  operating,  and  which  I  trust  in  God,  will 
continue  to  be  felt  until  Virginia  is  reformed,  and  never 
cease  till  the  world  is  redeemed  from  vassalage  wherev- 
er enslaved.    Te3,  at  this  early  period  we  find  Thos.  Jef- 
ferson declaring  this  constitution  "  to  be  but  our  first  essay 
at  free  government,"  and  urging  upon  his  countrvmeu 
the  duty  "  of  reducing  those  principles  to  practice  so 
soon  as  leisure  should  be  afforded  them  for  entrenching, 
with  good -forms,  the  rights  for  which  they  had  bled." 
And  the  people,  and  especially  of  the  west,  have  never 
ceased,  from  that  day  forward,  to  appeal  to  their  breth- 
ren in  power  for  reform.   Then  "this  eternal  clamor," 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  and  oth- 
ers, have  denounced,  commenced,  and  it  has  never  ceas- 
ed, and  I  can  tell  gentlemen,  never  will,  until  justice  is 
done. 

As  far  back  as  1790,  we  find  petitions  from 
counties  pouring  in  upon  the  legislature,  from 
year,  almost.  In  1806,  a  resolution  passed  the  house  of 
delegates  to  submit  the  call  of  a  convention  to  the  vote 
of  the  freeholders,  but  failed  in  the  senate.  Again,  in 
1814,  another  bill  for  the  same  purpose,  only  failed  by 
a  small  majority,  the  minority,  we  are  assured,  represent- 
ing a  majority  of  the  people,  and  among  other  matters 
of  reform  then  demanded,  was  an  extension  of  the  right 
of  suffrage,  and  an  equalization  of  representation. 

Again,  in  1S15,  another  bill  was  gotten  up  for  the 
same  end,  and  rejected  as  before,  by  a  vote  repre- 
senting a  minority  of  the  people. 

These  repeated  rejections  of  bills  by  the  legislature, 
by  majorities  representing  minorities  of  the  people,  as 
was  stated  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Augusta, 
(Mr.  Sheffev,)  led  to  numerous  public  meetings,  and 
to  one  of  an  exciting  character  held  in  Winchester, 
which  was  soon  followed  by  a  convention  of  the  people 
of  the  west  generally,  and  from  other  portions  of  the 
State,  called  in  1816,  at  Staunton,  very  numerously  at- 
tended, which  passed  many  resolves,  and  sent  up  a  warm 


various 
year  to 


352 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


and  able  memorial  to  the  legislature,  calling  for  a  State 
convention,  and  among  O'her  things  again,  for  the  ex- 
tension of  the  right  of  suffrage  and  an  equalization  of 
representation,  among  the  free  white  population  of  the 
commonwealth,  and  that  failed  in  the  same  way.  But, 
it  led  to  the  re- organization  of  the  senatorial  districts  of 
the  State,  under  which  the  west,  which  had  but  four 
senators  to  twenty  east,  got  nine  members  in  that  body, 
and  representation  upon  the  white  basis  in  that  body, 
which  appeased  the  spirit  of  reform  for  a  time.  After 
all  this,  however,  a  second  convention  convened  at 
Staunton,  in  1825,  setting  forth  still  the  same  objects, 
and  this  resulted  in  the  second  or  third  year  alter,  in  the 
call  of  the  State  convention  of  1829. 

From  this  brief  sketch,  which  I  have  gathered  from 
the  debates  in  the  former  convention  and  other  sources, 
and  given  as  accurately  as  I  could  from  memory,  and 
since  hearing  the  speech  of  the  honorable  gentleman 
who  addressed  us  yesterday,  arranged  in  my  mind  as 
well  as  I  could,  of  the  continued  appeals  and  move- 
ments of  the  west  and  other  portions  of  the  State  for 
redress,  and  especially  for  the  extension  of  the  right  of 
suffrage  and  equal  representation,  almost  from  the  pe- 
riod of  the  revolution  down  to  the  call  of  the  conven- 
tion of  1828,  we  see  how  constant  and  ardent  was  the 
desire  for  these  great  reforms.  Yes,  how  loud  and  long  has 
been  this  "  clamor" — as  eastern  gentlemen  are  pleased  to 
characterize  the  just  complaint  of  the  people  against  a 
minority  rule.  During  all  this  time,  more  than  half 
century,  the  government  was  in  the  hands  of  a  class  of 
freeholders,  composing  but  a  small  portion  of  the  free- 
men of  the  State,  holding  on  to  power,  the  offices  and  all, 
and  refusing  redress,  and  even  a  convention  all  this 
time — more  than  half  a  century — and  at  last  granted  it 
upon  equal  terms. 

"Well,  the  convention  of  1829,  for  I  have  come  to  this 
point  of  the  history  of  power  holding  on  to  power, 
which  it  had  taken  almost  from  "76  to  1829,  of  such  con- 
tinuous appt  als  to  obtain  from  this  small  minority  in 
power  upon  unequal  terms,  met  in  this  house,  I  was  about 
to  say — I  mean  in  the  capitol,  and  found  itself  nearly 
equally  divided  on  both  these  great  questions,  suffrage 
and  representation  by  this  geographical  line,  the  blue 
ridge  mountains ;  all  suffrage  men,  for  the  most  part, 
and  white  basis  men  I  believe,  without  exception,  west, 
and  nearly  all  anti-suffrage  and  mixed  basis  men,  of 
some  description,  with  a  few  exceptions  east,  and  this 
basis  que  tion  divides  us  now,  with  some  few  exceptions 
east,  in  our  favor,  and  by  the  same  line.  But  I  am  hap- 
py to  be  assured,  that  we  nearly  all,  are  now  at  last, 
in  favor  of  of  giving  the  election  of  all  officers  from 
governor  down,  direct  to  the  people,  and  of  extending 
the  right  of  suffrage  and  of  limiting  and  restricting  the 
hitherto  almost  unlimited  powers  of  the  minority  gov- 
ernment— thus  proving  that  truth,  right  and  justice 
have  so  far  triumphed  and  are  prevailing,  and  wili  final- 
ly completely  triumph,  that  the  grasp  of  power  is  re- 
laxing. Well,  the  convention  of  1829,  after  a  hard 
struggle,  characterized  by  the  most  brilliant  displays  of 
arguments  and  eloquence  ever  witnessed,  perhaps,  in 
any  assembly,  in  any  age  or  country,  was  finally  obliged 
to  compromise  upon  this  basis  question  to  reach  results. 
And  what  did  they  do?  Although  the  right  of  suffrage 
was  considerably  extended  and  a  few  other  reforms 
made,  yet,instead  of  deciding  this  basis  question,  they  set- 
teld  and  fixed  no  rule  at  all  They  divided  the  State  in 
reference  to  the  house  of  delegates,  into  four  great  dis 
tticts,  and  gave  to  each  so  many  members,  thirty -six  to 
tida-water,  forty-two  to  Piedmont,  twenty-five  to  the 
valley,  and  thirty -one  to  the  trans-Alleghany ;  and  then 
laid  off  the  S^ate  in  reference  to  the  senate,  into  two 
grand  districts,  east  and  west  of  the  blue  ridge,  retain 
ing  nineteen  members  in  that  body  east,  and  givng  thir 
teen  west. 

Under  this  arrangement  was  secured  to  the  east  a 
majority  of  twenty-two  members  in  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, and  of  six  in  the  senate,  and  twenty-eight  on  joint 


ballot,  while  there  were  but  some  forty-three  thousand 
a  few  hundreds  of  a  majority  of  white  population  east 
of  the  blue  ridge— and  this  of  course,  oontinued  and  se- 
cured the  governmentand  all  its  power,  patronage  and 
offices  in  their  hands,  if  not  as  strongly,  as  surely  as  be- 
fore. For  it  was  further  provided,  in  regard  to  future 
apportionments,  that  the  number  of  members  should 
never  exceed  one  hundred  and  fifty  in  the  house  of  dele- 
gates and  thirty-six  in  the  senate  ;  so  that  in  any  event 
the  east  was  always  to  have  at  the  ultimate  limit  of 
apportionment,  a  majority  in  both  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature; and  of  at  least  twelve  on  joint  ballot,  however 
great  and  overwhelming  the  excess  of  population  and 
wealth  too,  might  become  in  time  to  the  west,  unless 
two-thirds  of  each  house  should,  after  the  year  1841, 
concur  in  a  general  re-apportionment  throughout  the 
commonwealth;  a  thing  never  to  be  expected  at  the 
hands  of  the  east.  This  arrangement,  although  equali- 
zing to  some  extent,  representation  among  the  several 
counties  within  each  of  the  lour  great  districts,  and 
two  grand  divisions,  is  but  tantalizing.  It  is  an  equali- 
zation of  no  avail  in  giving  equal  political  power  to  the 
west,  in  not  extending  over  the  whole  State.  Its  effect 
is  limited  by  these  districts  and  divisions,  and  the  limi- 
tation of  the  ultimate  number  of  members  assigned  to 
the  two  branches  of  the  legislature.  It  is  worse  in  fact, 
than  the  simple  mixed  basis  would  be,  in  the  end,  and 
even  worse  than  under  the  old  constitution,  in  the  par- 
ticular of  taking  away  the  white  basis  in  the  senate, 
under  which  already  we  would  have  gained  a  majori- 
ty in  that  branch  ;  and  infinitely  worse  in  the  end,  in 
securing  the  majority  of  the  power  to  a  sectional 
minority  east  of  the  blue  ridge,  which  no  increase  of 
population  and  wealth  in  the  west,  however  great,  can 
ever  overcome  without  a  change  in  the  organic  law. 

And  as  there  is  no  hope  of  two-thirds  of  the  legisla- 
ture agreeingto  a  general  re-apportionment  under  our 
existing  constitution,  resting  upon  this  arbitary  basis, 
with  these  districts  and  divisions  and  ultimate  limit  of 
the  number  of  members  in  both  branches  of  the  legisla- 
ture, the  west  must  therefore  forever  remain  in  a  mi- 
nority in  the  government  without  a  change — she  must 
remain  forever  powerless  under  all  circumstances,  and 
in  all  probable  events  in  a  state  of  political  inferiority, 
not  to  say  vassalage,  for  the  great  purposes  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  hopelessly  so,  for  all  time.  And  yet  we 
have  now  a  majority  of  ninety-three  thousand  of  the 
white  population.  I  use  strong  language,  but  I  think 
not  too  strong;  for  our  present  constitution  and  govern- 
ment, like  its  predecessor,  the  old  one,  is  so  framed  and 
contrived  in  all  its  departments  of  power,  under  this 
unequal  mixed  basis  in  disguise,  (for  the  effect  is  equiva- 
lent,) that  this  sectional  minority  east,  which  has  thus 
secured  to  it  this  permanent  sectional  majority  in  both 
branches  of  the  legislature — besides  having  the  appoint- 
meut  of  our  United  States  senators  under  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Union— holds  in  the  hands  of  its  majority 
legislature,  the  election  of  governor,  the  executive 
council,  militia  generals  and  our  judges;  and  even 
through  the  commissioning  power  of  its  executive, 
that  of  justices  of  the  peace,  or  county  magistrates, 
constituting  our  county  courts  which  decide,  manage 
and  control  everything  belonging  and  appertaining  to 
county  police  and  levies,  and  so  even  our  purse  strings. 

Our  members  of  assembly  we  select,  and  our  inferior 
militia  officers  under  a  brigadier  general,  the  companies 
and  battalions  may,  I  believe  elect,  but  besides  these, 
of  all  elections  and  officers,  that  of  our  overseers  of  the 
poor  is  the  poor  privilege  allowed  us.  Thus,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  free  white  people  of  the  State— a  majori- 
ty rapidly  increasing— hold  life,  liberty  and  property, 
all  subject  to  the  will  of  this  sectional  minority  east  of 
the  blue  ridge,  ^and  I  repeat,  the  powers  of  this  gov- 
ernment are  scarcely  Fruited  by  any  restrictions)  as 
limited  only  in  power,  for  good  or  evil,  weal  or  woe,  by 
the  organic  law  <  f  this  constitution.  Limitations,  we 
are  told,  if  we  held  the  power,  would  be  mere  "  paper 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


353 


guaranties,"  not  worth  the  paper  they  are  written  upon, 
fas  a  security  to  the  property  of  the  east.  And  all  this 
while  we  are  tauntingly  warned,  by  both  the  gentlemen 
who  proceded  me  on  the  other  side,  and  others,  to  re- 
member '•  that  we  are  living  and  deliberating  under  an 
existing  constitution  and  laws."  Yet  what  is  that  but 
a  paper  constitution  ?  This  is  the  pretence  under  which 
the  minority  in  the  east  have  hitherto  ruled,  and  still  in- 
sist on  retaining  the  power. 

Power  and  property,  we  are  gravely  told,  cannot  be 
safely  divorced  in  the  east,  but  may  exist  very  happily, 
separate  and  apart  in  the  west,  in  single  blessedness, 
and  under  "  paper  guarantees,"  too,  in  the  hands  of  our 
political  guardians  m  the  east.  Is  this  because  proper- 
ty "is  not  the  creature  of  government,"  in  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Halifax,  "but  the  gift  ofhea-j 
ven"  in  the  east  and  not  in  the  west?  Am  I  to  infer, 
as  that  gentleman  seemed  sagely  to  iusinuate,  that 
power  and  property,  on  this  side  of  the  mountain,  were 
wedded  in  heaven  ?  Did  they  derive  their  slave  proper- 
ty by  the  erift  of  God  ?  Did  deity  give  man  to  man,  or 
property  in  man  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  great  peculiar 
interest  that  claims  all  power  and  all  protection.  What 
unjust  dread  this — that  the  west  would  overtax  or  im- 
pair the  right  to  this  peculiar  property,  held  by  some 
forty  or  fifty  thousand  people  only  out  of  the  nine  hun 
dred  thousand  in  the  State,  and  of  that  number  some 
ten  thousand  of  these  slaveholders,  living  in  the  valley 
and  the  west.  Are  these  few  slaveholders  to  rule  the 
State  forever,  and  the  vast  majority  of  the  whole  peo- 
ple ?  Is  this  the  issue  ?  Surely  it  is  the  difficulty. 
Life  and  liberty  are  the  gift  of  God,  and  property  is 
not ;  that  is  the  creature  of  labor,  and  entitled  to  pro- 
tection, and  we  are  willing  to  give  it  that.  I  speak  of 
the  power  possessed  by  the  existing  minority  govern- 
ment, not  as  to  the  mode  and  manner  in  which  it  has 
been  exercised.  1  enter  not  now  into  that  inquiry.  I 
meant  mainly  to  discuss  the  great  principle  of  the  right 
of  the  majority  to  govern,  upon  which  rests  the  right  of 
self  government.  But,  when  it  had  been  so  boldly 
thrown  up  to  us,  that  a  large  majority  had  adopted  our 
present  constitution,  and  that  a  majority  had  called  this 
con/ention  and  had  'voluntarily  come  forward  and  ten- 
dered it,'  I  felt  called  upon,  contrary  to  my  intended 
course,  tore»iew  the  past,  and  show  what  was  the  origin 
of  this  minority  rule  in  Virginia,  and  how  power  had  held 
on  to  power,  and  struggled  to  retain  it.  And  I  affirm 
that  I  have  exhibited  fairly  the  miserable,  unequal  state 
of  things,  and  political  vassalage  of  the  majority  of  the 
people,  and  especially  in  the  west,  under  the  old  free- 
hold constitution;  and  the  present  still  more  miserable 
and  unequal  state  of  things,  and  political  vassalage,  un- 
der our  existing  constitution  and  sectional  minority  rule. 
With  respect  to  the  adoption  of  our  present  constitution 
as  no  constitution,  based  upon  white  population  was 
presented  or  allowed  to  be  presented  to  the  voters  at 
the  same  time,  it  is  unjust  to  say  a  majority  have  will- 
ingly sanctioned  it.  The  only  issue  was  a  choice  be- 
tween the  old  and  the  new ;  and  if  true,  as  gentlemen 
insist  and  I  admit,  there  can  be  no  convention  called 
under  the  present  government,  without  the  consent  of 
those  who  h  >ld  the  power — no  alternative  is  left,  and 
do  remedy  for  the  evil,  but  a  resort  to  those  great,  eter- 
nal, inherent  rights  in  the  majority  of  the  people  out 
side  of,  and  independent  of,  this  constitution.  And  the 
hardship  is,  that  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  the 
present  constitutional  arrangement  is  still  increasing,  is 
growing  worse,  and  becoming  still  more  aggravated  the 
longer  we  live  under  it,  as  shown  by  the  results  of  the 
census  and  assessment  recently  laid  before  us ;  and  the 
dissatisfaction  of  the  west  has  increased,  and  is  increas- 
ing, and  must  continue  to  increase  in  the  same  ratio, 
without  a  civ  nge,  if  continued  to  be  indured  forever. 
Yes.  this  '  eternal  clamor'  for  right,  not  for  plunder  for 
the  sake  of  the  profit,  to  get  hold  of  the  treasury,  is  in- 
creasing. I  remember  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  explained  away  the  supposed  use  of  these 


terms,  and  certainly  to  my  satisfaction.  But  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Halifax  certainly  insisted  that, 
on  the  part  of  the  west,  this  was  but  "a  naked  ques- 
tion of  power,  for  the  lust  of  power  and  for  the  abuse 
of  it."  I  scout  the  imputation,  and  I  tell  gentlemen 
that  we  will  not  give  up  in  despair.  We  have  resour- 
ces from  which  to  draw  both  courage  and  consolation  ; 
we  know,  as  the  giant  feels  his  strength  come,  as  he 
grows  impatient  under  restraint,  that  this  great  and 
growing  west  must  now,  or  very  soon,  and  I  thank  God, 
peaceably  too,  draw  power  to  itself  upon  any  basis. 
Those  'Briarean  arms,'  aliuded  toby  my  friend  from  Au- 
gusta, which  the  east  has  aided  in  extending,  at  an  enor- 
mous cost,  for  the  benefit  of  this  old  city  and  the  east 
generally,  will  aid  us  in  rising  into  power. 

We  think  this  change  should  come  now.  Appealing 
to  our  own  bosoms  ;  to  our  consciences ;  to  our  sense  of 
right  and  wrong;  to  our  notions  of  natural  right  and  the 
great  principles  of  justice  planted  in  our  breasts  by  the 
hand  that  made  us ;  to  the  teachings  of  those  immortal 
British  patriots  who  wrote  and  bled  in  defence  of  the 
same  upon  British  soil,  which  served  to  inspire  our  fore- 
fathers, who  fought  and  bled  for  the-same  rights  in  the 
revolution  ;  to  our  bill  of  rights  ;  to  the  declarations  of 
rights  in  the  thirty  constitutions  of  the  thirty  free  and 
sovereign  States  of  this  trlorious ;  Union  and  to  their  con- 
stitutions based  upon  them,  and  to  their  practical  experi- 
ence under  them.  By  all  these  considerations  and  prin- 
ciples, we  feel  constrained  to  insist  upon  this  change  now. 
I  know  we  have  been  told,  with  an  air  of  pleasure,  that 
the  east  called  the  last  convention,  and  have,  called  this. 
They  prescribed  their  own  terms  and  conditions,  as  the 
honorable  gentleman  who  addressed  us  yesterday  ad- 
mitted. Upon  the  unequal  terms  of  unequal  represen- 
tation was  the  last  convened,  and  they  called  this  upon 
the  same,  which  gives  them  a  majority  in  this  body,  al- 
though the  west  has  now  a  majority  of  some  ninety- 
three  thousand  white  population,  thus  securing  to  them 
the  minority  and  a  sectional  minority,  and  therefore 
the  less  tolerable,  still  the  power  to  retain  the  power — 
the  numbers  to  vote  us  down  here,  in  this  reform  con- 
vention, and  still  to  defeat  equal  representation,  the  ex- 
tension of  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  all  reforms  they 
choose  to  deny,  and  so  to  perpetuate  their  minority  gov- 
ernment over  the  majority  ;  and  this  is  the  character  of 
the  report  B,  and  of  the  proposed  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  offered  as  a  substitute.  In 
this  body  numbers  count — here  numbers  give  power. 
Here  numbers  rule — here  the  majority  principle  is 
correct  and  right,  and  is  recognized  as  the  only  correct 
principle,  flowing  from  the  jus  majoris.  that  the  majority 
have  the  right  to  rule,  because  it  enables  the  majority 
here  representing  a  minority  of  the  people  possessed  of 
the  government  to  hold  on  to  power,  while  denying  this 
power  to  numbers  to  be  the  true  principle  to  give  power 
at  the  polls  to  the  majority,  when  the  play  would  come 
to  us.  The'majority  of  the  people  of  the  State,  of  the 
free  white  population,  are  powerless  here — the  minority 
all  powerful  here — because  this  rule,  this  fundamental 
principle,  lying  at  the  root  of  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment, is  denied  in  the  basis  of  representation,  upon 
which  this  government  rests  and  has  its  power.  And 
yet  this  rule  works,  and  is  the  only  one  that  will  work, 
or  does  work  in  every  other  case,  save  and  excepting  this 
single  one,  of  taking  away  power  from  this  sectional  mi- 
nority in  the  east,  and  giving  it  to  the  majority,  not  in 
the  west,  but  over  the  whole  State. 

This  is  still  disregarding  and  rejecting  the  appeal,  the 
long-continued  appeal,  of  the  majority  of  the  freemen  of 
the  Commonwealth  for  equal  rights — one  that  will  con- 
t  inue  to  increase  in  earnestness,  strength  and  power  as  the 
majority  in  the  west  increases,  and  that  will  grow  louder 
and  louder  the  longer  it  is  disregarded  and  justice  de- 
nied. #For  it  is  swelling  beyond  the  mountains,  and 
echoing  in  the  valley,  coming  up  from  old  Accomac,  and 
heard  reverberating  at  the  base  of  the  blue  ridge,  upon 


354 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


old  Loudoun;  and,  as  it  speaks  the  mighty  trumpet 
voice  of  truth,  it  must  at  last  prevail. 

My  constituents,  occupying  the  position  they  do,  as  I 
have  described,  lacking  nothing,  wantir.g  nothing,  and 
desiring  nothing,  but  a  free  and  equal  form  of  govern- 
ment, based  upon  the  people  and  equal  rigats,  and  not 
people  and  fluctuating,  perishable,  soulless  wealth, 
which  are  like  the  stream  that  is  always  running  in  and 
out  with  various  volumes  to  secure  us  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  our  personal  rights,  our  lives  and  liberties,  as 
well  as  property,  which  though  less,  as  our  all,  is  as  dear 
to  us  as  yours  to  you,  have  looked  abroad  over  this 
whole  Commonwealth,  surveyed  and  contrasted  all  its 
great  interests,  narrowly  inspected  and  deliberately  con- 
sidered our  present  constitution  and  form  of  govern- 
ment from  its  base  up,  and  have  condemned  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  it  rests,  as  well  as  many  of  its  parts, 
and  have  instructed  me  so  to  declare  and  to  obtain  if 
practicable  the  desired  reforms,  and  they  have  in  effect 
charged  me  to  proclaim,  that  in  coming  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  white  basis  is  the  only  true  republican 
basis,  they  brought  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject, 
minds  free  from  all  bias,  arising  from  sectional  interest, 
or  influence,  or  feeling,  regarding  their  brethren  east 
and  west  alike,  allowing  neither  the  Blue  Ridge  on  the 
one  side,  nor  the  Alleghanies  on  the  other,  to  interpose 
any  barrier  to  the  free  and  equal  flow  of  their  affec 
tions,  but  feeling  towards  all  and  regarding  all  as  breth- 
ren, "bone  of  their  bone,  and  flesh  of  their  flesh,"  part 
and  parcel,  all  of  one  and  the  same  great  family  and 
body  politic.  The  sun  rising  in  the  east  and  setting,  al- 
ways leaving  them  as  it  found  them,  alienated  from 
none,  but  bound  up  in  the  same  bond  of  life  with  all, 
sealed  with  the  common  ties  of  common  kindred  and 
common  blood,  and  so  they  feel  towards  each  and  every 
portion  of  this  great  Commonwealth  alike.  They  have 
charged  me,  in  effect,  to  declare  these  sentiments  ;  and 
in  their  name,  and  this  spirit  of  kindness,  remonstrance 
and  complaint,  but  not  with  reproach  or  threat  in  my 
breast,  or  upon  my  lips,  to  ask  this  Convention  how 
much  longer  are  our  equal  rights  to  be  denied  us?  How 
long  yet  are  we  to  wait  ?  How  much  longer  is  the  time, 
or  is  there  no  time  to  come  ?  Then,  it  is  never,  no  never, 
never,  which  involves  minority  power  forever.  Is  pa- 
tience then  to  grow  weary  and  faint,  while  hope,  already 
so  "  long  deferred,"  should  be  gathering,  daily  and  hour- 
ly, strength  from  increasing  numbers,  and,  instead  of  be- 
coming sick  of  delay,  be  swelling  stronger  and  stronger, 
chasing  those  fleeing  shadows — for  like  fleeing  shadows 
are  those  objections  which  I  hear,  that  gentlemen  would 
interpose  in  the  pathway  of  superior  power  to  its  rights, 
its  just  rights,  that  power  that  petitions,  and  has  so  long 
petitioned  and  remonstrated  in  vain,  although  able,  or 
will  be,  ere  long,  physically  able,  to  command  their  rights ; 
but  which,  I  pray  God,  may  never  be  attempted. 

Tell  us  not  that  those  thirty  orbs  of  living  light,  of 
which  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  so  beautifully  spoke, 
whose  vestal  fires  are  fanned  by  the  breath  of  Him  who 
spake  all  things  into  being,  and  hulds  them  in  his  palm, 
may  burn  in  vain  for  us,  that  we  shall  remain  in  political 
darkness,  even  in  their  midst.  That  the  gloom  of  de- 
spair must  gather  and  thicken  upon  our  alters  as  we  grow 
stronger  aud  stronger  in  power  ;  and  our  love  of  liberty, 
with  this  mighty  constellation  blazing  around  us ;  ah  ! 
our  vestal  fires  even  grow  dim,  or  go  out  in  the  sun-light 
and  glory  of  these  eternal  temples  of  liberty,  irradiating 
land,  ocean,  continent,  universe. 

Tell  us  not,  tell  us  not  that  this  cloud  of  our  discontent 
is  to  grow  darker  and  darker,  the  longer  we  live  togeth- 
er, till  it  becomes  even  as  the  frowning  heavens  when  the 
warring  elements  are  raging ;  while  a  voice,  breathing 
ethereal  light  from  an  eternal  source,  the  God  who  made 
us  is  coming  up  from  near  one  hundred  thousand  majority 
proclaiming  success,  success,  already  within  their  ^rasp, 
if  they  would  but  stretch  forth  their  hands  in  the  spirit 
that  sets  a  people  free  that  will  it,  as  their  fathers  did. 
who,  goaded  by  wrongs 'too  long  endured,  when  that 


voice  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  spoke' 
thundered  before  the  storm,  drew  the  sleeping  sword'i 
and  threw  away  the  scabbard,  and  periled  all  for  lib- 
erty. 

Tell  us  not,  tell  us  not  that  this  storm  of  our  discontent 
must  and  shall  yet  continue  to  howl,  and  like  the  low- 
ering tempest  at  last  begin  to  beat,  when  that  cloud 
should  have  passed  away,  when  the  skies  should  be  bright 
and  brightening,  leaving  a  smiling  heaven  above  ;  and 
those  thirty  glowing  altars  burning  below  without  a 
shadow  to  obscure,  or  a  breath  to  disturb  the  calmness 
of  their  glory  while  blazing  in  all  the  fulness  of  perfect 
and  equal  liberty. 

Tell  us  not,  I  thrice  repeat,  that  after  so  long  a  delay, 
and  trying  of  the  reins,  and  stretching  of  the  heart- 
strings of  a  devoted  people  clinging  to  the  pillars  of  lib- 
erty which  the  God  of  nature  planted  in  our  midst  and 
bound  us  to.  them  by  the  enduring  cordage  of  a  lave  that 
knows  no  ebb,  and  will  know  no  abatement,  shall  break 
asunder  when  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice  should  be 
and  must  be  on  the  eve  of  a  peaceful  triumph  in  the  bo- 
soms of  our  brethren.  No,  no ;  rather  tell  us,  that  the 
kindred  blood  which  flows  in  kindred  veins,  is  finding  its 
way  back  into  our  aged  mother's  breast,  and  will  be 
warm  enough  in  that  bosom  to  cherish  all  her  children 
alike,  now  and  forever,  within  her  encircling  arms  in 
love,  and  unity  and  peace.  Why  may  I  not  hold  this 
similie  true,  when  the  east  is  at  last  yielding  everything 
but  this  basis  principle  ;  and  the  west  tending  every 
guarantee  in  lieu  of  it  to  give  satisfaction,  safety  and 
repose.  My  trust  is  in  that  hope  which  survives  de- 
spair, and  rises  above  every  discouragement ;  that  looks 
beyond  the  present  to  the  approaching  future,  and  while 
I  see  "  the  bread  of  life  afloat  upon  the  troubled  waters  "' 
with  full  confidence,  I  will  venture  across  that  narrow 
dissolving  isthmus  to  meet  around  the  altars  of  a  com- 
mon country,  and  claim  for  those  I  represent,  an  equal 
right  to  worship  in  the  temple  of  liberty;  that  lib- 
erty which  is  only  secured  to  all  by  equality,  and  can 
only  be  equally  enjoyed  by  being  equally  secured  to  all. 
With  these  sentiments  in  my  breast,  though  mountains 
interpose  and  flowing  rivers  intervene,  I  will  claim  for 
the  valley,  equally  with  the  east  and  trans-alleghany, 
old  Virginia,  not  as  a  sectional  but  as  a  common,  united 
inheritance,  not  only  now,  but  forever  ;  not  as  now  di- 
vided into  districts  and  divisions,  but  as  "  one  and  in- 
divisible," in  all  time,  but  I  must  claim  this  upon  the 
broad  platform  of  equal  rights,  and  equal  justice.  Par- 
don my  animation ;  it  was  that  word  "  never,"  which 
was  like  the  sad  farewell,  that  started  these  thoughts.  I 
will  stand  firm  between  the  hills  and  the  mountains  with 
my  constituents,  and  standing  by  the  integrity  of  old 
Virginia,  I  will  reach  one  arm,  at  least,  to  stay  that  ar- 
my which  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  warned  us  might 
come  up  from  the  sea-shore,  pass  the  Blue  Ridge,  and 
penetrating  the  Valley  reach  the  high  Alleghany,  '  and 
make  our  very  habitations  quake.'  I  will  leave  to  other 
hands  to  sever  the  ties  that  bind  me  to  my  native,  my 
mother  land ;  and  to  others  still  to  tear  asunder  the  cord 
and  all  the  fibres  that  bind  me  to  my  brethren,  and  all 
to  the  bosom  of  that  common  mother  ;  that  mother  who, 
living  is  our  idol,  but  whom  we  could  never  look  upon  in 
dissolution ;  but  from  whom  we  would  all  turn  disconso- 
late, and  leave  the  tears  of  pity  and  remorse  to  tell  the 
tale  of  misery  and  of  woe — of  a  wailing  desolation.  Shud- 
der who  may,  recoil  who  shall,  this  is  but  the  faintest 
picture  of  a  Country  undone. 

When  I  look  at  the  results  of  the  census  and  assess- 
ment, now  before  us,  I  am  brought  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  time  has  arrived  to  settle  this  ques- 
tion forever. 

As  the  sand-bar,  separating  a  common  stream,  washed 
by  the  floods,  and  blown  by  the  winds,  must,  in  time, 
cease  to  divide  it,  so  I  look  upon  the  ground  of  contro- 
versy between  east  and  west  Virginia  as  narrowing 
down  to  nothing,  as  fast  dissolving,  and  soon  to  disap- 
pear.   The  smiles  of  Providence,  and  the  flow  of  time, 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


355 


natural  causes  and  human  means,  are  co-operating,  and 
must  ere  long,  accomplish  all  that  remains  to  be  done. 
Then,  united  in  love,  affection,  and  interest,  our  moun- 
tains shall  become  as  plains,  and  our  rivers  flow  on  for- 
ever in  the  diffusion  of  common  blessings.  Then  we 
mav remain  a  united,  a  free  and  happy  people. 

To  drop  the  figure  and  come  to  the  simple  facts.  We 
all  must  see  that  the  west,  which  has  now  some  ninety- 
three  thousand  majority  of  free  white  population,  will, 
even  upon  the  mixed  basis,  have  the  power  before  the 
lapse  of  many  years.  This  st  ems  to  me  inevitable.  It 
must  surely  happen  in  some  fifteen  or  twenty  years  at 
most.  Why  then  keep  the  issue  open?  Why  not  close 
it  now  at  once  and  forever?  Is  it  wise,  is  it  prudent,  if 
it  were  just,  to  postpone?  What  will  be  gained  ?  Time, 
the  great? reformer  and  arbitrator,  has  already  settled 
and  decided,  in  advance,  nearly  or  quite  every  other 
question  of  controversy,  division  and  discontent,  and  is 
fast  closing  this.  Why  not  then,  now  end  it,  and  heal 
this  only  source  of  heart-burning  in  the  bosom  of  the 
body  politic  ?  Why  not  ?  Does  any  one  think  when  the 
time  arrives  when  it  must  be  amicably  adjusted,  or  set- 
tle itself,  somehow,  there  will  be  more  hope  of  arrang- 
ing as  satisfactorily  to  all  parties  and  sections  as  at  pre- 
sent, those  matters  deemed  so  essential  for  the  peace  of 
all,  and  especially  for  my  end  of  the  valley,  and  the  east 
generally. 

The  west  will  now  agree  to  give  every  guarantee  and 
security  you  can  reasonably  ask  against  taxation  and  all 
danger  "to  that  peculiar  species  of  property  not  so  gener- 
ally held,  in  common,  by  them  ;  and  when  they  tender 
this,  why  should  they  not  be  allowed  to  come  at  once 
into  the  immediate  enjoyment  of  equal  rights — their 
common  inheritance  ?  What  do  gentlemen  tell  us  ?  They 
use  language  which,  m  terms  or  by  necessary  implica- 
tion, carries  disparagement,  degradation  and  despair. 
They  insist  if  the  east  is  not  to  hold  the  power  in  their 
own  hands  over  the  majority,  and  forever,  all  guarantees 
will  be  worthless — mere  paper  guarantees.  That  no  sort 
of  guarantees  without  power  in  their  own  hands  will  an- 
swer or  last.  They  will  not  be  respected,  will  be  bro- 
ken. In  other  words,  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood, 
that  the  west,  including  the  valley,  cannot  be  trusted, 
and  yet  they  admit  the  valley  should  be  with  the  east ; 
that  her  interests  are  identical,  and  uniting  in  action 
would  give  the  east  the  majority  in  numbers,  and  the 
power  of  self-protection  forever.  When  we  ask  this, 
we  are  met,  and  told  we  cannot  trust  you.  The  west  is 
seeking  power  for  the  profits  of  plunder  and  we  are 
afraid  of  the  call  of  another  convention ;  and  yet  the  east 
has  been  holding  us  out  of  our  equal  rights,  so  long 
forcing  its  minority  government  upon  us,  all  which  time 
we  have  trusted  them  with  our  personal  rights,  our  lives 
and  liberties,  as  well  as  property.  And  gentlemen, 
themselves,  as  it  suits  the  purposes  in  hand,  significantly 
ask  :  Have  we  abused  power  ?  have  we  oppressed  the 
west  ?  what  grounds  have  you  for  complaint  ?  what 
grievances  are  you  suffering?  why  then  yonr  ''clamor?" 
Yes,  the  west  now  agrees  to  give  every  guarantee  and 
protection,  and  leave  the  east  to  prepare  them ;  and 
will  even  agree  that  another  convention  shall  not  be  call- 
ed for  an  indefinite  period  ;  and  that  all  may  be  insert- 
ed in  the  constitution  as  part  and  parcel,  and  yet  tbe 
east  refuses  them,  rejects  them,  scouts  them,  denounces 
them  as  worthless  paper  guarantees.  And,  pray,  if  these 
provisions  made  part  and  parcel  of  the  constitution 
are  worthless,  what  is  the  constitution  itself  worth? 
If  the  "whole  is  made  up  of  the  parts,  and  they  equal 
to  the  whole,  is  not  one  part  as  binding  and  valid  as  an- 
other, and  all  equally  so  ?  Is  not  this  a  truism  as  well  as 
a  syllogism  ? 

This  manner  of  treating  and  speaking  of  solemn  con- 
stitutional guarantees  and  express  limitation — this  deni- 
al ,  and  scouting  of  the  virtue  and  validity  of  constitu- 
tional protection  of  the  rights  of  the  governed,  of  mi- 
norities and  majorities  shock  me,  my  every  sense  and 
and  every  hope,  and  it  muat  cease  if  we  mean  to  live  to- 


gether at  all,  under  any  constitution.  Whence  comes 
this  denunciation  ?  What  people  are  we  ?  Is  it  old 
Virginia  I  hear  scouting  the  validity  of  constitutional 
protection  ?  The  mother  of  State  and  of  State  rights,  and 
from  eastern  Virginia  too.  It  was  from  that  source  I 
first  learned  their  value.  I  learned  it  in  their  school. 
It  has  been  my  boast  and  my  pride  to  stand  upon  the 
doctrines  of  the  resolutions  of  '98-99.  I  have  ever  gone 
with  the  democratic  statesmen  of  eastern  Virginia,  for 
the  sanctity  of  constitutions  and  for  strict  construction. 
With  whom  must  I  stand  now,  when  the  fathers  of  the 
faith  scout  this  creed,  and  deny  the  doctrines  of  their  own 
srchool  ?  I  had  thought  we  all  professed  to  feel  strong 
attachment  to  what  we  sometimes  proudly  call  our  free 
institutions,  and  to  boast  of  them  and  of  our  civil  and 
political  liberties,  rights  and  privileges.  But,  if  con- 
stitutions and  constitutional  guarantees,  are  as  waste 
paper  and  worthless,  what  a  delusion — what  idle  gas- 
conade. The  people  are,  indeed,  if  these  things  be  so 
confessedly,  everywhere,  unfit  and  incapable  of  self- 
government  ;  and  it  is  idle,  and  worse  than  idle,  to  talk 
about  it ;  for  no  people  on  earth  are  fit  and  capable,  if 
we  are  not — for  we  are  as  virtuous,  as  intelligent  and 
moral  as  any  people  under  the  sun.  What  use  is  there 
in  talking  in  this  way  ?  What  sense  ?  Do  we  really 
mean  to  stultify  ourselves  ?  What  sense,  do  I  ask,  when 
the  very  object  of  our  assembling  here,  is  to  make  or 
amend  a  constitution  ?  If  such  are  the  views  and  senti- 
ments really  entertained ;  if  we  are  really  skeptics  upon 
the  subject  of  politicel  rights  and  constitutional  guar- 
antees for  their  protection,  and  even  as  to  free  and  self- 
government,  we  had  as  well,  and  better  adjourn  sine  die, 
and  go  home  and  tell  our  constituents  they  have  no 
rights,  and  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  have  any  consti- 
tution ;  that  it  was  a  great  folly,  and  worse  to  send  us 
here.  What  would  they  think  and  say  of  us  whom  they 
had  sent  here  and  had  selected  for  our  wisdom,  talents 
and  experience,  and  what  of  themselves,  for  making  such 
a  selection?  For  they  would  not  believe  us,  that  consti- 
tutions were  vain  and  worthless  things,  and  civil  and 
political  liberty,  their  own  included,  a  name  and  nothing 
more.  And  what  would  the  people  of  all  the  thirty  free 
and  independent  States  of  this  Union  think  and  say, 
living  one  and  all  of  them  under  written  constitutions, 
full  of  guarantees  and  limitations  of  power,  and  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  civil  and  political  liberty  ;  all  their  ci- 
tizens enjoving  equal  rights  and  perfectly  safe,  happy 
and  free  with  ail  their  governments  (with  few  excep- 
tions) based  upon  equal  rights  and  numbers — what 
would  the  whole  world  think  and  say — kings  and  sub- 
jects all  ? 

But  I  forbear  to  press  this  course  of  argument,  The 
truth  is,  there  is  not  one  of  us  who  can  belive  himself, 
when  indulging  in  such  objections ;  not  one  who  must  not 
feel  and  know  that  this  scouting  of  the  validity  and 
sufficiency  of  constitutional  guar  antees,  arising  under  ex- 
press and  positive  provisions,  is  worse  than  idle — it  is 
dangerous,  discouraging.  I  affirm,  and  in  this,  take  is- 
sue with  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  and  others  on  his 
side,  that,  if  instead  of  relying  upon  the  almost  unlimi- 
ted power  in  our  present  constitution,  and  this  implied 
guarantee,  so  long  and  tenaciously  held  on  to,  of  a  union 
of  power  and  interest,  in  the  hands  of  the  east,  which 
has  provided  for  us  and  posterity,  the  State  blessing  of 
eighteen  millions  of  debt  and  liability,  and  to  be  in- 
creased, the  present  session  of  our  legislature,  several 
millions  more.  If,  instead  of  this  unlimited  power  and 
present  mixed  basis  guarantee,  for  such  it  is  in  effect, 
this  giving,  as  we  are  told,  the  power  to  the  hands  whose 
interests  would  restrain  its  abuse  and  improper  exercise 
without  other  sanction,  and  under  which,  it  is  said,  the 
east  would  take  care  of  itself,  the  west,  and  the  valley 
all,  the  majority  had  been  under  its  own  government 
and  care,  and  under  express  and  positive  guarantess* 
arising  under  express  and  positive  limitations  and 
restrictions,  we  would  not  now  have  this  debt  upon  us. 
and  be  infinitely  better  off.    And  I  tell  the  east  and  the 


356 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


west  also,  that  my  constituents,  rich  slave-holding,  land- 
holding,  tax- paying  people,  and  unyielding  in  their  sup 
port  of  the  white  basis,  favor  these  express,  positive  re 
strictions  and  prohibitions  of  legislative  power  upon 
every  subject,  slavery,  debt,  State  credit,  loans,  taxa- 
tion and  all,  and  will  insist  upon  them  whatever  basis 
we  adopt.  We  are  sick  and  tired  of  protection  under 
the  minority  unlimited  power  and  implied  mixed  basis 
guarantee,  as  our  existing  basis  is  in  effect,  and  of  that 
system  of  lo.i, -rolling  under  it,  practiced  in  the  legisla- 
ture, and  of  its  corrupting  demoralizing  influences  and 
grinding  taxation,  sinking  the  character  as  well  as  the 
credit  and  resources  of  the  State.  We  believe  and  feel 
that  we  have  had  enough  of  this  sort  of  protection  and  too 
much  of  it.  We  desire  to  profit  by  dear-bought  experi- 
ence, by  a  change,  not  by  the  continuance  of  the  same 
order  of  things,  which  would  be  the  effect,  as  it  is  the  ve- 
ry design  of  the  proposed  amendment  under  considera 
tion.  A  miscalled  republican  government  with  almost 
unlimited  power  in  the  hands  of  a  sectional  minority  up- 
on a  slave  basis,  in  part,  in  disguise,  so  degrading  to 
freemen,  whom  it  excludes  from  the  enjoyment  of 
their  rights,  and  which  has  worked  so  badly,  is  not 
what  we  desire.  Such  a  government,  in  our  estima- 
tion, is  little  better  than  a  monarchial  one  of  limited 
powers,  if  any  better  at  all.  I  will  not  say  ittle  bet- 
ter than  an  aristocracy,  for  then  I  should  only  compare 
it  with  itself. 

We  know  the  power  in  this  government,  in  whosoev- 
er hands,  east  or  west,  is  to  be  exercised  by  and  through 
legislative  agents,  and  I  repeat,  we  have  learned 
from'  all  history  as  well  as  from  the  past  experience  of 
our  government,  with  power  in  the  hands  of  the  east 
has  been  abused,  and  we  we  fear  would  be  again,  unless 
sufficiently  guarded  and  restrained  ;  and  we  therefore 
would  restrict  and  withhold  all  power  from  the  govern- 
ment, except  so  much  as  may  be  necessary  and  proper 
for  a  wise  and  prudent  administration  of  our  affairs,  be- 
lieving in  the  doctrine  of  our  bill  of  rights,  "  that  of  all 
the  modes  and  forms  of  government,  that  is  best  which 
is  capable  of  producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness 
and  safety,  and  is  most  effectually  secured  against  mal- 
administration;  and  that  when  any  government  shall  be 
found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these  purposes,  a  major 
«  ity  of  the  people  hath  an  indubitable,  unalienable  and 
indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish  it  in  such 
a  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to  the  pub- 
lic weal  "  and  our  fixed,  unchangeable  conviction  is,  that 
of  all  modes  and  forms,  a  republican  government  is  the 
only  one  that  comes  up  to  the  standard,  and  that  none  is 
truly  republicanthat  is  not  based  upon  the  people — num- 
bers— that  one  based  upon  numbers  and  wealth  com- 
bined is  not  republican,  and  as  it  places  the  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  wealthy  minority  and  a  sectional  one  to  boot, 
is  an  aristocracy,  and  we  believe  our  present  govern 
ment  is  such,  and  we  know  certainly  to  our  sorrow  that 
it  is  not  effectually  secured  against  mal  administration. 
We  understand  all  this  now.  We  but  know  too  well, 
that  if  the  power  exists  under  the  constitution,  and  an 
act  pass  the  legislature,  however  great  an  abuse  of  that 
power  and  of  the  confidence  of  the  people,  that  still 
the  law  will  be  valid  and  binding,  however  great  the 
evils  growing  out  of  it.  In  such  a  case  rights  rest,  and 
the  courts,  can  afford  no  relief  as  the  power  existed,  al 
though  the  legislature  abused  its  trust  ever  so  unwisely. 
This  has  been  our  misfortune  to  a  great  extent  in  the 
past,  we  must  all  know  and  lament.  But  impose  posi- 
tive limitations  and  restrictions  upon  the  power,  and 
that  cannot  be  abused  which  does  not  exist,  and  if  that 
shall  be  done  which  is  prohibited,  the  violation  can  do  no 
harm.  Declare  that  the  legislature  shall  have  no  pow- 
er to  do  the  thing,  and  if,  in  violation  of  their  sacred 
trust,  the  constitution  and  their  oaths,  they  do  it,  we, 
the  people,  will  be  safe,  for  the  act  will  not  then  be 
valid  and  binding,  but  void,  and  so  the  courts  and  judges 
under  the  constitution,  and  their  oaths  would  decide, 
and  save  the  State  and  the  people  from  the  consequen- 


ces. This  is  the  distinction,  and  the  difference  is  vital 
and  important  in  the  last  degree.  Hence  the  propriety, 
necessity,  and  s  fhciency  of  express  limitations  and  re- 
strictions. These  guarantees  will  be  certain  and  lasting. 
These  will  afford  complete  and  adequate  constitutional 
security,  guard  your  treasury,  save  it  from  bankruptcy, 
preserve  the  credit  and  character  of  the  State,  prevent 
burthensome  taxes,  protect  the  slave  property  and  all 
other  property  from  harm,  make  safe  and  perfect- 
ly secure,  life,  liberty  and  property,  and  everything 
we  hold  dear.  No  power  on  earth  can  break  through 
hese  guarantees.  They  will  be  parts,  and  the  vi- 
al parts  of  your  constitution,  and  must  last  while  it 
lasts,  and  perish  only  when  it  shall  peridi.  Our  judi- 
ciary shall  be  our  shield.  My  interests,  feelings,  and 
sympathies,  and  my  people  are  T#ith  the  east.#  As  I 
have  before  said,  I  am,  myself,  a  State  rights  man,  and 
if  you  please,  an  eastern  State  rights  man,  and  upon  all 
the  subjects  of  our  federal  relations  1  stand,  I  repeat 
upon  the  resolutions  of  '98-99.  But  my  people  and  my- 
self are  for  the  white  basis  and  the  jus  majoris,  and  we 
shall  not  surrender  this  mother  principle  which  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  self-government. 

I  have  said  the  west  claims  political  equality,  and  de- 
mands it  as  a  right.  At  the  same  time  we  tender  the 
most  ample  guarantees  for  the  protection  of  the  peculiar 
rights  and  interests  of  the  east.  This  tender  is  volun- 
tarily made :  and  we  even  go  further,  and  agree  that 
another  convention  shall  not  be  called  for  an  indefinite 
time.  But,  gentlemen  of  the  east  spurn  the  offer  with 
contempt — sneer  at  a  tender  of  paper  guarantees,  as 
they  are  pleased  to  characterize  constitutional  restric- 
tions, They  say  the  power  is  in  their  hands,  and  will 
^e  retained  because  its  retention,  they  insist,  is  ne- 
cessary. And  they  tell  us  that  any  attempt  at  any  time 
to  right  ourselves  and  secure  this  political  ^quality, 
would  be  treason  against  the  existing  constitution  and 
laws.  But  I  warn  gentlemen  it  may  be  better  to  settle 
this  vexed  question  now,  and  not  anticipate  the  time  that 
may  come  when  they  may  not  be  able  to  hold  on  to  the 
power  and  get  safe  guarantees.  Justice — simple  justice — 
we  ask  no  more,  and  we  ask  this  as  a  majority  of  the 
people,  in  a  spiiit  of  concession,  without  threat  or  taunt. 
Have  gentlemen  considered,  if  now  is  not  the  time,  when 
the  time  is  to  come  to  settle  the  question,  so  as  to  end 
it  forever  ?  If,  I  say,  a  time  must  come  to  close  it,  when 
is  it  best  that  it  should  come  ?  Will  it  be  when  the 
great  west  has  become  strong  and  powerful  with  teem- 
ing wealth  and  overwhelming  numbers,  and  comes  to 
take  the  power  ?  Will  that  be  a  better  time  for  the  east 
to  secure  these  guarantees  and  safeguards  ?  I  have 
looked  to  that  time  when  the  west  may  cease  to  bear, 
and  rise  in  her  majesty  and  power  to  assert  her  rights 
which  God  gave,  and  but  God  could  give  or  take  away — 
and  I  have  looked  around  to  see  where  we  at  the  mouth 
of  the  valley  would  be.  Would  we  stand  to  our  princi- 
ples? This  view  gives  ne  no  pleasure.  When  should 
the  time  come  to  settle  this  controversy  forever,  and  for 
securing  ample  constitutional  provisions  to  protect  us 
all  alike,  as  a  law  loving  and  law-abiding  people,  in  the 
enjoyment  of  all  we  have.  Think  you  a  more  propitious 
time  will  ever  come  than  the  present?  Is  there  any  gen- 
tleman who  believes  there  will?  Why,  even  now  the 
east  distrusts  the  west  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  It 
is  this  very  distrust  that  lies  at  the  bot  tom  of  this  desire 
to  protect  themselves  by  inserting  this  mixed  basis  of 
representation  in  the  constitution.  But  is  that  distrust 
likely  to  cease  when  the  west  should  have  grown  more 
strong  and  powerful  ?  Can  the  east  rely  on  its  power  to 
retain  the  power  or  her  safety  in  the  slave  interes*  ?  It 
may  be  that  you  can  in  times  of  peace  and  quietude  at 
home.  But  how  shall  you  calculate  on  this,  while  this 
issue,  this  cancer,  grows  worse?  You  rnav  now  feel 
easy  when  the  mad  attacks  of  fanaticism  from  without 
are  forcing  us  to  union.  It  may  do  now  to  feel  content- 
ed. But  will  it  not  suggest  itself  to  gentlemen,  that 
they  should  have  something  better  than  this  union  of 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


357 


power  and  interest  in  their  own  hands,  and  the  present 
strong  sympathy  of  feeling  in  the  west,  and  which  they 
are  every  moment  alienaiiug  by  injustice,  to  rely  on  in 
the  more  gloomy  future.  I  say  gloomy,  for  the  thirst- 
ing spirit  of  mad  fanaticism  is  not  yet  quenched.  Have 
gentlemen  seriously  considered  this,  and  how  necessary 
restrictiot  s  might  become  when  they  could  not  be  had  ; 
but  now  they  may  be  secured.  Why  not,  then,  concili- 
ate and  make  sure  of  this  positive,  certain  and  bet- 
ter protection.    I  speak  where  I  know  nearly  all  ar 


if  I  am  to  be  persuaded  that  written  constitutions,  with 
ample  guarantees,  are  no  protection  to  property  in  Vir- 
ginia, on  this  side  the  mountain,  should  a  majority  rule 
under  that  constitution,  but  are  so,  should  the  minority 
govern,  and  that  minority  will  never  yield  to  the  majori- 
ty their  equal  rights,  because  it  will  give  them  the  right- 
ful control.  What  must  I  think  ?  Where  must  I  think 
things  are  tending?  What  issue  coming  at  last ?  What 
crisis  approaching  ?  What  din  to  soon  tingle  in  my 
ears  ?    Does  not  the  mind  of  every  Virginian  start  back 


1  w  >  «-i>  and  better  lawyers  than  myself;  but  I  appeal  j  to  think  that  this  is  the  fearful  issue  coming  to  a  head 
to  all,  confidently,  if  it  is  not  true  that  positive  consti-  between  east  and  west  Virginia?  I  mean  the  old 
tutional  provisions  are  the  best  and  safest  guarantees?  State  rights — Virginia;  the  pioneer  of  the  Union — the 


Are  not  these  at  last  the  only  safeguards  to  protect  us 
all  ?  I  hold  my  life,  liberty  and  property,  as  all  do,  under 
our  present  constitution,  imperfect  as  it  is — md  I  am 
told  it  has  not  been  violated  by  the  east — and  yet,  when 
I  appeal  to  this  example,  vouched  by  themselves  and  to 
the  thirty  other  free  States  of  this  Union,  and  cite  them 
in  proof  of  the  virtue  and  validity  and  safety  of  writ- 
ten constitutions,  paper  guarantees,  what  is  the  answer  ? 
Why,  the  west  is  not  to  be  trusted!  Away  with  your 
paper  guarantees!  We  will  have  none  of  them!  You 
are  lusting  for  power  to  plunder  our  pockets !  What  if 
you  put  your  hand  and  seal  to  the  compact  now  and 
make  every  pledge  our  fathers  did  in  the  revolution  to 
stand  together  and  meet  the  worst?  You  know  your 
lands  can  bear  no  higher  taxes  ;  and  you  want  internal 
improvement,  and  you  will  break  through  constitution, 
oaths  and  everything  sacred  to  tax  our  negroes  and  oth- 
er property,  to  make  these  improvements.  And  yet,  we 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being,  under  a  paper  consti- 
tution with  scarcely  any  guards,  and  all-has  been  as  safe 
as  we  desire,  according  to  the  views  of  the  gentlemen 
from  the  east,  at  least  as  to  the  west,  with  the  power 
in  the  hands  of  this  sectional  minority  in  the  east.  The 
minority  in  the  east  can  be  trusted,  but  the  majority  in 
the  west  cannot.  The  west  may  be  trusted  as  individu- 
als— nay,  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  eulogizes  the 
west — but  we  cannot  be  trusted  with  power.  And  to 
whom  is  this  language  used  ?  To  the  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple by  the  minority.  Do  gentlemen  think,  by  such 
treatment  as  this,  to  retain  the  confidence  of  the  west? 
Do  they  expect  to  conciliate  us,  and  to  draw  tighter  the 
bonds  of  sympathy  and  brotherhood,  to  bring  us  into 
greater  harmony  here,  and  to  cement  a  lasting  union  be- 
tween east  and  west  Virginia  ?  Is  this  the  way  to  pre- 
serve the  peace  and  promote  the  dignity  and  glory  of  this 
time-honored  commonwealth  ? 


Humble  as  I  am,  I  venture  to  appeal  to  this  assembly 
and  seriously  ask,  what  is  to  be  the  end  of  this  ?  Is  it 
to  have  a  stopping  place  or  not?  As  the  increase  of 
population  and  wealth  progresses  in  the  west,  while 
white  population  is  comparatively  stationary  in  the  east, 
is  there  no  time  to  come  wren  there  must  be  a  change — 
and  still  we  are  met  when  this  view  is  pressed,  and  truly 
so,  that  the  west  has  no  other  resort  to  obtain  redress, 
but  those  great  inherent  rights  that  belong  to  us  outside 
of  the  constitution,  that  is,  to  revolution  and  force,  which 
involves  treason.  Are  we  to  be  driven  to  that  resort  ? 
That  is  the  solemn  question  at  last  that  is  behind  and 
must  come  home  to  all.  It  can  be  no  longer  avoided. 
The  west  is  now  in  the  majority — a  large  majority — and 
have  reached  a  point  from  which  we  cannot  recede.  We 
must  look  this  question  in  the  face,  or  it  will  look  us  in  the 
face  ;  and  it  does  even  now  look  us  in  the  face.  I  have 
made  no  threats  and  I  mean  to  make  none ;  but  if  I  am  to 
say  when  is  the  time  to  settle  this  question,  whether  the 
minority  er  majority  shall  rule,  if  that  be  the  legitimate 
result  of  giving  to  the  west  equal  rights,  I  must  answer 
now.  Yes,  the  best  time  is  now,  or  no  man  can  answer 
for  the  consequences. 

While  I  mean  to  stand  as  long  as  any  man  in  defence 
of  State  rights — whi'e  1  regard  representative  govern- 
ments under  written  constitutions  astheereatest  achieve- 
ment and  boast  of  modern  times,  a  blessing  the  ancient 
republics  had  not,  and  hence  their  anarchy  and  fall — yet 


flag-ship,  who  stood  in  '98-99,  and  saved  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Union  at  its  last  gasp,  in  defence  of  guaran- 
tees, whose  protection  she  demanded  and  has  ever  since 
enjoyed. 

But,  I  have  wearied  myself  and  the  patience  of  this 
committee,  no  doubt,  and  1  feel  that  it  is  time  to  be  draw- 
ing my  remarks  to  a  close  But  I  have  a  few  words  to 
say  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  Virginia,  and  I  am  hap- 
py to  declare  that  I  b.lieve  the  sentiment  generally  in 
western  Virginia,  and  I  know  it  is  that  of  the  valley  as 
well  as  of  eastern  Virginia,  is  this  :  that  the  government 
of  the  State  has  no  power  to  destroy  or  disturb  the  right 
of  property  in  slaves.  Yet  an  attempt  Was  made  as  we 
all  know,  in  1831-32,  to  impair  these  rights  or  totally 
destroy  them  by  legislative  action.  In  another  place,  in 
committee,  I  have  sought  to  have  an  expre  s  and  posi- 
tive declaration  upon  that  subject.  I  mean  a  clause  in 
our  constitution  expressly  denying  and  prohibiting  the 
power  of  this  government  to  abolish  slavery,  or  to  call 
the  right  in  question.  This  I  deem  prudent  to  guard 
even  against  agitation'  of  the  question. 

But  I  hold,  with  or  without  constitutional  guarantees, 
slavery  cannot  be  abolished  by  the  legislature.  And  that 
that  property  .ny  more  than  other  property  of  the  citi- 
zen, cannot  be  touched  or  taken  away  without  full  com- 
pensation to  the  owmr.  Not  only  does  the  State  con- 
stitution give  no  power  to  do  this,  but  the  federal  con- 
stitution expressly  forbids  the  taking  of  private  proper- 
ty, even  for  public  use  without  just  compensation.  In 
reference  to  what  has  been  thrown  out  here  relative  to 
the  action  ©f  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  j 
maintain  that  if  there  had  been  express  and  positive 
provision  against  action  on  the  part  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment on  this  subject  at  all,  and  in  regard  to  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Union,  instead  of  imi  lied  prohibitions  on- 
ly, that  we  would  have  been  spared  much  agitation  and 
threatened  danger  to  the  Union,  and  would  be  now  in- 
finitely more  safe  against  action  or  agitation  upon  the 
subject.  This  is  a  defect  in  the  federal  constitution,  and 
I  desire  to  guard  our  State  constitution  in  this  particu- 
lar. Under  the  panic  of  1831-32,  the  first  petition 
praying  action  came  from  the  east ;  and  leading  eastern 
men,  and  not  a  few  in  all,  yiel  led  to  the  alarm  and  were 
ready  to  do  violence  to  the  sacred  rights  of  property, 
which  rights  are  held  by  a  title  above  and  beyond  the 
constitution  as  it  now  stands.  The  lessons  of  1831-32 
should  satisfy  eastern  as  well  as  western  men,  that  posi- 
tive prohibitions  are  safer  guarantees  than  those  upon 
which  they  now  rest.  They  should  see  that  this  union 
of  power  and  interest  is  not  even  to  be  trusted  upon  this 
subject — they  come  in  conflict  when  passion,  fear  or  folly 
rules  the  hour  "which  rules  men.  And  I  do  insist  that 
this  proves  there  is  no  solid  ground  for  the  east  to  stand 
on  but  constitutional  guarantees  ;  and  hence,  that  these 
guarantees  are  better  than  the  mixed  basis,  which  con 
elusion  sweeps  the  foundation  of  their  claims  for  power 
from  beneath  their  feet. 

I  have  a  consolation  in  closing,  to  know,  although  I 
have  left  much  unsaid  which  deserves  to  he  urged,  that 
there  are  others  here,  representing  a  common  constitu- 
ency, to  whose  talents  I  defer,  yet  to  epeak  upon  these 
guarantees,  and  who  are  able  to  vindicate  their  policy 
and  sufficiency,  and  intend  to  do  it. 

I  feel  assured,  too,  that  however  much  I  have  fallen 


358 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


short  in  any  part  of  my  duty,  that  that  generous  confi- 
dence reposed  in  me  by  my  constituents,  unsolicited, 
will  not  fail  to  overlook  or  forgive.  They  know  my 
zeal  in  this  cause.  To  them  I  shall  return,  and  as  far  as 
capable,  I  will  tell  them  that  all  has  been  done;  and  I 
trust  I  shall  be  able  to  tell  them  that  all  has  been  done 
which  they  desired,  and  especially,  and  above  all,  that 
this  government  has  been  at  last  based  upon  equal  rights, 
the  only  sure  foundation  upon  which  it  can  ever  rest  in 
peace  and  safety. 

If  not  thus  based,  I  fear  for  one,  it  will  not  be  moored 
as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  supposes,  for  all  time  ; 
nor  very  long,  indeed,  when  those  storms  of  passion, 
which  sometimes,  with  tempest  force,  sweep  and  upturn 
thrones  and  empires,  and  I  am  bound  to  add,  equally, 
in  their  mad  career,  all  ill-based,  unequal  governments, 
and  will  be  stayed  never  by  any  power  of  self-control 
until  they  drench  a  land  in  blood.  It  is  the  task  of  all 
wise  and  prudent  statesmen  to  lay  the  foundation  of 
government  firm  in  the  affections  of  the  whole  people, 
above  the  reach  of  faction,  and  above  the  dangers  of 
opular  commotions  ;  and  I  say,  finally,  that  there  is 
ut  one  base  upon  which  to  lay  it  permanently  safe,  and 
that  is,  equality,  whose  pillars  are  truth  and  justice, 
upon  which  rests  the  temple  of  liberty.  Thus  reposed 
the  waves  of-  commotion  may  roll  in  vain.  Like  hope 
anchored  upon  the  "rock  of  ages,"  your  government 
may  survive  every  danger,  and  endure  through  all  time. 
May  it  not  then  be  said  of  us  law-makers  of  Virginia, 
to  whom  the  sacred  task  has  been  now  assigned  by  a 
great  and  confiding  people,  that  we  have  failed  in  our 
duty.  If  it  shall,  I  fear  for  the  consequences.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  shall  discharge  our  duty  well,  well 
will  it  be,  and  glorious  may  be  our  reward.  The  com- 
mendation of  a  grateful  and  happy  people  may  be 
ours  ! 

We  shall  leave  behind  us  a  free  government  and  a  free 
country,  the  common  inheritance  of  a  free  people.  Then 
the  voice  of  time  shall  pronounce  no  higher  eulogy 
upon  any  land  beneath  the  sun  ;  and  when  all  shall  end, 
the  mother  of  States,  of  heroes,  and  statesmen,  shall 
need  nor  claim  any  higher  honor  than  her  own  name 
upon  her  epitaph.  I  submit  the  question  then,  whether 
this  shall  be  upon  her  mausoleum,  or  whether  more  than 
half  her  children,  doomed  to  despair  of  their  equal 
,  rights,  shall  be  driven  in  their  extremity  to  destroy  more 
than  half  the  pillars  of  her  temple,  and  leave  the  whole 
to  totter  and  crumble  into  ruins.  It  is  for  us  to  decide, 
and  upon  us  and  our  country  the  consequences — nor  up- 
on our  country  only,  I  fear.  No,  that  wave  of  revolu- 
tion to  which  allusion  has  been  made,  whether  it  comes 
from  beyond  the  high  Alleghanies  or  from  the  east, 
come  when  it  may,  if  ever,  that  shall  rend  asunder  this 
our  mother-land,  the  home  of  Washington,  and  of  all 
those  heroes  and  statesmen  so  much  eulogized  upon  this 
floor,  whose  names,  like  that  of  the  father  of  his  coun- 
try, must  live  in  eternal  fame.  I  fear,  will  not  stop  with 
our  division  and  ruin,  but  roll  on  and  roll  on,  until  it 
divides  this  entire  land,  and  our  glorious  Union,  with 
its  desolating  flood  ;  extinguishing  not  the  light  of  our 
altars  only,  but  of  all  that  glorious  constellation  which 
around  it  burn,  leaving  to  human  liberty  no  other  abode, 
do  temple  or  home,  or  anywhere  a  spot  t®  rest  upon. 

These  reflections  have  been  induced  by  thoughts 
stirred  up  within  me  by  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
who  preceded  me  on  yesterday  (Mr.  Scott.)  I  will  not 
detain  the  committee,  but  to  add,  that  I  am  not  con- 
scious of  having  said  anything,  or  uttered  one  senti- 
ment, that  a  large  majority  of  those  who  sent  me  here 
do  not  approve. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  BARBOUR,  the  committee  rose. 

THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  STEWART.  I  move  that  when  the  Convention 
adjourns  it  adjourn  to  meet  hereafter  at  11  o'cock  in 
stead  of  10  o'clock  A.  M.  We  have  no  quorum  at  10 
o'clock,  and  gentlemen  who  were  most  active  in  fixing 
that  hour  of  meeting  were  among  those  absent. 


Mr.  WISE.  I  was  here  the  very  moment  after  the 
President  took  his  seat,  and  I  believe  he  did  not  take  it 
until  half  past  ten.  I  have  been  told  that  perhaps  our 
reporter  suffers  more  tnan  any  body  else,  and  I  wish  to 
keep  him  fresh.  I  wish  his  reports  I  o  be  precisely  ac- 
curate, therefore  I  am  with  the  gentleman  for  reversing 
my  motion  of  yesterday.  We  will  go  back  to  eleven 
o'clock,  because  we  slumber  late  in  the  morning.  But 
I  give  gentlemen  notice  that,  do  our  best,  this  debate  is 
likely  to  last  for  a  month  to  come.  An  hour  added  to 
our  time  each  day  of  the  week  gives  us  an  additional 
six  hours  in  the  week,  and  in  that  time  one,  at  least,  if 
not  two  speeches  may  be  ground  out.  If  we  meet  at 
eleven  I  shall  resist  any  motion  to  adjourn  before  four. 
I  shall  vote,  however,  with  the  gentleman  to  go  back  to 
eleven  o'clock. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  regret  extremely  that  this  mo- 
tion has  been  made  to  reverse  the  order  which  the  house 
made  on  yesterday.  I  think  it  is  true  that  this  Con- 
vention should  act,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  our  constitu- 
ents expect  us  to  work,  here  a  little  more  than  we  can 
do  when  we  remain  in  session  for  only  three  hours.  We 
have  nothing  now  to  do  in  the  committee  rooms,  and  I 
think  that  members  can,  with  little  or  no  inconvenience  to 
themselves,  make  their  arrangements  to  meet  here  at 
ten  o'clock  in  the  morning.  There  are  some  gentlemen 
here  who  have  other  interests  to  attend  to,  and  who 
cannot  think  of  remaining  here  for  six  months  to  which 
period  I  verily  believe  our  session  will  be  protracted  if 
we  do  not  meet  earlier  than  eleven  o'clock.  I  hope 
gentlemen  who  are  disposed  to  do  the  business  of  the 
people  here  will  resist  this  attempt  to  extend  the  ses- 
sion, and  vote  against  this  motion  to  reconsider.  I  go 
with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  and  shall  resist  here- 
after any  motion  to  adjourn,  at  least,  before  three  o'clock. 
I  have  heretofore  resisted  all  attempts  to  adjourn  be- 
fore that  time.  I  hope  the  Convention  will  sustain  the 
order  which  it  has  made,  and  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  on  the  motion. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 
Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  have  no  idea  that  the  people 
are  giving  themselves  much  uneasiness  about  what  we 
are  doing  here.  I  think  that  the  acts  of  deliberative 
bodies  in  Virginia,  for  the  last  ten  years,  have  rather 
weakened  the  affections  of  the  people  for  their  public 
servants,  and  that  they  are  pitting  themselves  to  very 
little  trouble  as  to  what  we  are  doing  here.  [Laughter.*] 
I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  that  it  ia 
better  that  this  Convention  should  meet  at  10  o'clock, 
but  I  do  not  agree  with  him  that  we  should  sit  until  4 
o'clock.  And,  if  I  am  required  to  meet  here  at  10 
o'clock,  and  remain  in  session  until  4  o'clock,  I  shall  ask 
this  Convention  to  form  two  committees,  one  .to  form 
some  regulation  by  which  gentlemen  will  be  required 
to  retire  at  9  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  another  to  as- 
certain at  what  time  dinner  is  to  be  prepared  at  the 
boarding  houses  and  hotels  of  the  city.  [Laughter.]  I 
belong  to  that  class  of  people  in  Virginia  who  are  known 
as  "outsiders,"  and  it  is  customary  for  us  to  dine  at 
half-past  12.  [Laughter.]  It  is  true  that  since  I  have 
been  in  Richmond  I  have  associated  with  what  gentle- 
men are  pleased  to  term  the  aristocracy  of  the  State.  I 
have  fell  back  as  far  as  half-past  2  o'clock,  and  I  am  not 
willing  to  fast  longer  than  that.  [Laughter.]  When- 
ever the  governor,  by  proclamation,  shall  deem  it  his 
duty  to  call  upon  the  good  people  to  fast  for  a  day, 
then,  as  a  man  obedient  to  the  laws  of  his  country,  and 
to  those  in  authority,  then  I  shall  try  and  fast  all  the 
time.  But  I  deny  that  this  Convention  has  any  power 
to  pass  laws  regulating  my  appetite.  If  they  attempt 
it,  I  shall  appeal  from  the  Convention  to  the  people  of 
my  district,  and  I  know  they  will  sustain  me.  [Laugh- 
ter.] I  hope  that  the  Convention  will  meet  at  10  o'clock, 
however,  so  that  the  labors  of  the  day  may  be  disposed 
of  the  earlier.  It  will  secure  what  is  very  desirable  in 
the  discussion  and  disposition  of  these  important  ques- 
tions, a  full  Convention,  for  I  have  no  idea  that  such  a 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


359 


result  can  be  attained  if  we  are  to  sit  six  or  eight  hours 
a  clay.  For  myself,  I  am  the  worst  listener  in  the  world, 
for  1  never  could  listen  to  a  man  speak  or  preach  for 
more  than  twenty  minutes  at  a  time.  I  will  conclude  by 
making  a  motion  which  I  believe  is  always  in  order.  I 
move  that  the  Convention  now  adj  ourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — ayes 
49,  noes  43. 

And  then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  10  o'clock 
to-murrow  morning. 


THURSDAY,  February  21,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lee,  of  the  Methodist  church. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  HOUR  OF  MEETING. 

The  PRESIDENT  stated  the  first  business  in  order 
to  be  the  question  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Stewart, 
of  Morgan,  ^hanging  the  hour  of  meeting  from  10  to 
11  o'clock,  pending  when  the  Convention  adjourned  yes- 
terday. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  move  to  lay  the  resolution  on 
the  table;  and  on  that  motion  I  ask  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  call  had  been  concluded,  and  before  the  result 
was  announced — 

Mr.  CONWAY  moved  that  the  absentees  be  called 
and  allowed  to  vote. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Conway's  motion,  it 
was  rejected  ;  and  so  the  absentees  were  not  allowed  to 
vote. 

The  result  being  announced,  there  were  yeas  16,  nays 
44,  (no  quorum)  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Carter  of  Russell,  Cook, 
Fulkerson,  Fuqua,  M.  Garnett,  Hall,  Ke.iney,  Kilgore, 
Martin  of  Marshall,  Moncure,  Pendleton,  Sloan,  Smith 
of  Jackson,  Straughan,  Trigg — 16. 

Nays — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Armstrong, 
Barbour,  Beale,  Caperton,  Carlile,  Chambers,  Chambliss, 
Chilton,  Conway,  Edmuuds,  Edwards,  Fisher,  M.  R.  H. 
Garnett,  Goode,  Hoge,  Hunter,  Janney,  Leake,  Letcher, 
Lucas,  McCamanfc,  McCandlish,  McComas,  Martin  of 
Henry,  Meredith,  Miller,  Neeson,  Ridley,  Scott  of  Caro- 
line, Scott  cf  Fauquier,  Seymour,  Smith  of  Norfolk 
county,  Snodgrass,  South  all,  Stewart  of  Morgan,  Stew- 
art of  Patrick,  Tredway,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  White, 
Whittle,  Willey,  Wise— 44. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  appears  to  be  a  quorum 
present. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  The  Convention  is  decidedly 
against  laying  the  resolution  on  the  table,  and  I  will 
withdraw  my  motion. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
Stewart,  and  it  was  agreed  to — a  count  being  had — 
yeas  45,  nays  28. 

So  the  Convention  agreed  to  meet  hereafter  at  10 
o'clock,  A.  M. 

GUARANTIES    AGAINST  EXCESSIVE  TAXATION. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  ask  leave  to  present  to  the  Con 
vention  the  following  resolution,  and  after  it  lias  been 
read,  to  make  a  few  observations  in  explanation  thereof; 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  by 
the  Chair,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  consider  and  report, 
at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable,  what  limitations  upon 
the  powers  of  the  several  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment, or  guaranties  in  other  form,  it  may  be  expedient 
to  insert  in  the  new  or  amended  constitution,  with  spe- 
cial reference  to  the  objects  of  providing  ample  and 
effectual  protection  and  security  to  the  slave  interests, 
and  of  guarding  against  the  abuse  or  unjust  exercise  of 
the  tax-laying  and  revenue  appropriating  powers  of  the 
government. 

I  owe  an  apology  to  the .  Convention  for  offering,  at 
this  late  day,  the  resolution  which  has  just  been  read, 


and  certainly  an  explanation  of  th  i  reasons  that  have 
prompted  me  to  submit  it  now.  I  say  at  this  late  day, 
for  undoubtedly  it  is  late  in  reference  to  the  length  of 
time  that  we  have  been  in  session.  Whether  it  is  late 
or  early  in  reference  to  the  period  when  we  shall  be  able 
to  bring  our  labors  to  a  close  is  another  question.  The 
reasons,  then,  that  have  prompted  me  to  offer  the  reso- 
lution are  these :  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  in  the  course  of 
the  discussion  upon  some  of  the  various  miscellaneous 
matters  which  occupied  our  attention  in  the  month  of 
October  last,  the  idea  was  thrown  out,  and,  according  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection,  acquiesced  in  generally  by 
the  Conventiou,  that  there  were  certain  limitations 
upon  the  powers  of  the  government,  or  guaranties, 
as  they  have  been  called,  in  their  character,  immediate- 
ly, (at  least  in  the  view  taken  of  this  subject  by  some 
gentlemen,)  connected  with  the  question  of  basis.  The 
idea  was  acquiesced  in,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  that  it 
would  be  proper  for  the  committee  charged  with  the 
subject  of  the  basis  and  apportionment  of  representa- 
tion, to  have  committed  to  its  charge  the  consideration 
of  this  question. 

Accordingly,  a  series  of  resolutions  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  present  early  in  the  month  of  January,  were 
referred  to  this  committee.  No  action  has  been  had 
by  the  committee  upon  this  subject.  It  is  true  that 
most  of  the  resolutions  of  a  similar  character  submit 
ted  to  the  Convention  were  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Legisjative  Department,  and  have  been  reported 
upon.  The  resolutions  submitted  by  myself,  and  which, 
alone  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Basis,  have 
not  been  acted  upon  or  considered  by  any  committee — 
other  gentlemen  having  taken  a  different  view  of  the 
subject — nor  were  they  even  printed,  it  being  suggested 
to  me  at  the  time  I  offered  the  resolutions  that  they  would 
appear  on  the  journal,  and  that  that  would  accomplish 
the  purpose  of  calling  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  them.  Now,  from  the  course  which  the  debate  has 
taken  on  this  subject,  it  strikes  me,  shows  manifestly 
the  importance  of  doing  what  this  resolution  proposes 
to  be  done,  and  in  the  best  form  in  which  it  can  be 
done.  I  was  gratified  to  find,  from  the  course  of  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,) 
that  he  had  adopted,  what  seemed  to  me  to  be  {he  true 
mode  of  arguing  the  question  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion in  regard  to  the  basis  and  the  apportionment  of 
representation.  I  was  gratified  when  I  heard  that 
gentleman  give  to  the  debate  a  turn  of  a  more  useful 
and  profitable  character  in  my  judgment,  than  these 
arguments  about  the  jus  majoris,  and  to  this  a  priori 
reasoning  about  the  formation  of  government,  and  the 
condition  of  men  before  government  was  formed,  all 
of  which,  to  my  poor  apprehension,  is  mere  fancy. 
1  understand  nothing  about  it.  I  believe  no  such  thing 
as  mankind's  ever  having  existed  without  government. 
And  here  permit  me  to  say  that  I  am  not  a  conservative, 
nor  can  I  agree  precisely  to  be  classed  as  an  infinite  rad- 
ical, with  my  friend  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise.) 
I  am  a  utilitarian,  and  if  I  stand  alone,  as  the  leader 
and  rank  and  file  of  that  party,  that  is  my  position. 
I  go  for  the  practical,  and  against  the  theoretic 
and  abstract  and  speculative.  As  to  the  condition 
of  man  before  government  was  formed,  I  know 
nothing  of  it.  But,  as  I  was  remarking,  the  debate 
had  taken  a  practical  turn,  since  the  period  when 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  addressed  the  committee. 
I  was  extremely  gratified  to  hear  him  announce,  if  I 
understood  him  aright,  that  he  was  satisfied  that  limita- 
tions or  guaranties,  as  they  are  called,  could  be  framed 
and  incorporated  in  the  constitution  whieh  would  re- 
move the  apprehensions  that  are  entertained  by  so  many 
of  our  eastern  brethren,  especially  in  regard  to  this  tax- 
laying  and  appropriating  power.  V4>  hen  I  heard  him 
announce  that  proposition,  I  thought  I  began  to  see  day- 
break, and  that  there  was  some  hope,  that  we  would 
not  only  soon  reach  the  end  of  our  labors,  but  that  we 
should  be  enabled  to  settle  these  questions  amicably  and 
satisfactorily.    But  my  hopes  very  soon  vanished,  when 


360 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


I  heard  the  gentleman  announce  the  proposition,  that 
he  was  also  satisfied  that  the  guar  mties  necessary  in 
order  to  affect  that  purpose,  would  destroy  the  grand 
system  of  internal  improvement,  of  which  he  announced 
himself  to  be  so  ardent  and  zealous  an  advocate.  Now, 
I  take  ssue  with  him  upon  that  subject.  I  came  here 
as  earnest  and  as  fast  a  friend  of  a  judicious  (if  I  may 
be  allowed  to  use  a  term  which  has  been  greatly  per- 
verted in  reference  to  another  subject)  system  of  inter- 
nal improvement,  as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  or 
any  other  gentleman  upon  this  floor.  But  if  there  is  any 
one  thing  which  1  propose  to  aid  in  accomplishing  and 
to  exert  all  my  humble  faculties  in  this  Convention  to 
accomplish,  it  is  that  of  cutting  up  by  the  roots  and  put- 
ting an  end  to  the  corrupt  system,  for  it  can  be  termed 
nothing  else,  that  has  been  carried  on  in  reference  to 
this  subject  of  internal  improvement  in  our  legislative 
halls  for  th»  last  few  years.  [  dare  not  because  I  can- 
not do  it  without  violating  the  courtesy  which  is  due  to 
another  body,  express  the  depth  of  feeling,  which  I  en- 
tertain on  that  subject,  and  I  fear  that  we  shall  be  too 
late  in  our  action  in  regard  to  it.  There  is  a  race  going 
on  between  this  body  and  the  one  sitting  in  the  capitol 
yonder,  and  I  am  afraid  they  will  get  the  victory — that 
we  shall  be  too  late — and  that  we  shall  be  very  much  in 
the  position,  if  I  may  use  a  homely  phrase,  of  locking- 
up  the  stable  after  the  horse  is  stolen.  As  1  remarked 
just  now,  I  am  perfectly  persuaded  tl  at  there  can  be 
such  limitations  and  guaranties  inserted  in  the  new  or 
amended  constitution  as  will  afford  to  our  eastern  breth- 
ren, and  also  to  us  of  the  Valley,  whose  interests  are  iden- 
tical in  that  respect — all  such  guards  against  the  abuse 
of  this  tax-paying  and  revenue  appropriating  power,  as 
we  have  a  right  to  demand,  or  at  all  need.  It  may  be 
done  in  such  a  way  too,  as  at  the  same  time  to  place 
the  interests  of  internal  improvement  upon  an  infinitely 
more  stable  basis,  and  lead  to  the  adoption  of  a  just  sys- 
tem of  development  of  the  resources  of  the  State  more 
safely,  more  rapidly,  and  infinitely  more  wisely  than  is 
now  going  on  in  our  legislative  halls.  That  is  the  pro- 
position which,  at  the  proper  time,  if  it  shall  fall  to  my 
lot  to  address  the  committee,  I  shall  endeavor  to  main- 
tain. 

The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  remarked  in  regard  to 
this  slave  question,  that  he  had  no  dificulty  or  appre- 
hension on  that  subject.  I  do  not  concur  with  him  in 
this  opinion.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  confide  in  our 
brethren  in  every  part  of  the  State  upon  this  subject  at 
present.  I  have  no  distrust  of  our  western  brethren 
now.  But  I  trust  that  the  work  of  our  hands  will  last 
at  least  ten  or  twenty  years,  and  by  that  time  a  new 
generation  will  have  sprung  up,  and  we  know  not,  as  we 
are  told  in  scripture,  what  a  day  may  bring  forth,  much 
less  what  a  decade  of  ten  years  will  produce  in  refer- 
ence to  this  delicate  and  important  subject.  And  per- 
mit me  to  remark,  as  a  reason  for  my  offering  and  press- 
ing this  resolution  upon  the  Convention,  that  there  is  no 
community  in  this  commonwealth  more  deeply  interest- 
ed in  both  of  these  subjects  than  hat  which  I  have  the 
honor  in  part  to  represent  on  this  floor.  I  have  exam- 
ined a  little  into  this  matter,  and  strange  as  it  may  seem, 
in  two  of  the  counties  which  I  represent,  Jefferson  and 
Clarke,  we  have  the  densest  slave  population  in  the  com- 
monwealth. It  is  a  curious  fact,  but  it  is  true,  that  for  the 
extent  of  territory,  the  slave  population  is  thicker  there 
than  in  any  other  portion  of  the  commonwealth.  We 
are  a  frontier  district,  and  if  the  dangers  apprehended 
shall  ever  befal  this  southern  country — if  I  may  be  per- 
mitted reluctantly  to  use  one  of  those  bold  figures  that 
are  so  fashionable  now — if  the  angry  and  portentous 
cloud  that  hangs  above  our  horizon  should  ever  burst  in 
its  wrath  upon  us,  gentlemen  must  perceive  that  the  lower 
valley,  the  granary  of  Virginia,  with  fields  as  beautifully 
laid  out  for  battle  as  ever  Bridgewater  and  Chippewa  pre- 
sented, and  that  important  work  at  Harper's  Ferry  to  fight 
for — will  be  the  Flanders,  the  battle  ground  in  the  contest. 
I  say,  then,  that  this  is  an  important  and  delicate  subject, 
and  that  whatever  our  friends  on  the  other  side  may 
maintain,  and  say  in  reference  to  it,  we  are  not  content 


that  it  shall  not  be  fenced  round  and  guarded  in  every 
manner  that  our  skill  and  judgement  shall  direct  as  pro- 
per and  right.  This  is  a  very  easy  task.  There  is  no 
difficulty  in  the  way  against  putting  in  the  organic  law, 
a  provision  forbidding  the  legislature  in  all  time  here- 
after to  pass  any  law  in  any  manner  interfering  with 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  And  what  next?  Put 
a  provision  in  the  amended  constitution,  that  the  leg- 
islature shall  not  have  power  to  call  a  Convention  here- 
after, at  any  time,  to  alter  or  to  change  this  provision  at 
all — and  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter.  It  is  a  simple 
task  and  we  have  examples  of  the  kind.  In  regard  to 
the  senatorial  representation,  in  Congress,  the  federal 
constitution  expressly  provides  that  it  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  amendment  at  any  time  hereafter,  and  so  in  re- 
gard to  several  other  of  its  provisions.  Such  is  my  re- 
collection of  the  character  of  these  provisions  in  the 
federal  constitution.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  imma- 
terial to  this  question.  1  am  merely  devising  a  plan  by 
which  this  question  may  be  carefully  considered  and 
reported  upon  to  the.  Convention,  not  upon  individual 
responsibility,  but  as  being  the  result  of  the,  solemn  de- 
liberations of  a  committee  of  th-  body,  who  will  sit 
down  and  consult  with  each  other,  undisturbed  by  the 
formalities  of  set  speeches,  with  all  this  beautiful  lan- 
guage and  eloquent  declamation  that  is  very  entertain- 
ng,  but«sometimes  very  unprofitable. 

In  regard  to  the  other  power — the  tax  laying  and  rev- 
enue appropriating  power,  as  an  apology  for  pressing 
this  resolution  upon  the  Convention,  at  this  time  it  may 
be  proper  to  remark  as  has  already  been  shown  by  my 
colleague,  that  upon  this  subject  there  is  no  district  in 
the  commonwealth  more  deeply  interested  than  that 
which  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent.  We,  as 
has  been  told  you,  upon  this  subject  lately,  have  nothing 
to  ask  and  nothing  to  desire.  We  pay  every  year  into 
the  treasury  thousands  of  dollars  over  and  above  any- 
thing that  can  comeback  to  us,  and  the  commonwealth 
is  perfectly  welcome  to  it.  But  at  the  same  time,  I 
come  here  instructed  upon  this  subject — for  it  was  fully 
canvassed  in  our  district  and  while  the  people  there  are 
not  opposed  to  a  just  and  even  a  liberal  system  of  inter- 
na] improvement,  and  while  they  are  perfectly  willing 
to  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burthens  of  the  common- 
wealth, if  burthens  there  must  be,  to  carry  out  such  a 
system,  they  have  charged  us  to  look  to  it,  that  they  are 
not  made  the  victims  of  a  wild  and  reckless  system  of 
internal  improvement.  A  device  that  is,  in  fact,  noth- 
ing less  than  taking  money  from  the  pockets  of  one 
part  of  (he  people,  and  putting  it  into  the  pocket  of  an- 
other part. 

I  attempted  before  that  people  to  show,  and  I  am 
prepared  at  a  proper  time  in  this  body  to  show,  that 
this  thing  can  be  done.  That  while  the  great  arterial 
works  of  internal  improvement,  ought  to  be  fostered, 
if  not  carried  forward  upon  State  account  alone,  yet  in 
regard  to  these  local  works,  these  purely  neighborhood 
improvement,  upon  which  there  h  ve  been  so  large  an 
expenditure,  of  late  years,  the  system,  if  system  it  may 
be  called,  ought  to  be,  and  can  be  suppressed.  Now  I 
submit  to  the  convention  the  propriety,  not  of  commit-, 
ting  to  a  special  committee  consisting  of  a  small  num- 
ber, the  work  that  has  been  already  prepared  by  the 
legislative  committee,  but  of  referring  to  it  now,  in  the 
midst  of  this  debate,  to  be  reported  on  promptly,  these 
two  particular  subjects.  One  of  them  undoubtedly  does 
run  somewhat  into  the  labors  of  the  legislative  commit- 
tee, and  the  special  committee  will  avail  itself,  doubt- 
less, of  their  labors.  The  issue  is  now  made  up  in  the 
course  of  this  debate,  whether  there  can  or  cannot  be 
such  gnaranties,  or  limitations  upon  the  powers  of  the 
government,  incorporated  in  the  constitution,  as  will  re- 
move the  difficulties  of  our  eastern  friends  npon  these 
subjects,  and  particularly  upon  this  latter  subject. 

I  am  glad  to  see  the  debate  taking  that  turn,  for  in 
my  humble  judgement,  it  is  the  true  question.  And 
while  we,  who  Come  from  the  lower  end  of  the  valley, 
are  as  determined  as  any  gentlemen  on  this  floor  to  stand 
up  for  the  great  principle  involved  in  the  suffrage  basis; 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


361 


while  we  believe,  upon  as  careful  and  thorough  exami- 
nation of  the  subject  as  we  are  able  to  give  it,  that  the 
principle  involved  in  the  report  of  the  mixed  basis  party 
is  one  which  carries  with  it  insult  and  degradation  to  a 
large  portion  of  the  people  of  the  commonwealth — and 
shall  maintain  it,  and  I  trust  successfully,  against  all 
odds — yet  we  are  utterly  disinterested  in  the  result,  so 
far  as  the  question  of  political  power  is  concerned.  In 
iact,  it  will  make  no  change  in  our  position  in  regard  to 
our  share  Gf  political  poorer,  no  matter  which  scheme 
shall  prevail.  Leaving  this  question  out  of  view,  we 
are  identified  closely  upon  other  subjects  with  our  east- 
ern brethren.  It  is  our  mission  and  duty  here,  and  we 
must  perform  't,  to  look  to  this  subject.  And  I  ask  of 
this  Convention  the  means  of  doing  it  through  this  com- 
mittee, and  as  the  best  form,  in  my  judgment,  in  which 
it  can  possibly  be  brought  to  our  notice. 

Permit  me  to  add  this  additional  remark.  The  re 
solutions  which  have  been  offered  on  this  subject,  by 
gentleman,  are  vaiious.  The  resolutions  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  offer,  and  perhaps  various  others,  ha^e 
all  Jeenmere  resolutions  of  inquiry.  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  no  gentleman  has  expected  to  see  the  very  phraseolo- 
gy of  his  resolutions  incorporated  into  the  new  constitu- 
tion, and  that  they  have  been  written  with  that  degree 
of  looseness,  if  I  may  so  express  it — I  speak  certainly 
in  regard  to  my  own — which  perhaps  would  be  charac- 
teristic of  any  mere  resolution  of  inquiry. 

When  gentlemen  now  come  to  notice  the  question,  and 
meet  the  proposition  that  guaranties,  ample  and  sufficient 
.guaranties  on  the  subject  niay  be  framed,  we  are  met  with 
•sneers  at  what  they  term  mere  paoer  guaranties.  All 
that  I  have  to  say  on  that  subject  is,  that  gentlemen 
will  have  to  come  down  to  their  work  on  this  subject.  It 
is  not  a  subject  to  be  sneered  at.  Far  fro*n  it.  But  the 
resolutions  proposing  guaranties  come  before  us  now, 
in  the  form  that  I  have  just  described,  and  when  in  the 
course  of  the  debate  we  are  called  upon  to  advocate 
these  proposition,  we  are  asked  what  are  your  particular 
provisions?  One  gentleman  takes  up  a  single  provision, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  did  the  resolution  of 
my  colleague,  and  submits  it  to  a  fierce  criticism,  and 
passes  on  without  paying  any  particular  attention  to 
any  other  provision.  Thus  they  stand  in  the  debate  as 
propositions  presented  by  individual  members  of  the 
Convention,  and  we  are  not  able  here  to  determine 
which  of  tkem  are  intended  to  be  put  forward.  I  have 
here  offered  a  proposition  which  is  calculated  to  ef- 
fect that  end.  The  object,  therefore  of  this  resolution 
is  to  charge  this  special  committee  with  the  duty  of  se- 
lecting the  particular  limitations,  so  far  as  connected  j 
with  this  subject;  and  to  prepare  such  a  scheme  as  will 
■secure  the  very  ends  and  objects  announced  by  our  east- 
ern brethren  in  this  debate,  as  being  the  objects  which 
they  desire  to  accomplish. 

What  then  is  the  result  ?  We  go  for  this  suffrage  basis, 
and  come  to  you  with  a  bond  and  security  m  our  hand. 
The  issue  is  made  up  and  according  to  the  forms  of 
pleading  is  brought  down  to  the  narrow  ground  that  we 
ought  to  occupy.  We,  in  the  lower  part  of  the  Valley  con- 
cur witu  you  in  each  of  the  objects  to  be  accomplished, 
but  we  differ  as  to  the  modus  operandi.  We  desire  the 
appointment  of  this  committee,  so  that  we  may  offer  you 
in  a  tangible  and  intelligible  form,  the  security  that  we 
suppose,  according  to  our  best  judgment,  to  be  not  only 
effective  but  infinitely  better  than  that  of  merely  repo- 
sing the  'predominancy  of  political  power  in  your  hands. 
The  debate  then  will  take  its  true  direction,  and  in  my 
judgment  the  issue  will  be  properly  made  up  and  we  can 
fairly  try  our  strength  upon  it.  The  time  for  sneering  at 
paper  guaranties  will  have  passed  by,  and  we  can  argue 
here  as  brethren  the  great  question,  whether  the  verv 1 
objects  which  you  propose  to  accomplish  by  this  grasp- 
ing and  holding  on  with  a  death-like  grip  to  the 
predominancy  of  political  power,  may  not  be  accom- 
plished, and  at  the  same  time  full  justice  be  done  to  our 
western  Mends.    There  has  been  much  said  in  the 


course  of  this  debate  in  regard  to  this  being  a  mere  strug- 
gle for  political  power.  Now,  as  I  have  before  remark- 
ed, the  district  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  here  to  re- 
present, has  nothing  to  do  with  any  such  struggle.  Any 
one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  into  the  sub- 
ject will  be  satisfied,  that  by  the  adoption  of  either 
scheme,  we  shall  be  left  just  where  we  are.  We  cannot 
be  affected  by  it.  We  are  obnoxious  to  no  imputation 
of  the  kind,  nor  I  am  sure  that  either  party  here  is. — 
But  there  has  been  much  said  upon  the  subject  of  this 
being  a  mere  struggle  of  political  power,  the  amount 
of  which  is  an  imputation  or  charge  that  gentlemen  are 
not  candid  or  sincere  in  battieing  for  this  great  princi- 
ple. The  west  are  told  that  what  they  propose,  is  not 
the  assertion  and  establishment  of  this  great  prin- 
ciple of  republican  government,  but  that  their  object  is 
to  run  their  arms  up  to  the  elbow  into  the  public  trea- 
sury. 1  believe  that  to  be  an  unjust  as  well  as  an  un- 
generous imputation.  On  the  other  hand,  our  eastern 
friends  have  been  told  that  they  have  been  vested  with 
this  power  by  chance,  at  least,  if  net  by  some  means 
worse  than  chance,  and  that  their  desire  is  to  hold  on  to 
it  that  they  may  elect  their  governors,  and  their  sena- 
tors, and  exercise  all  those  powers  so  grateful  to  the 
human  mind.  I  do  not  believe  it,  but  the  course  I  pro- 
pose will  test  the  sincerity  of  gentlemen.  While  we  come 
here,  occupying  disinterested  ground,  as  we  of  the  Val- 
ley do  on  this  subject,  we  will  offer  to  our  eastern 
friends  these  guaranties,  and  we  ask  that  some  of  them, 
representatives  the  most  intelligent,  most  astute,  most 
sagacious,  and  at  the  same  time  most  liberal  in  their 
sentiments,  may  be  placed- upon  the  committee,  to  join 
in  counsel  with  us,  and  gentlemen  from  the  west,  as  to 
the  best  mode  of  procuring  the  protection  to  property, 
so  desired.  I  am  aware  that  my  friend  from  'Fauquier 
as  indeed  I  have  been  so  told,  did  not  express  the 
sentiments  of  all  the  east  in  regard  to  this  subject.  I  am 
well  aware  of  that,  as  also  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been 
said  that  there  are  gentlemen  here  who  have  been,  very 
improperly,  I  admit,  but  very  generally  called  "copper- 
heads" on  this  subject,  and  who  go  for  the  mixed  basis 
per  se,  without  reference  to  the  ends  to  be  accomplished 
by  it,  except  that  of  holding  on  to  the  power.  I  do  not 
say  that  there  are  such  gentlemen  here,  but  I  ask  that 
gentlemen  from  the  east,  of  liberality  of  feeling  on  this 
subject,  may  be  placed  on  this  committee.  Now,  when 
we  offer  you  these  guaranties,  let  gentlemen  try  their 
strength.  Let  them  show  that  they  are  insufficient,  or 
otherwise  they  subject  themselves  to  the  suspicion,  at 
least,  that  it  is  the  lusi,  of  power  that  induces  them  to 
cling  so  tenaciously  to  the  power  which  they  now  hold. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  present  these  guaranties  to  our 
western  friends,  those  so  deeply  interested  in  this  sub- 
ject of  internal  improvements,  and  we  ask  that  repre- 
sentatives of  their  interests  may  be  on  the  committee, 
to  show  us  wherein  any  particularjimitation  or  propo- 
sition will  affect  the  subject  of  internal  improvement, 
and  to  avert  any  such  evil.  Then,  when  the  work  of 
this  committee  is  before  the  Convention,  we  will  test 
their  sincerity,  and  ascertain  whether  they  are  alone  con- 
tending for  a  great  principle,  or  whether  it  is  true, 
as  hai  been  imputed  to  them,  that  it  is  a  desire  to  get 
at  the  public  treasury  alone,  which  prompts  this  clamor 
for  suffrage  basis. 

I  will  not  detain  the  committee  longer.  I  trust  the 
Convention  will  receive  my  apology  for  my  occupying 
thus  much  of  the  time  of  the  Convention.  The  resolu- 
tion^ presented  at  this  late  day,  when  the  necessity 
for  it  has  arisen,  and  I  trust,  therefore,  it  will  be  the 
pleasure  of  the  Convention  to  award  us  this  committee. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  before  another  week  closes,  they 
will  make  their  report,  and  the  debate  will  be  directed 
in  its  proper  channel,  and  that  the  result  may  be  that 
we  shall  bring  our  labors  to  some  safe,  proper  and  har- 
monious conclusion. 

Mr.  M.  GARKETT.  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech 
or  to  discuss  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Jef- 


352 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


fersqn,  but  as  one  coming  from  a  section  which  I  have 
heretofore  believed  to  be  doomed  on  this  subject  of  tax- 
ation, I  rise  to  tender  him  my  thanks  for  the  prospect 
of  relief  that  he  has  just  held  out  to  u?.  That  proposition 
will  raise  the  hope  among  my  constituents  that  day  is 
at  last  breaking,  and  that  better  days  are  in  store  for 
them.  I  have  become  perfectly  satisfied  of  one  thing, 
and  that  is,  that  so  far  as  tbe  region  of  country  from 
which  I  come  is  concerned,  it  is  scarcely  worth  the  toss 
of  a  button  what  sort  of  a  basis  we  have,  unless  we  have 
something  also  in  the  shape  of  guaranties.  I  have 
rather  more  faith  in  paper  guaranties  than  some  gen- 
tlemen, though  I  wouid  not  bargain  the  basis  for  the 
guaranties,  i  shall  go  for  retaining  the  mixed  basis, 
but  I  will  very  gladly  take  with  it  all  the  guaranties 
whieh  may' be  offered.  I  want  all  the  guaranties  1  can 
get.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  JANNEY.  I  shall  make  no  opposition  to  the 
adoption  of  this  resolution,  i  am  decidedly  in  favor  of 
its  adoption,  and  I  will  say  that  I  have  listened  to  some 
of  the  remarks  of  my  friend  (Mr.  Hunter)  with  a  great 
deal  of  pleasure,  although  I  am  not  so  sanguine  as  my 
friend  from  Essex.  Now.  if  I  mistake  not,  this  precise 
duty  oi  proposing  guaranties  was  devolved,  by  a  resolu- 
tion adopted  in  the  month  of  October  last,  upon  the 
Basis  Committee.  I  rise  now  to  ask  my  friend  from  Ka- 
nawha, the  chairman  of  that  committee,  if  it  is  reasona- 
ble for  us  to  hope  for  any  report  from  that  committee 
on  this  subject? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  my 
friend  from  Loudoun,  (Mr.  Janney,)  I  will  say  that  it  is 
very  difficult  for  me  to  state  what  may  or  may  not  be 
hoped  for,  especially  in  relation  to  the  committee  over 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  preside.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  the  resolution  adopted  in  October,  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  I  believe,  or  perhaps 
it  was  a  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley, 
adopted  by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  imposed  it 
oa  the  Basis  Committee  as  a  duty,  to  inquire  into  and 
report  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  limitations  upon 
legislative  power  would  be  proper  in  connection  with 
the  basis  of  representation.  The  Committee  on  the  Ba- 
sis, as  you  will  remember,  have  made  a  report  in  part, 
which  states  that  they  have  considered  the  subjects  re- 
ferred to  them  in  part,  and  have  reported  on  the  basis 
of  representation.  Whether  it  be  the  intention  of  the 
committee  to  examine  the  subject  of  limitations  upon 
legislative  power,  I  have  no  means  of  stating.  The 
committee  is  still  a  standing  committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion, although  it  has  reported  upon  one  branch  of  the 
duties  referred  to  them,  and  it  will  be  competent  for  it 
to  go  back  and  consider  any  other  subject  which  has 
been  or  which  may  hereafter  be  referred  to  it. 

I  am  prepared  to  say  now,  however,  in  answer  to  the 
gentleman  from  Loudoun,  that  although  I  am  ready  to 
consider  all  and  any  just  limitations  of  legislative  pow- 
er as  a  matter  of  general  interest  and  as  part  and  par- 
cel of  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government,  yet  I  do 
not  consider  it  expedient  to  engraft  them  as  part  and 
parcel  of  the  basis  of  representation.  I  am  not  willing 
to  consider  the  matter  of  guaranties  and  limitations  up- 
on legislative  power  as  a  condition  precedent  to  an  equal 
division  and  apportionment  of  legislative  power  among 
the  people  of  this  commonwealth.  While  1  am  willing 
to  unite  with  those  who  propose  guaranties  and  limita- 
tions on  legislative  authority,  new  and  at  all  times,  I 
am  willing  to  unite  with-  them  in  the  form  of  general 
clauses  and  provisions  of  the  constitution,  and  not  as 
connected  with  and  made  part  and  parcel  of  the  basis 
of  representation.  Now  there  is,  I  presume,  no  mem- 
ber of  the  committee,  certainly  none  with  whom  I  have' 
the  pleasure  to  act,  so  far  as  1  know  their  opinions,  who 
are  unwilling  to  yield  to  gentlemen  representing  the 
eastern  portion  of  this  commonwealth,  any  and  every 
provision  which  they  may  deem  essential  and  necessary 
for  the  security  of  property,  be  it  of  whatever  kind  it 
may.  We  all  admit  that  the  protection  of  property  is 
one"  of  the  great  objects  of  government  here  ana  every/; 


where.  We  are  ready  to  unite  with  you  in  the  protec- 
tion of  property,  whether  it  be  of  that  particular  species 
of  property  of  which  you  have  a  much  larger  amount 
east  of  the  mountains,  or  any  other  species  of  property, 
j  We  come  here  ready  to  unite  in  any  slavery  measure 
which  you  may  devise  and  ask  as  proper  and  reasonable 
for  the  protection  of  this  property  and  every  species  of 
property.  But  you  tell  us  when  we  offer  our  guaranties 
and  limitations  upon  legislative  power,  t  at  they  are 
not  worth  a  groat.  What  have  we  seen  in  this  Conven- 
tion' My  friend  from  Fauquier  was  the  gentleman  who 
imposed  it  as  a  duty  upon  this  Basis  Committee  to  con- 
sider and  report  upon  any  and  all  limitations  of  legisla- 
tive power  that  we  might  deem  expedient  as  a  basis  of 
representation,  and  yet  what  do  we  see  coming  from 
that  gentleman  ?  The  very  moment  that  the  gentleman 
from  Berkeley  (Mr.  Faulkner)  proposed  a  series  of 
limitations  on  legislative  power,  and  a  guarantee  for  the 
protection  of  property,  how  was  if  met  by  my  friend 
fro  in  Fauquier?  By,  as  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson 
(  v  r.  Hunter)  has  just  said,  with  a  sneer.  He  tells 
you  that  he  wants  no  guaranties  and  that  he  scorns  your 
proposition.  What  will  your  paper  guaranties  amount 
to,  said  he,  I  will  not  give  a  groat  for  them.  Gentle- 
men who  are  thus  seeking  to  get  at  the  consideration  of 
this  matter  of  guaranties  and  limitations,  the  very 
moment  that  propositions  are  made  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  the  end  which  they  themselves  avow  they  have 
in  view,  turn  upon  those  who  propose  them  with  a 
sneer,  and  denounce  them  as  utterly  worthless.  Now 
in  this  state  of  things,  I  take  this  for  granted.  We  here 
from  the  west  propose  to  you  a  basis  of  representation 
which  shall  impart  to  every  man  in  this  commonwealth 
qualified  to  vote  at  all,  equal  political  power.  We  main- 
tain that  property  as  well  as  personal  rights  are  safer  in 
the  hands  of  a  majority  than  in  the  hands  of  a  minority. 
We  say  that  the  majority  have  the  right  to  rule,  you 
maintain  that  the  minority  ought  to  have  the  power  to 
rule.  You  maintain  on  your  part  that  property  must 
have  protection  that  there  must  be  limitations  upon  le- 
gislative authority  over  taxation  and  appropriation,  and 
you  say  further  that  this  end  can  only  be  secured  by 
seizing  in  ydur  own  hands,  the  hands  of  a  minority,  the 
reins  of  government,  and  that  you  alone  must  hold  and 
drive.  Now  the  difference  between  us  is  this,  and  here 
is  the  issue.  We  guarantee  to  you,  we  accord  to  you 
fully  that  the  protection  of  property  is  one  of  tbe  great 
fundamental  objects  of  government,  and  we  say  that 
that  protection,  is  to  be  obtained  by  all  essential  guar- 
anties and  proper  limitations  on  legislative  power.  You 
say  that  in  that  shape  the  protection  is  worthless,  and 
that  it  is  only  useful  in  the  form  which  you  devise,  and 
that  is  by  holding  the  power  yourselves,  and  by  retain- 
ing the  authority  of  the  legislature  in  the  hands  of  a 
minority.  That  is  the  distinction  between  us.  Now 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  the  other  day,  with  that 
candor  for  which  he  is  distinguished,  placed  this  ques- 
tion upon  this  single  proposition.  The  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  has  said  that  the  only  single  ground  of  appre- 
hension which  he  has  under  Heaven,  is  in  reference  to 
the  levying  of  taxes  and  the  appropriation  of  the  public 
revenue,  and  that  in  reference  to  all  other  subjects  of 
alarm,  he  does  not  participate  in  that  alarm,  bu.  regards 
them  as  chimerical  and  as  mere  matters  of  the  imagina- 
tion. It  is  in  reference  to  the  power  of  taxation  and  ap- 
propriation only  that  he  entertains  any  apprehension  ; 
and  the  gentleman  himself  has  said,  that  in  reference  to 
this,  it  can,  in  his  opinion,  be  regulated  and  limited  by 
restrictions  and  by  guaranties.  He  has  himself  thus  far 
taken  the  ground  upon  which  western  men  stand  here. 
We  come  here  asking  you  for  an  equal  proportion  and 
distribution  of  political  power  among  the  people  of  this 
commonwealth,  and  we  connect  with  it  the  proffer  to 
unite  with  you  in  ail  just  limitations  and  guaranties. 
And  the  gent.eman  from  Fauquier,  the  head  and  front 
of  those  who  maintain  this  mixed  basis  proposition, 
their  flag-bearer  in  this  great  controversy,  has  himself 
admitted  in  the  presence  of  this  Convention  and  of  the 
people  of  the  commonwealth,  that  this  is  the  only 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


ground  of  fear  and  apprehension  which  he  has,  and  he,  sumed  the  consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole. 


says  that  it  may  be  provided  against.  Now  he  has 
coupled  with  the  other  assertion  the  declaration  of  opin- 
ion, on  his  part  that  it  cannot  be  provided  against  ex 


(Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair,)  of  the  report  of  the  a  mmit- 
tee  on  the  basis  and  apportionment  of  representation. 
The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 


cept  by  limitations  that  may  restrict  in  the  future  fur-!  sition  of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier 


ther  than  he  is  willing  to  go,  the  power  of  internal  im 
provement.  That  may  be  a  point  deserving  of  examina- 
tion hereafter  ;  it  is  not  my  purpose  of  going  into  any 
discussion  of  it  now.  But  the  ground  upon  which  I  ap- 
prehend western  gentlemen  will  be  found  to  stand  is 
this:  We  ask  as  a  matter  of  right  an  equal  distribu- 
tion of  political  power  among  the  people  of  this  com- 
monwealth, and  at  the  same  time  we  are  ready  to  unite 
with  you  when  you  shall  devise  and  present  to  us  for 
our  action  all  judicious  and  proper  limitation  and  guar- 
anties upon  the  powers  of  the  majority.  That  is  what 
we  understand  a  minority  has  a  right  to  ask,  but  that  a 
minority  has  a  right  to  ask  that  they  shall  themselves 
hold  the  power  of  the  government,  and  that  the  legis- 
lative authority  shall  be  confided  to  their  hands,  we  ut- 
terly deny  and  repudiate.  We  admit  of  the  right  of  the 
minority  to  ask  of  the  majority  sueh  constitutional  pro- 
visions or  assurances,  call  them  what  you  please,  limi- 
tations, guaranties,  or  anything  else,  as  shall  secure 
them  from  aggression  and  the  abuse  of  the  power  of  the 
majority.  Such  provisions  for  instance  as  shall  secure 
uniformity  of  taxation,  and  against  injustice  in  the  ap- 
propriating power.  That  we  admit,  I  say,  a  minority 
have  the  right  to  ask  of  the  majority,  and  that  this  ma- 
jority here  stand  ready  to  concede  and  give  them.  Let 
it  be  understood  by  the  people  of  this  commonwealth 


Mr.  nAixiiouii.  ivir.  uuutriuan :  I  think  that  my 
course,  since  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  1  ody,  gives 
a  stronger  assurance  of  the  diffidence  and  reluctance 
vvith  which  I  obtrude  myself  upon  the  attention  of 
■  he  Convention,  than  any  form  of  words  which  1  could 
employ.  As  one  of  the  youngest — perhaps  the  young- 
est— member  upon  this  floor,  I  have  felt  that  it  was  due 
to  the  Convention,  and  due  to  myself,  that  I  should  not 
press  myself  upon  its  notice,  except  when  impelled  to 
do  so  by  a  sense  of  duty.  But,  like  other  gentlemen 
upon  this  floor,  I  have  duties  to  discharge ;  and,  if  those 
who  sent  me  here  had  apprehended  that  I  would  per- 
mit considerations  of  personal  delicacy  and  diffidence 
to  embarrass  me  in  the  discharge  of  those  duties,  that 
full-measured  confidence  by  authority  of  which  I  am 
here,  would  have  been  withheld,  and  rroperly  withheld, 
from  me.  I  cannot,  therefore,  shrink  from  the  task  that 
is  before  me.  I  must,  however,  in  the  outset,  invoke 
the  indulgence  of  the  committee.  I  am,  for  the  first 
time  in  my  life,  addressing  a  deliberative  assembly,  and 
am  very  well  aware  that  I  may  not  be  able  to  adapt  my 
style  to  the  proprieties  of  this  new  position.  The  com- 
mittee, must,  therefore,  pardon  me  if  I  use,  upon  this 
occasion,  the  same  unreserve  of  manner,  the  same  free- 
dom  of  speech,  that  I  would  do  were  I  addressing  my 


and  of  the  world,  that  whiie  you  here  are  twitting  us  ^ends  and  neignbors  from  the  galleries  of  my  own 
about  guaranties  and  limitations,  and  sneering  at  paper!  court  llouse'  or  uPon  .the  JmT  bench  in  my  own  county, 
guaranties  and  assurances  of  this  kind,  you,  a  minority  1  add>  ^  1  deslre  to  say  nothing  that  is  offensive 
of  the  people  of  the  commonwealth  are  claiming  here}  to  any  gentleman,  or  any  collection  of  gentlemen  here 


that  the  only  mode  in  which  you  can  be  secured  in  your 
property  is  by  allowing  you,  a  minority  of  the  people, 
to  hold  the  whole  power  of  government  yourselves. 
That  is  the  true  condition  of  things  at  this  moment,  that 
too  in  connection  with  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  that  there  is  but  one  subject  in  regard 
to  which  any  apprehension  need  be  entertained  at  all, 
and  that  subject  he  confesses  may  be  so  disposed  of  as 
to  prevent  any  injustice  or  any  improper  exercise  of 
power. 

I  had  no  idea  of  being  called  upon  to  say  a  word  in 
reference  to  these  matters.  My  desire  was  simply  to 
respond  to  the  inquiry  of  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun 
in  reference  to  the  duties  of  the  basis  committee.  It  is 
well  known  that  that  committee  was  equally  divided. 
In  reference  to  this  question  of  limitations  and  guaran- 
ties, so  far  as  I  know  the  opinions  of  the  western  mem- 
bers of  that  committee,  it.  was  that  whatever  guaran- 
ties and  limitations  should  be  deemed  necessary  and 
proper  ought  to  come  from  the  legislative  committee, 
and  ought  to  be  provided  for  by  the  operation  of  gen- 
eral provisions  in  the  constitution,  and  ought  not  to  be 
made  part  and  parcel  of  the  basis  of  representation, 
and  that  representation  ought  not  to  be  based  upon  them 
a3  a  condition  to  its  apportionment. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  Conven- 
tion that  if  speeches  which  are  made  in  committee  may 
be  replied  to  in  the  Convention,  that  gentlemen  will 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  make  their 
speeches  upon  this  question  in  the  Convention.  I  move 
that  we  now  resolve  ourselves  into  a  committee  of  the 
whole,  and  I  do  so  because  a  gentleman  has  the  floor, 
and  is  prepared  to  proceed. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Is  such  a  motion  in  order  while  a 
question  is  pending? 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  in  order. 

Mr.  CONWAY.  If  it  is  understood  that  there  is  to 
be  no  further  discussion  in  the  Convention  on  the  ques- 
tion, I  will  withdraw  my  motion. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
Hunter,  and  it  was  adopted. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 
The  Convention  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Cox  way,  re- 


And  if  any  remark  shall  fall  from  me,  that  may  seem  to 
bear  such  a  construction,  I  ask  that  it  may  be  attributed 
rather  to  inadvertance,  arising  out  of  the  excitement  of 
the  moment,  than  to  any  purpose  to  wound  the  sensibil- 
ities of  gentlemen. 

In  discussing  this  subject,  I  shall  endeavor  to  view  it 
fairly  in  each  of  the  two  aspects  in  which  it  has  been 
considered  by  most  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  prece- 
ded me  in  the  debate — first  as  an  abstract  question,  and 
next  as  one  involving  the  gravest  considerations  of  pub- 
lic liberty  and  public  safety.  One  party  upon  this  floor 
contends  that  what  they  denominate  the  suffrage  basis 
of  representation  is  the  only  basis  consistent  with  pop- 
ular rights,  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  liberty, 
as  they  are  asserted  in  our  own  bill  of  rights.  If  their 
position  is  a  sound  one,  then  there  i&  an  end  to  the  dis- 
cussion. I  acknowledge  that  there  would  then  be  no 
occasion  for  further  argument,  and  we  should  be  bound 
to  go  along  with  them.  If,  however,  this  question  of 
abstract  right  is  not  with  them,  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  free  government  do  not  require  us  to  adopt 
the  basis  for  which  they  contend,  then  we  must  give 
ourselves  over  to  the  guidance  of  those  considerations 
of  public  policy  and  safety  that  apply  to  the  actual  con- 
dition of  the  country  for  which  we  are  organizing  a  gov- 
ernment. 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  main  part  of  this  argument, 
I  shall  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  one  or 
two  points  that  have  already  been  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion by  other  gentlemen,  and  have  a  more  or  less  di- 
rect connection  with  it.  I  have  been  surprised  and 
amused  at  the  superior  purity  of  motive,  and  devotion 
to  principle,  which  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  seem 
disposed  to  assume  for  themselves.  We  are  informed 
that  with  them  it  is  a  contest  for  principle,  and  lor  prin- 
ciple alone.  They  profess  to  prosecute  this  contest  for  ^ 
principle  with  a  white-handed,  pure-hearted  faith  that 
would  contemn  any  association  with  views  of  interest. 
The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey)  even  tells 
us  that  when,  on  one  occasion,  in  the  discussion  of  this 
subject  before  his  constituents,  arguments  were  ad- 
dressed to  them  founded  on  considerations  of  their  own 
interests,  a  ground-swell  of  indignation  rebuked  the 


364 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


seemly  assault  upon  their  virtuous  devotion  to  princi- 
ple. That  gentleman  permitted  his  fancy  to  range  in 
delighted  vision  throughout  western  Virginia,  every 
■where  beholding  nothiug  but  this  disinterested  and  ar- 
dent enthusiasm  in  behalf  of  the  great  principles  of 
which  he  is  the  champion.  But  the  moment  that  he 
crosses  the  mountain  that  interposes  between  the  Val- 
ley and  the  Piedmont,  this  appearance  changes,  and  the 
gentleman's  sensibilities  are  shocked  at  the  odious  coin- 
cidence which  he  thinks  he  perceives  between  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  interests  of  the  people  in  that  quarter 
of  the  State.  And,  by  way  of  chastising  this  reprehen- 
sible dereliction,  the  Piedmont  is  to  be  made  the  sub- 
ject and  the  victim  of  the  prejudices  of  this  Convention. 
Other  gentlemen  have  equally  indulged  in  a  strain  of 
applause  at  the  peculiar  and  exclusive  enthusiasm  for 
principle  which  inspires  them  and  their  constituents  in 
this  contest.  I  understood  the  gentleman  from  Preston 
(Mr.  Brown)  to  go  so  far  as  to  intimate  that  he  would 
still  adhere  to  his  principle,  even  did  the  experience  of 
the  other  States  in  this  cenfederacy  demonstrate  its  im- 
policy. But  the  gentleman  who  occupied  the  attention 
of  the  committee  on  yesterday  (Mr.  Lucas)  went  fur- 
ther on  this  point  than  any  one  has  yet  gone  ;  for  I  un- 
derstood him  to  congratulate  himself  that  the  ardor  of 
this  attachment  to  their  principles  had  placed  him  and 
his  constituents  in  a  position  actually  in  conflict  with 
their  interests.  This  fact  he  seemed  to  think  ought  to 
give  peculiar  force  and  influence  to  the  views  and  ad- 
vice which  his  constituents  might  address  to  the  practi- 
cal and  intelligent  people  who  live  on  this  side  of  the 
mountain.  This  gentleman  entertained  us  at  length 
with  a  beautiful  eulogy  upon  the  happy  condition  of 
public  sentiment  in  his  county.  I  was  delighted  with 
the  eloquence  of  the  gentleman,  and  permitted  myself 
for  a  time  to  be  lost  in  admiration  of  the  holy  ardor  and 
enthusiasm  for  principle  that  prevailed  in  that  end  of 
the  Valley.  The  gentleman's  voice  was  occasionally 
inaudible  where  I  sat,  and  it  was  in  the  midst  of  one  of 
those  bursts  of  eulogy,  that  I  lost  the  connection;  and 
when  he  again,  in  a  few  moments,  became  audible  to  me, 
I  was  astonished  to  find  him  now  dilating  with  the  same 
fervor  upon  the  policy  and  equity  of  getting  some  of 
the  loaves  and  fishes  upon  his  side  of  the  Blue  Ridge. 
I  must  confess  that  I  was  entirely  at  a  loss  to  perceive 
any  particular  connection  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  free  government,  and  the  natural  rights  of  men,  with 
the  idea  of  getting  some  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  over 
the  mountain.  This  transition  from  principle  to  interest 
was  accomplished  with  a  grace  and  rapidity  which  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta  even  would  hardly  expect 
to  see  surpassed  in  the  Piedmont.  If  the  subject  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes  had  been  introduced  into  this  discus- 
sion by  one  of  the  representatives  from  Piedmont,  it 
might  have  seemed  to  some  to  be  only  in  accordance 
with  the  general  character  which  it  has  pleased  certain 
gentlemen  to  attribute  to  that  section.  But,  coming  from 
the  quarter  that  it  did,  and  in  the  connection  in  which 
it  was  introduced,  I  must  again  repeat  the  expression 
of  my  profound  amazement. 

"  The  thing  itself  was  neither  rich  nor  rare,  • 
The  only  wonder  is,  how  thed-— 1  it  got  there  " 

In  reply  to  all  this  assumed  disregard  of  interest,  I 
might  simply  ask  gentlemen  if  they  do  not  think  that 
the  interests  of  their  constituents  will  be  promoted  by 
the  suffrage  basis?  If  such  is  your  own  view  of  your 
own  interests,  do  you  not  yourselves  present  that  very 
coincidence  between  your  interests  and  your  principles, 
$  as  you  regard  them,  which  is  imputed  as  an  offence  to 
the  Piedmont  people  ?  But  I  propose  to  prosecute,  a 
little  further,  the  investigation  which  such  assumption 
justifies  and  invites. 

The  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffet,)  have  both  pre- 
sented somewhat  at  length,  the  history  of  parties  on  this 
basis  question.  I  propose  very  briefly  to  follow  these 
gentlemen  through  a  portion  of  that  history,  and  correct 


some  of  their  facts.  I  wish  to  inquiie  whether  the  par- 
ty to  which  these  gentlemen  are  attached  has  always 
been  centroiled  by  that  exclusive  and  disinterested  de- 
votion to  principle  which  is  claimed  for  them.  I  think 
that  by  the  time  I  have  gone  through  with  this  portion 
of  my  subject,  it  will  be  found  that  there  are  other  sec- 
tions besides  the  Piedmont  which  sometimes  consult 
their  own  interests. 

The  gentlemen  inform  us,  that  in  the  arrangement  of 
senatorial  districts  in  1816,  the  white  basis  party  ob- 
tained such  a  recognition  of  their  principles  as  was  sat- 
isfactory to  them.  They*  derive  this  assertion,  I  know, 
from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Doddridge  in  the  last  convention. 
But  they  have  entirely  overlooked  the  correction  of  Mr. 
Doddridge's  statement,  that  was  made  shortly  after- 
wards, in  the  same  body,  by  Mr.  Tazewell.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  the  debates  of  that  Convention.  A  t  the  close  of 
his  speech  on  the  basis  question,  Mr.  Tazewell  refers  to> 
the  history  of  that  senatorial  re-apportionment  in  1816. 
He  says  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that 
brought  in  that  re-apportionment  bill,  and  was,  of  course, 
cognizant  of  all  its  proceedings.  He  informs  us  that 
those  districts  were  arranged,  not  on  the  white  popula- 
tion basis- — certainly  not  on  the  suffrage  basis- — but  upon 
a  compound  basis  of  taxation,  federal  numbers,  and  white 
population.  In  connection  with  the  fact  which  I  have 
just  presented,  I  ask  attention  to  another  fact,  also  sta- 
ted by  Mr.  Tazewell.  He  says  that  the  west  was  satis- 
fied with  the  apportionment  then  made.  Mr.  Doddridge 
likewise-  states,  that  after  this  senatorial  apportionment,, 
the  western  people  took  a  breathing  spell,  and  agitation 
was  suspended  until  1824.  That  re-apportionment  gave 
the  west  nine  senators.  Previously  they  had  but  four. 
It  will  be  observed  that  this  re-apportionment  gave  to 
this  party  of  devotees  to  principle,  a  large  accession  of 
power,  but  no  recognition  of  their  principle.  They  hug- 
ged the  power  to  their  bosoms,  and  smiled  over  its  pos- 
session, out  they  forgot  to  shed  one  tear,  or  utter  one 
word  in  melancholy  commemoration  of  their  abandoned 
principle.  The  gentleman  from  Augusta  told  us  with 
an  air  of  triumph  that  the  mixed  basis  was  not  heard  of 
in  1818.  I  have  shown  that  it  was  the  very  basis  that- 
then  prevailed.  I  -ftish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  a  principle  of  basis  that  really  was  not  heard 
of  in  the  re-apportionment  of  1816.  The  suffrage  basis- 
was  not  then  demanded.  It  was  the  whole  white  pop- 
ulation that  was  then  urged  as  the  basis  by  the  ardent 
and  enthusiastic  devotees  of  the  rights  of  man  and  the 
fundamental  principles  of  libertv  asserted  in  the  bill  of 
rights.  Such,  likewise  was  the  basis  demand  by  this 
party  in  the  Staunton  Convention  in  1816,  and  in  1825. 
So  far,  if  my  information  be  correct,  this  party  planted 
itself  upon  the  white  population  basis,  and  not  the  suf- 
frage basis.  We  come  now  to  the  Convention  of  1829  y 
where  the  entire  sentiment  of  this  party  in  the  State 
was  organized  and  represented.  In  that  Convention 
this  suffrage  basis,  now  presented  as  the  only  basis 
consistent  with  the  rights  of  men  and  the  principles  of 
liberty,  had  but  two  advocates  !  One  of  those  was  R. 
B.  Taylor,  whose  powers  were  revoked  at  an  early 
period  of  the  session.  The  other  was  Chapman  John- 
son, and  the  fact  that  he  stood  alone  on  that  question  is 
strikingly  significant  of  the  feeling  with  which  this  suf- 
frage basis  was  then  regarded.  The  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  the  other  day,  described  Philip  Doddridge,  in 
1829,  as  standing,  like  an  eagle-eyed  sentinel  on  the 
crest  of  the  Alleghany,  to  guard  the  western  interest 
from  the  approach  of  open  and  secret  foe.  The  eagle- 
eyed  sentinel  did  not  hesitate  to  challenge  even  Chap- 
man Johnson,  and  when  he  gave  the  suffrage  basis  as 
the  countersign,  Philip  Doddridge  would  rot  admit 
him  into  the  camp.  Yes,  in  the  convention  of  1829,  in 
the  presence  of  the  whole  white-basis  party,  Mr,  Dod- 
dridge told  Chapman  Johnson  that  he  was  the  only  one 
of  that  party  who  was  in  favor  of  the  suffrage  basis.  I 
trust  the  committee  will  give  their  attention  to  two 
short  extracts,  which  I  will  venture  to  read  from  the 
debates  of  the  last  Convention  : 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


365 


ii  Mr.  Doddridge  rose  to  notice  a  remark  of  Mr,  Scott 
on  what  had  fallen  from  Mr.  Johnson,  He  understood 
Mr.  Johnsoii  to  have  stated  it  as  his  understanding  of 
the  first  proposition  in  the  report  of  the  legislative 
committee,  that  representation  was  to  be  apportioned 
on  the  basis  of  qualified  voters  ;  and  he  had  added  that 
he  supposed  this  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  mover 
of  that  resolution  in  the  legislative  committee.  Now, 
Mr.  Doddridge  said  that  he  had  himself  been  the  mover 
of  it,  and  such  an  interpretation  was  certainly  very  far 
from  his  purpose.  He  had  never  intended  any  such 
thing  ;  nor, "so  far  as  he  knew,  had  such  an  interpreta- 
tion entered  into  the  minds  of  the  legislative  committee. 
His  doctrine  and  his  desire  was,  that  representation  was 
to  be  apportioned  according  to  the  entire  white  popula- 
tion."— Debates,  p.  342. 

At  a  later  period  of  the  session  he  again  repudiates 
the  suffrage  basis  in  behalf  of  all  his  associates  in  the 
Convention. 

"Mr.  Doddridge,  in  explanation  to  Mr.  Stanard, 
disclaimed  any  opinion  on  the  part  of  his  friends, 
that  representation  was  to  be  based  on  votes  alone  ; 
none  of  them  hold  it  but  Mr.  Johnson.'5  [Debates,  p. 
501.1 

There  is  what  Mr.  Doddridge  said  uncontradicted 
from  any  quarter.  Am  I  not  then  fully  authorized  to 
say  that  the  suffrage  basis  was  rejected  by  the  able 
men  who  represented  western  interests  in  the  Conven- 
tion of  1829?  That  the  principle  involved  in  this  suf- 
frage basis  was  not  regarded  by  those  men  as  one  con- 
sistent with  the  principles  upon  which  they  then  plant- 
ed their  party  ?  A  change  is  now  brought  about,  and 
that  which  was  rejected  of  the  builders  in  1829,  i? 
made  the  corner  stone  ol  the  edifice  .Here  we  find  this 
party  changing  position  in  1851.  Let  us  direct  our  at- 
tention back  again  for  a  few  moments,  and  inquire 
whether  there  has  been  any  change  of  interest  coinci- 
dent with  this  change  of  principle.  The  committee 
will  remember  that  in  1816  the  free-hold  suffrage  was  in 
force.  In  1829  it  was  understood  that  the  right  of  suf- 
frage would  be  extended  to  hGuse-keepers  who  were  tax 
payers.  Mr.  Johnson,  in  the  Convention  of  1829,  sub- 
mitted estimates  of  the  results  of  the  Avhite  population 
basis,  and  of  the  suffrage  basis,  as  the  suffrage  qualifi- 
cations then  stood,  and  also  as  it  was  proposed  to  ex- 
tend it.  White  population  basis  gave  the  west  fifty-six 
members  in  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  twenty.  The 
■suffrage  basis,  if  the  right  of  suffrage  was  not  extended, 
would  give  the  west  forty-seven  members  ;  and  if  the 
right  suffrage  should  be  extended  ?,s  was  then  expected 
to  tax  paying  house-keepers,  the  suffrage  basis  would 
give  the  west  fifty  members.  [Debates,  p.  270.]  Thus 
the  white  population  basis  gave  the  west  nine  members 
more  than  the  suffrage  basis,  as  the  right  (if  suffrage 
then  was  and  had  been  in  1816  ;  and  it  gave  six  more 
than  the  suffrage  basis  after  the  contemplated  extension 
of  the  right  of  suffrage.  In  that  condition  of  affairs, 
western  gentlemen,  with  almost  unbroken  unanimity, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  white  population  basis 
was  the  only  basis  consistent  with  the  rights  of  man 
and  democratic  principles.  How  is  it  now?  Why  it 
is  generally  anticipated  that  the  right  of  suffrage  will 
be  extended  to  nearly  all  the  adult  males  in  the  State. 
It  is  well  known  that  in  an  immigrating  community  the 
number  of  adult  males  is  larger  in  proportion  to  the 
whole  population  than  it  is  in  an  emigrating  communi- 
ty. Eastern  Virginia  is  an  emigrating  country,  Western 
Virginia  is  an  immigrating  country,  so  that  after  the 
contemplated  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  the 
suffrage  basis  will  probably  give  Western  Virginia  more 
power  than  white  population  basis.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances we  find  gentlemen  repudiating  the  white 
population  basis  with  the  same  unanimity  with  which 
they  formerly  repudiated  the  suffrage  basis,  and  now 
vehemently  contending  that  the  latter  basis  is  the  one 
whose  principle  meets  the  full  requirements  of  the  bill 
of  rights!  Here,  then,  I  point  to  a  change  of  position 
and  of  principle,  and  coincident  with  it  a  change  of  in- 
terest.   1  find  that  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  these  gentle- 


Imen  to  reason  themselves  into  the  adoption  of  the  par- 
ticular principle  that  gives  them  the  most  power.  Let 
my  western  friends  not  misunderstand  me.  I  do  not 
charge  them  with  seeking  power  for  improper  purposes. 
You  no  doubt  think  that  when  you  have  obtained  pow- 
er you  will  use  it  wisely  and  well.  But  I  think  that  I 
have  detected  tiie  unnoticed  and  pervading  influence  of 
the  desire  for  power  that  has  shaped  and  fashioned 
their  principles.  In  view  of  the  facts  which  1  have  re- 
cited, I  feel  authorized  to  deny  their  assumption  of  su- 
perior and  disinterested  devotion  to  principle,  and  to 
tell  them  freely  and  boldly  that  on  their  side  the  love  of 
power,  mingles  with  the  love  of  principle. 

But  1  have  not  contented  myself  with  an  investigation 
of  the  past ;  I  have  extended  my  inquiries  to  the  course  of 
of  gentlemen  in  this  Convention,  upon  this  subject.  I  ask 
you  to  go  along  with  me  and  review  the  course  of  gentle- 
men who  represent  western  views  upon  this  floor,  and 
see  if  there  is  not  that  same  coincidence  even  here  be- 
tween their  interest  and  their  practical  operation  of 
their  own  principle  ?  I  particularly  invite  the  attention 
of  all  my  western  friends  to  what  I  am  now  going  to 
present  to  the  committee.  We  are  persuaded  that  the 
fires  of  indignation  are  always  ready  to  kindle  in  the 
bosom  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,) 
as  well  as  in  the  bosoms  of  his  virtuous  constituents,  at 
the  bare  thought  of  sacrificing  principle  to  interest. 
Let  that  gentleman  prepare  one  of  his  genuine  ground- 
swells  of  indignation  now — for  he  has  himself  been  an 
active  participant  in  what  I  am  about  to  expose.  In 
order  lhat  there  may  be  no  misapprehension  on  my  part 
of  the  position  of  western  gentlemen,  I  will  state  it  as 
I  understand  it.  If  I  state  it  inaccurately,  I  ask  as  a 
favor  that  some  gentleman  on  that  side  will  correct  me. 
They  contend  that  a  majority  of  the  voters  in  the  State 
ought  to  control  the  legislation  of  the  State.  They 
take  for  the  present  the  number  of  white  population, 
as  the  measure  of  the  number  of  voters,  and  profess 
that  in  arranging  and  distributing  representation  among 
the  counties  and  election  districts,  those  counties  and 
election  districts  which  contain  a  majority  of  the  white 
population  shall  always  be  enabled  to  elect  a  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  legislature.  Have  I  stated  your 
doctrine  correctly?  Now  let  us  see  what  is  the  practi- 
cal operation  of  this  principle,  as  it  is  exhibited  in  the 
report  of  the  western  portion  of  the  basis  committee? 
Twelve  of  the  most  distinguished  gentlemen  from  West- 
ern Virginia,  constitute  one  half  of  the  basis  commit- 
tee. Without  interference  or  hindrance  from  our  side, 
these  gentlemen  have  leisurely  and  deliberately  matur- 
ed their  own  application  of  their  own  principle.  The 
result  of  their  labor  is  presented  as  the  scheme  of  rep- 
resentation which  gives  practical  operation  to  the  prin- 
ciples for  which  they  contend,  and  which  therefore 
they  wish  to  incorporate  as  a  part  of  the  new  constitu- 
tion. This  report  was  presented  some  weeks  ago,  has 
been  printed  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  every  member 
of  the  Convention.  No  proposition  to  amend — no  com- 
plaint of  its  imperfection  has  yet  come  from  a  single 
member  on  the  other  side.  I  take  it  therefore,  that 
this  proposition  meets  the  general  approval  of  western 
gentlemen,  and  fully* accomplishes  their  views  and  pur- 
poses. 

I  hold  in'my  hand  a  tabular  statement — I  do  not  in- 
tend to  trouble  the  committee  by  reading  it,  but  as  soon 
as  I  am  done  referring  to  it  any  gentleman  will  be  at 
liberty  to  take  it  and  examine  it  at  his  leisure — shewing 
that  sixty-two  counties  and  election  districts  embracing 
395,618  white  population  will  be  authorized  upon  this 
plan  to  elect  seventy-nine  out  of  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  membersjj'of  the  House  of  Delegates,  while  the  rest 
of  the  counties  embracing  about  500,000  inhabitants  are 
authorized  to  elect  but  seventy-seven  members.  Yet 
worse,  by  adding  five  other  counties  to  the  list  we  have 
sixty-seven  counties  containing  437,000  population 
electing  eighty-six  delegates,  while  the  other  counties 
containing  458,000  population  sent  buf  seventy  dele- 
gates. Thus  a  minority  by  some  twenty  thousand  have 
a  majority  of  sixteen  in  the  house  of  delegates,  by  a 

4 


366 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


plan  whose  professed  purpose  is  to  give  the  control  of 
the  legislature  exclusively  to  the  numerical  majority. 
The  same  remarkabie  consistencies  are  observed  in 
their  senatorial  apportionment.    I  have  not  gone  to  the 
trouble  of  preparing  a  tabular  statement  in  reference 
to  the  senate.    But  I  have  marked  here  on  the  face  of 
the  printed  report  nineteen  districts  embracing  in  round 
numbers  about  437,000  population  which  are  authori- 
zed upon  the  plan,  to  elect  nineteen  senators  out  of 
thirty-six.    The  other  districts  including  about  458,000 
p-jpulation  elect  but  seventeen  senators.    A  minority 
by  twenty  thousand  thu3  control  the  senate  on  the  ma- 
jority plan  !    Here  is  devotion  to  principle  for  you  with 
a  vengeance.    The  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr. 
Lucas)  told  us  that  it  was  not  merely  a  sectional  ma- 
jority east  or  west,  but  a  majority  scattered  all  over 
the  State  into  whose  hands  he  would  pass  the  govern- 
ment.   Yet  upon  the  very  plan  that  he  advocates  as 
the  embodiment  of  his  own  principles,  here  will  be  a 
minority  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  people 
scattered  all  over  the  State,  from  Accomacto  Brooke, 
and  from  Accomacto  Russell,  that  will  elect  a  majori- 
ty of  the  House  of  Delegates.    Yet  in  the  face  of  this 
strange  exhibition  of  their  own  application  of  their 
own  principles,  I  think  1  can  hear  the  mild-toned,  mu- 
sical accents  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Pres- 
ton (Mr.  Brown-)  still  singing  in  my  ears  that  in  sup- 
porting this  report  he  was  only  following  his  principles. 
Gentlemen  have  followed  their  vaunted  principles,  un- 
til they  have  transported  the  sceptre  over  Rocktish  gap, 
and,  while  embracing  the  power  that  is  brought  to 
them,  they  cease  to  pay  any  further  regard  to  the  prin-  j 
ciple.    The  only  majority  to  which  this  report  is  sedu-| 
lous  to  secure  the  control  of  the  legislature,  is  the  sec- 
tional majority  lying  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  mountain. 
Professing  to  be  content  with  nothing  but  a  government 
of  the  numerical  majority,  gentlemen  are  here  pres- 
sing the  adoption  of  a  system  that  gives  the  control  of 
the  House  of  Delegates  to  a  minority  of  more  than  one 
hundred  thousand.    Yet  the  gentleman  from  Preston 
assures  us  that  they  are  on'y  following  their  principles. 
Well,  I  always  thought,  for  reasons  which  I  will  ex- 
plain before  I  resume  my  seat,  that  in  attempting  to 
follow  the  principles  professed  by  these  gentlemen,  they 
were  following  a  very  unpractical,  unsafe  and  unrelia- 
ble guide.    1  thought  that  they  were  following  a  will  o' 
the  wisp.    But  1  hardly  expected  that  they  would  be 
entic?d  into  such  a  quagmire  as  that  in  which  they  are 
now  floundering.    The  gentleman  must  excuse  me. 
He  does  not  find  his  principles  in  this  reported  plan. 
If  he  wants  to  follow  them  he  must  begin  his  travels 
anew.    I  am  sorry  1  cannot  tell  him  how  and  where  he 
will  overtake  them.    Perhaps  they  have  taken  refuge 
among  the  virtuous  and  enthusiastic  constituents  of  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  and  are  now 
preparing  that  ground-swell  of  indignation  which  sure 
iy  must  overwhelm  the  gentleman  when  he  returns  to 
those  constituents  after  having  been  a  chief  agent  in 
preparing  a  plan  of  constitutional  organization  by  which 
power  was  secured  to  them,  while  their  beloved  prin- 
ciples were  prostrated  and  abandoned.  .Or,  perhaps 
they  have  crossed  over  to  Monongalia,  and  are  now 
kindling  the  fires  of  that  volcano,  which  the  gentleman 
from  that  county  (Mr.  Willey)  informed  us  would 
burst  in  destructive  eruption  upon  the   heads  of  all 
those  who  support  any  scheme  by  which  the  hands  of  a 
minority  control  the  government.    I  am  very  fearful 
that  the  gentleman  will  fall  the  first  victim  of  his  own 
volcano.    For  he  has  made  an  eloquent  speech  in  favor 
of  this  report. 

The  great  outcry  that  has  been  raised  here  against 
the  mixed  ba«is  report,  is  alleged  to  have  been  occa- 
sioned by  its  giving  a  minority  of  ninety-one  thousand 
the  control  of  the  legislative  department,  and  putting 
money  in  the  s^ale  against  men.  Gentleman  have  ex- 
hausted language  of  invective  in  denouncing  a  proposi- 
tion (and  such  they  declare  ours  to  be)  which  weighs 


to  express  the  abhorrence  with  which  gentlemen  regard 
this  proposition.  The  gentlemen  from  Augusta  and 
Accomac  (Mr.  Sheffey  and  Mr.  Wise)  have  re-infor- 
ced  language  with  the  most  significant  gesture  in  the 
effort  to  give  full  expression  to  their  emotions  on  the 
subject.  It  was  not  until  I  had  witnessed  those  displays 
of  the  gentlemen  that  I  fully  appreciate  Shakespeare's 
description  of  Harnlet  in  the  play  as  bearing  the  ap- 
pearance of  one 

"  Just  let  loose  from  hell  to  speak  of  horrors." 
When  gentlemen  come  to  study  their  own  plan,  I  must 
look  for  them  to  go  off  in  hysterical  convulsions.  For 
that  gives  the  control  of  a  majority  of  the  delegates  to 
a  minority  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand.  That 
does  not  even  put  money  in  the  scale,  but  with  uncere- 
monious hand  sweeps  off  a  hundred  thousand  or  so  of 
peonle  as  the  worthless  dust  that  encumbers  the  balance. 
The  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  seemed  to 
think  that  the  substitute  oi  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier (iVir.  Scott)  proposed  a  sort  of  auction  of  white 
men,  and  intimated  that  his  indignation  might  be  some- 
what relieved,  or  at  least  its  agony  rendered  less  in- 
tense, if  that  substitute  would  value  men  at  one  dollar 
apiece,  instead  of  forty-two  cents,  the  price  at  which 
they  are  estimated  in  the  mixed  basis  report  according 
to  the  gentleman  from  Augusta.  Here  in  your  own 
scheme  are  one  hundred  thousand  men  valued  not  at  one 
dollar,  or  forty-two  cents,  or  even  one  cent  apiece,  but 
just  at  nothing  at  all — knocked  off  for  want  of  a  bidder. 
Your  action  seems  to  be  doing  more  of  a  wholesale  bu- 
siness than  ours. 

Here  then  is  the  proposition  of  these  devoted  advo- 
cates of  the  majority  rule.  Let  no  gentleman  plead 
haste  or  inadvertence  as  an  excuse  for  this  startling  de- 
parture from  principle.  This  report  was  cautiously 
and  deliberately  matured  by  twelve  of  the  ablest  and 
most  zealous  western  men  on  this  floor.  Yes,  twelve 
learned  doctors  sent  out  to  exercise  and  drive  out  of 
the  constitution  this  devil  of  a  spirit  that  a  minority 
should  rule.  If  this  western  proposition  becomes  part 
of  our  constitution,  I  fear  that  gentlemen  will  find  that 
the  old  spirit  has  not  only  returned  to  his  swept  and 
garnished  house,  but  has  brought  along  with  him  others 
more  wicked  than  himself  and  made  its  latter  condition 
even  worse  than  the  former.  But  I  forbear  to  press 
gentlemen  further  on  this  subject.  They  are  in  a  dif- 
ficulty from  which  they  will  find  it  hard  to  extricate 
themselves.  They  seem  to  me  at  the  very  first  move 
to  have  put  their  king  in  check.  I  put  it  home  to  gen- 
tlemen who  are  devoted  to  the  principle  that  the  ma- 
jority ought  to  govern,  at  all  times,  and  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, if  they  can  bring  themselves  to  support 
the  plan  of  the  western  report. 

I  will  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  main  question  under  discussion,  as  I  stated  it  in  my 
opening  remarks.  I  assert  that  there  is  no  principle 
announced  in  our  bill  of  rights  that  requires  us  to  adopt 
the  suffrage  basis  or  to  reject  the  mixed  basis  in  the  ap- 
portionment of  representation.  I  propose  briefly  to  ex- 
amine the  clauses  to  the  bill  of  rights  which  have  been 
relied  upon  in  this  debate  by  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side.  I  shall  do  so  as  briefly  as  possible,  contenting 
myself  where  I  can  <io  so  with  justice  to  the  subject, 
with  a  simple  statement  of  my  views,  without  argu- 
ment. For  before  the  attention  of  the  committee  is 
wearied,  I  wish  to  address  myself  to  the  more  practical 
branch  of  the  subject,  and  submit  some  considerations 
of  public  liberty  and  safety,  which  it  seems  to  me  ought 
to  control  our  action.  For  convenience  of  arrangement, 
I  shall  comment  on  the  clauses  in  the  order  in  which 
they  stand  in  the  bill  of  rights.  There  are  three  clauses 
upon  which  gentlemen  rely.  It  is  somewhat  remarka- 
ble that  ail  three  of  these  referto  the  existence  of  men 
prior  to  constitutional  organization,  while  a  clause 
which  really  does  referto  the  subject  under  discussion 
has  been  entirely  overlooked.  I  shall  refer  to  them  all 
before  [  close.    Here  is  the  first  clause  :  "  All  men  are 


dollars  against  men — money  against  moral  and  sentient  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent,  and  have  cer- 
Ijeingn.    The  Errgliefe  language  has  not  Been  Adequate!  tain  inherent  rights  of  which,  when  tfoey  enter  a  state 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


367 


of  society,  they  cannot  by  any  compact  deprive  or  di" 
vest  their  posterity."  Now  this  in  its  very  terms  ap" 
plies  to  the  natural  condition  of  men  before  they  enter 
inte  a  state  of  society.  But  admitting  that  all  men  are 
or  ought  to  be  equally  free  after  they  have  entered  so- 
ciety, is  there  any  justice  in  the  inferences  which  these 
gentlemen  draw  from  that  declaration?  Because  all 
men  are  equally  free,  all  men  ought  to  exercise  equal 
political  power,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  these  gen- 
tlemen. Power  is  not  liberty,  and  the  exercise  of  pow- 
er is  not  the  enjoyment  of  liberty.  You  confound  the 
means  with  the  end.  Power  is  the  means  by  which 
liberty  is  preserved.  And  if  you  so  organize  power  in 
the  govern nient  as  to  preserve  liberty,  you  accomplish 
all  the  purpose  of  a  free  government.  Gentlemen  as- 
sociate with  the  idea  of  freedom,  the  idea  of  power; 
and  in  order  to  make  men  free  you  must  give  them 
power.  Were  we  in  that  happy,  angelic  condition  in 
which  each  of  his  own  free  will  would  respect  all  the 
rights  of  others,  we  might  dissolve  governments,  and 
locate  power  nowhere.  Will  gentlemen  tell  us  that 
men  in  such  circumstances  would  not  be  free  because 
they  were  not  exercising  power?  Yet  here  their  rights 
would  be  protected,  their  liberties  preserved  without 
any  agency  of  theirs.  But  why  do  gentlemen  content 
themselves  with  claiming  upon  this  principle  an  equal- 
ity of  political  power?  I  find  no  special  limitation  of 
the  term  in  the  bill  of  rights.  Why  not  claim  too  an 
equality  of  social  power?  Wealth  is  power — social 
power.  Physical  strength,  intellectual  endowments 
constitute  power.  Upon  the  interpretation  which  gen- 
tlemen give  to  the  bill  of  rights  all  men  are  by  nature 
entitled  to  equality  in  all  these  respects.  For  we  are 
told  that  without  equality  of  power,  there  is  no  equali- 
ty of  freedom.  Gentlemen  impressed  with  this  view 
should  not  stopata  re-organization  of  our  political  sys- 
tem; they  should  re-organize  the  social  system;  they 
should  lift  their  view  still  higher,  and  address  their 
morning  and  evening  supplications  to  high  heaven  that 
the  system  of  nature  itself  should  be  organized  on  a 
principle  different  from  that  applied  to  it  by  infinite 
wisdom.  But  if  men  who  do  not  have  ao  equality  of 
power,  have  not  an  equality  of  freedom,  then  it  seems 
necessarily  to  follow  that  those  who  exercise  no  power 
have  no  freedom  ;  so  that  upon  this  theory,  freedom  is 
confined  to  the  qualified  voters,  and  that  equality  of 
freedom  asserted  in  the  bill  of  rights  and  its  concomitant 
equality  of  power  is  the  exclusive  right  of  qualified  vo- 
ters! If  this  party  should  prevail  in  this  Convention,  1 
shall  look  for  a  proposition  from  them  to  amend  the  bill 
of  rights  so  as  to  express  their  views  more  precisely. 
They  ought  upon  this  theory  to  make  it  read  "  all  qua!-* 
ified  voters  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent." 
If  the  free-hold  qualification  of  suffrage  should  prevail, 
then  your  bill  of  l  ights  might  assert  that  all  men  who 
own  twenty-five  dollars  worth  of  land  are  naturally  free 
and  equal.  It  is  well  known  that  there  is  a  party  up- 
on this  floor,  embracing  gentlemen  from  both  sides  of 
the  mountain  who  will  endeavor  to  make  the  payment 
of  State  and  county  taxes  a  qualification  of  suffrage. 
Your  bill  of  rights,  if  the  interpretation  I  am  now  com- 
bating be  correct,  would  then  declare  that  all  men  are 
by  nature  equally  free  ;  provided, always,  that  they  had 
paid  the  county  levy.  Upon  this  theory  if  to-day  I 
chance  not  to  have  settled  my  tax  bills,  I  am  not  a  free- 
man entitled  to  enjoy  all  the  natural  rights  of  men.  No, 
the  sheriff  has  my  liberties  in  his  saddle-bags  in  the  un- 
gainly shape  of  a  tax  bill.  To-morrow  I  settle  the  ac- 
count, and  immediately  am  invested  with  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  a  freeman,  and  by  a  fiction,  like  those 
of  the  common  law,  these  rights  relate  back,  I  must 
suppose,  to  the  day  of  my  birth,  for  I  am  now  become 
by  nature  equally  free.  The  receipt  which  the  sheriff 
endorses  upon  the  tax  bill  thus  constitutes  the  great 
charter  of  the  liberties  of  the  citizen.  If  such  be  the 
case,  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  for  preserving 
in  public  custody  and  at  public  expense,  those  interest- 
ing documents,  those  invaluable  muniments  Of  title  to 
©qua!  freedom  and  the  rights  of  mbn. 


Well  now  let  us  follow  these  gentlemen  through  an- 
other stage  of  their  singular  mode  of  argument  and  de- 
duction. They  first  infer  from  the  bill  of  rights  im- 
properly as  I  think  that  1  have  shown,  that  every  man 
is  entitled  to  exercise  an  equal  share  of  political  pow- 
er, and  from  that,  by  some  curious  art  of  logical  leger- 
demain, jump  to  the  conclusion  that  the  majority  have 
the  natural  right  to  exercise  all  power  and  the  minori- 
ty have  no  right  to  exercise  any  power  at  all.  A  trifle 
more  than  one  half  of  the  community  are  thus  invested 
with  absolute  power,  and  a  trifle  les"s  than  one  haif  to 
be  stripped  of  every  semblance  of  power!  This  too  is 
accomplished  by  the  advocates  of  the  theory  that  no 
man  is  free  unless  he  exercises  just  as  much  political 
power  as  any  other  man  in  the  community.  The  only 
political  organization  that  I  have  ever  heard  of  m 
which  this  principle,  of  equality,  in  the  exercise  of  pow- 
er, was  practically  admitted  was  the  old  Polish  constitu- 
tion, under  which  not  a  majority  but  unanimity  was  re- 
quired in  the  passage  of  laws.  There,  under  the  pres- 
sure of  necessity,  the  sword  overruled  the  liberum  veto 
and  the  life  of  the  citizen  was  sacrificed  while  his  right 
to  equal  political  power  was  respected.  Suppose  we 
examine  now  the  practical  application  which  gentle- 
men propose  to  give  to  this  principle  and  see  whether 
even  their  own  purposes  are  in  any  degree  accomplish- 
ed. Iain  not  now  going  to  make  any  further  criticism 
upon  their  report.  I  am  going  to  suppose  for  the  mo- 
ment that  they  have  made  a  theoretically  perfect  ap- 
plication of  their  principle,  and  that  they  have  divided 
the  State  into  election  districts,  each  one  of  which  em- 
brace precisely  the  same  number  of  votes.  I  concede 
this  for  the  sake  of  argument,  though  1  know  that  in 
practice  it  can  never  be  accomplished.  If  you  could 
so  arrange  districts  this  morning,  the  equality  of  the 
distribution  would  be  disturbed  before  the  sun  would 
go  down  to-morrow  evening.  But  even  in  that  imagin- 
ry  condition  will  you  then  have  this  desired  equality  of 
political  power.  Will  not  the  location  of  the  suffragan 
in  many  instances  determine  the  degree  cf  influence 
which  his  will  may  exercise  upon  the  action  of  the  le- 
gislative department.  Most  assuredly  it  will.  Let 
me  give  an  illustration  that  will  mere  clearly  express 
at  the  same  time  that  it  enforces  my  view.  1  will  take 
three  of  your  election  districts  and  suppose  that  each 
includes  a  thousand  voters,  and  each  elects  one  dele- 
gate to  the  legislature.  A  proposition  is  to  come  be- 
fore  the  legislature  and  elections  are  made  with  refer- 
ence to  that  subject.  One  of  these  election  districts  is 
unanimous  against  the  proposed  measure.  A  trifling 
majority  in  each  of  the  other  two  districts  are  in  favor 
of  it.  How  does  the  account  stand.  In  the  three  dis- 
tricts there  are  nearly  two  thousand  voters  against  the 
measure,  and  but  little  more  than  one  thousand  in  fa- 
vor of  it.  Yet  the  two  thousand,  in  consequence  of 
this  local  situation,  elect  one  delegate,  and  the  one 
thousand  elect  two  delegates?  A  few  more  than  one 
thousand  voters  thus  exercising  twice  as  much  legisla- 
tive power  as  but  a  few  less  than  two  thousand  voters. 
That  is  your  patent-right  plan  for  securing  to  each 
voter  precise  equality  of  power  !  I  perceive  that  the 
committee  now  comprehend  the  view  that  I  am 
presenting.  Allow  me  to  enforce  it.  with  another  illus- 
tration. I  trust  that  I  do  nothing  improper  in  referring 
for  illustration  to  the  present  division  of  parties  in  the 
State,  it  is  well  known  that  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture are  now  elected  with  reference  to  parties,  and  will 
probably  continue  to  be  so  for  years  to  come.  The 
county  of  Shenandoah  and  the  county  of  Fauquier  are 
each  entitled  to  two  delegates  by  the  suffrage  basis  re- 
port. In  Fauquier  parties  are  closely  divided.  Irk 
Shenandoah  they  are  nearly  unanimous.  Eight  hun- 
dred whigs  in  Fauquier  send  two  delegates  to  the  legis- 
lature, while  fifteen  hundred  democrats  in  Shenandoah 
send  but  two.  Thus  eight  hundred  whigs  in  Fauquier 
have  as  much  weight  is  the  legislature  as  the  fifteen 
hundred  democrats  in  Shenandoah,  and  the  seven  hun- 
dred democratic  minority  m  Fauquier  combined, 
Eight  hundred  thus   balance  turenty-twQ  hundred. 


363 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


May  I  be  excused  for  yet  another  illustration?  I  shall  (pact  by  the  conditions  of  the  compact,  and  ceases  tc 
refer  to  an  existing  state  of  things  in  two  counties  of  (exist  the  moment  that  the  social  compact  accomplishes 
my  own  district,  Culpeper  and  Madison.    _T_  cannot  |  its  object,  and  is  merged  into  a  constitutional  compact. 


name  those  counties  here  without  emotion.  The  gen- 
man  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  yesterday  eulogized 
the  historic  recollections  of  his  own  county.  I  too,  if 
I  choose  to  decorate  my  position  here  by  such  allusions, 
Could  refer  to  the  historic  glories  that  cluster  about 
the  reminiscences  connected  with  my  own  county  in- 
cluding as  she  once  did  that  county  of  Madison,  But 
I  forbear  and  proceed  1o  the  illustration  that  1  have  in 
view.  The  county  of  Culpeper  is  nearly  equally  divi- 
ded in  politics,  a  few  votes  either  way  determining  its 
political  character.  The  county  of  Madison  is  nearly 
unanimous.  Near  the  line  dividing-  these  counties 
live  a  number  of  gentlemen  whose  farms  extend  in 
both  counties,  but  whose  residences  are  in  Madi- 
son. Suppose  after  this  Convention  has  confined  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  residents  of  counties,  that  some 
dozen  of  those  gentlemen  have  their  dwellings  remov- 
ed from  the  Madison  to  the  Culpeper  side  of  their  farms. 
Probably  they  fix  the  political  complexion  of  Culpeper 
while  they  do  not  at  all  change  that  of  Madison.  They 
thus  secure  for  their  views  two  votes  in  the  legislature, 
which,  otherwise,  would  exactly  balance  and  nullify 
each  other.  Do  you  ask  me  to  believe  that  the  suffrage 
of  these  voters  avails  as  much  in  the  one  county  as  it 
does  in  the  other?  I  shall  not  multiply  arguments  upon 
this  point.  Gentlemen  must  themselves  perceive  in 
what  inconsistencies  they  are  involved  when  they  at- 
tempt to  organize  a  representative  system  upon  the  prin- 
ciples which  they  contend  to  be  the  principles  exclu- 
sively appropriate  to  it. 

I  pass  to  the  next  clause  referred  to  by  the  other 
side  : 

"All  power  is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived 
from,  the  people."    This  has  little  or  no  application  to 
the  subject.    I  might  admit  all  that  is  contended  for, 
that  power  is  derived  from  a  majority  of  the  people  and, 
yet  the  question,  in  what  form  shall  that  power  be  or- 
ganized, in  whose  hands  entrusted,  would  still  remain 
unsettled.    But  I  choose  to  state  my  own  view  of  this 
principle  in  the  bill  of  rights  ;  gentlemen  can  take  it 
for  what  it  is  worth.    Whence  is  power  really  derived  ? 
Is  it  not  derived  from  the  parties  to  the  social  compact  ? 
And  who  are  those  parties  ?    The  individuals  who  con- 
stitute the  community  as  people,  and  it  is  in  this  sense 
that  all  power  is  derived  from  the  people.    On  entering 
the  social  compact,  each  individual  surrenders  a  portion 
of  his  natural  rights  and  privileges,  and  from  these  in- 
dividual sources  is  derived  a  fuud  of  power,  to  be  em- 
ployed for  the  good  of  the  whole.    It  is  only  these  de- 
rived powers  that  any  human  agency  has  any  just  right 
to  exereise.    I  deny  that  there  are  any  prerogative  pow- 
ers here.    I  do  not  use  the  word  prerogative  in  the  nar- 
row sense  of  tue  English  common  law,  but  in  the  more 
enlarged  meaning  ascribed  to  it  by  public  writers.    It  is 
not  derived  from  compacts,  constitutions,  or  laws,  but 
is  above  them,  and  is  claimed  as  inherent  in  the  party 
exercising  it.    It  is  power  having  its  foundation,  not  in 
the  gift  of  men,  but  in  Divine  right.    I  understand  gen- 
tlemen to  contend  that  there  are  such  prerogative  powers 
here,  and  that  they  belong  to  the  majority  of  the  com- 
munity.   I  deny  that  any  man,  or  set  of  men,  have  the 
right  to  exercise  any  power  over  an  individual,  which  is 
not  derived  from  the  grant  of  that  individual  directly 
or  indirectly.    By  entering  into  the  social  compact  he 
confers  upon  the  community  thus  formed  the  powers 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  the  social  com- 
pact, the  formation  of  the  government,  the  establish- 
ment of  a  constitutional  compact  that  supersedes  the 
social  compact.    While  the  community  are  engaged  in 
accomplishing  the  great  object  of  the  social  compact, 
the  establishment  of  a  government,  the  community  act 
as  an  assembly,  and  of  course  are  subject  to  the  rule 
of  necessity  applying  to  all  assemb  ies,  that  the  will  of 
the  majority  shall  represent  the  will  of  the  whole.  This 
is  a  power  derived  from  the  parties  to  the  social  corn- 


After  that,  nr  portion  of  them  have  a  right  to  any  power 
not  granted  and  delegated  in  the  constitution.  So  long 
as  the  constitution  has  a  valid  obligatory  existence,  the 
majority  have  a  right  to  just  what  powers  the  consti- 
tution gives  them,  and  no  more.  This  view  brings  us  to 
the  last  clause  in  the  bill  of  rights,  which  gentlemen 
have  recited  in  support  of  their  position  : 

"Government  is,  or  ought  to  be,  instituted  for  the 
common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of  the  people, 
nation,  or  community  ;  of  all  the  various  modes  and 
forms  of  government,  that  is  best  which  is  capable  of 
producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety, 
and  is  most  effectually  secured  against  the  danger  of 
mal-administration,  and  that  when  any  government  shall 
be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these  purposes,  a 
majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubitable,  unalien- 
able, and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish 
it  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to 
the  public  weal.  " 

This  clause  states  the  proper  objects  of  government, 
the  conditions  bn  which  the  constitutional  compact  is 
entered  into,  and  asserts  that  when  these  conditions  are 
violated,  the  constitution  is  no  longer  valid  obligation, 
and  the  community  are  released  from  obedience  to  it, 
and  reverted  back  to  their  rights  under  the  social  com- 
pact^ prior  to  the  institution  of  government.    It  asserts 
no  power  of  the  majority  over  the  constitution  so  long 
as  it  accomplishes  the  objects  for  which  it  was  estab- 
lished, and  upon  the  continued  performance  of  which 
the  obligation  of  the  people  to  support  it  depends. 
The  power  of  the  majority  does  not  exist  under  the 
constitution,  but  springs  up  only  when  the  valid  ex- 
istence of  the  constitutional  compact  has  ceased,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  violations  of  the  conditions  upon  which 
it  was  entered  into.    The  community,  I  repeat,  are  then, 
and  not  until  then,  restored  to  the  condition  of  the  so- 
cial compact,  and  must  act  as  one  assembly  to  accom- 
plish anew  the  object  of  the  social  compact — the  insti- 
tution of  government.    The  majority  here  have  that  au- 
thority which  the  general  rule  of  all  assemblies  gives  to 
the  majority.    Even  after  this  the  minority  are  not 
bound  in  allegiance  to  the  new  government  unless  they 
express  their  submission  to  it  by  continuing  within  its 
jurisdiction.    I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  to  remark  here 
that  the  authority  of  the  majority  of  an  assembly  to 
represent  the  whole  is  not  peculiar  to  democratic  as- 
semblies.   It  is  the  rule  of  necessity  which  the  general 
consent  of  mankind  applies  to  assemblies  generally. 
It  was  as  much  the  rule  of  the  Grecian  councils  as  of 
their  popular  assemblies,  as  much  the  rule  of  the  Patri- 
cian senate  at  Rome  as  of  their  popular  comitia,  as 
much  the  rule  of  the  English  House  of  Lords  as  of  the 
House  of  Commons.    It  is  only  of  more  frequent  opera- 
tion in  democracies,  because  such  are  essentially  govern- 
ments by  assemblies.    The  authority  of  the  numerical 
majority  of  the  whole  community  only  comes  into  exis- 
tence when  the  community  acts  as  one  assembly.    I  re- 
spectfully submit  that  the  right  of  the  majority  to  rep- 
resent the  community  upon  such  occasions  was  not  the 
leading  principle  intended  to  be  solemnly  asserted  in 
this  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights.    The  right  intended  to 
be  preserved  and  consecrated  there  was  the  right  of  the 
community  to  withdraw  its  allegiance  from  the  govern- 
ment that  had  violated  its  trusts,  and  to  substitute  a 
new  government  for  it.    It  was  the  right  which  our  an- 
cestors had  exercised  in  the  days  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  again  in  1688,  and  which  the  people  of  Virginia 
were  exercising  at  the  very  time  that  the  bill  of  rights 
was  framed.    I  have  looked  at  the  declarations  of 
rights  prefixed  about  that  time  to  their  constitutions  by 
other  States,  and  find  that  none  use  the  precise  expres- 
sion of  the  Virginia  bill  of  rights,  but  all  assert  this 
right  to  belong  in  general  terms  to  the  "  people,  "  "so- 
ciety, "  "community." 

I  ask  gentlemen  whether  a  cotemporaneous  exposi- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION 


369 


tion  is  not  the  best  exposition  in  law.  I  ask  you  if  those 
man  who  formed  this  bill  of  rights,  who  inserted  this 
assertion  of  a  great  fundamental  principle  in  it,  did  not 
understand  what  they  meant  quite  as  well  as  you  un- 
derstand what  they  meant?  Did  not  George  Mason, 
the  author  of  the  bill  of  rights,  understand  it  as  well  as 
you?  Did  not  the  men  who  lived  in  his  day  under- 
stand that  doctrine  as  well  as  you  who  lire  at  this 
day  ?  Was  not  public  attention  at  the  time  peculiarly 
attracted  to  this  particular  doctrine,  the  right  of  the 
community  to  reform  the  government  ?  Why,  that  was 
the  very  right  which  they  had  just  exercised  in  each 
one  of  the  thirteen  States  of  the  confederacy.  It  was 
a  right  for  which  they  had  been  willing  to  sacrifice  life, 
fortune,  and  the  establishment  of  which,  after  passing 
through  many  scenes  of  trial  and  bloodshed,  they  finally 
accomplished.  There  may  be  other  principles  which 
were  not  understood  at  that  day,  but  I  repeat  that  this 
great  fundamental  doctrine  had  been  asserted  and  exer- 
cised in  England  at  a  period  not  very  long  anterior  to 
that,  and  was  well  understood  at  that  day  by  all  Ameri- 
can politicians  and  statesmen.  I  ask  you  to  look  at 
the  constitutions  throughout  the  country,  formed  by  the 
men  of  that  day,  and  I  assert  that  you  will  not  find  one 
solitary  American  constitution  that  attempts  to  carry 
into  practical  operation  this  doctrine,  that  a  majority 
of  the  legislature  should  be  elected  by  counties  con- 
taining a  majority  of  the  people.  Here  is  the  book, 
name  one  cons' titutiom  which  does  this,  and  I  will  dis- 
pute it  with  the  record.  There  is  not  one  in  which 
this  great  principle  for  which  gentlemen  are  now  ready 
io  convulse  society,  is  to  be  found  practically  enforced. 

Well,  did  the  Virginia  constitution  carry  it  out — and 
it  was  formed  by  the  very  men  who  formed  this  bill  of 
rights?  Why,  they  gave  Warwick,  with  a  population 
of  some  five  hundred,  the  same  representation,  the  same 
control  over  the  legislature,  that  they  gave  to  Culpeper, 
to  Berkeley,  and  to  Loudoun  counties,  each  containing 
from  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  population.  Will  gen- 
tlemen tell  me  that  that  constitution  was  but  a  tempo- 
rary expedient?  If  they  will,  I  say  that  the  declara- 
tion is  at  war  with  the  character  of  the  constitution  it- 
self;  it  contains  a  provision  looking  to  the  indefinite  fu- 
ture operation  of  that  very  principle  of  representation. 
Why,  they  provide  in  that  constitution  that  if  at  any 
future  time,  any  city  shall  so  decrease  in  population  as 
not  to  contain  an  amount  of  population  equal  to  that  of 
one-half  the  smallest  county  in  the  State,  it  shall  have 
its  representative.  Thus,  here  was  a  provision  under 
the  hands  of  these  great  men  who  asserted  asd  fully 
understood  the  principles  of  the  bill  of  rights,  authori- 
zing a  city  to  send  half  as  many  representatives  as  Cul- 
peper, even  when  the  population  of  that  city  should 
have  decreased  as  low  as  two  hundred  and  fifty,  and  yet 
I  am  told  that  these  men  asserted  and  advocated  the 
very  principles  now  asserted  and  advocated  by  the 
friends  of  the  suffrage  basis  !  The  gentleman  from  Jef- 
ferson (Mr.  Lucas)  yesterday  endeavored  to  prove  that 
they  themselves  had  departed  from  their  own  princi- 
ples, and  that  this  great  fundamental  principle,  to  carry 
out  which  he  tells  us  the  west  may  in  a  certain  state  of 
things  be  willing  to  revolutionize  the  State  and  society 
itself,  was  prostrated  and  broken  down  by  the  very  men 
who  had  toiled  and  suffered  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
free  principles.  It  was  an  awkward  compliment  to  those 
men  to  say  that  they  had  not  only  violated  the  princi- 
ples of  liberty  and  popular  rights,  but  had  recorded 
their  own  shame  by  prefixing  the  most  solemn  and  au- 
thentic declaration  of  those  principles  to  the  very  con- 
stitution which  violated  and  annulled  them.  George 
Mason  was  the  author  of  the  bill  of  rights.  Did  he  un- 
derstand what  he  was  writing  ?  And  yet  when  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  federal  constitu- 
tion, lid  he  not  support,  as  his  first  choice  the  federal 
basis,  which  was  essentially  a  property  basis  ?  Certain- 
ly one  would  suppose  that  the  very  authors  of  the  bill 
of  rights  ought  to  be  presumed  to  understand  what  they  j  i 


meant  as  well  as  any  person  at  this  day.  Mr.  Mason 
supported  the  federal  basis  of  representation,  and  thus 
repudiated  this  white  or  suffrage  basis.  I  think,  there- 
fore, that  gentlemen  must  fail  in  the  attempt  to  draw 
any  aid  from  these  clauses  of  the  bill  of  rights  in  sup- 
port of  their  view  of  a  proper  organization  of  the  leg- 
islative department. 

I  have  no  particular  desire  to  go  in  search  of  abstract 
principles,  or  to  explore  this  bill  of  rights  for  one, 
Such  principles  must  yield  to  practical  limitations  when 
you  come  to  apply  them.  But  there  is  one  clause  in  the 
bill  of  rights  which  does  refer  to  this  subject  of  legisla- 
tive power,  and  hew  and  by  whom  it  is  to  be  exercised, 
which  gentlemen  have  thought  proper  entirely  to  over- 
look in  their  arguments:  <6  All  men,  "  says  the  bill  of 
rights,  "  having  sufficient  evidence  of  permanent  com- 
mon interest  with  and  attachment  to  the  community, 
have  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  cannot  be  taxed  or  de- 
prived of  their  property  for  public  use,  without  their 
own  consent,  or  that  or  their  representatives  (freely) 
elected.  "  No  man,  none  of  us,  can  be  taxed  without 
our  own  consent,  It  is  not  a  right  which  spreads  over 
the  majority  as  a  majority,  but  it  is  one  which  attaches 
to  each  man  as  an  individual.  No  one,  by  the  bill  of 
rights,  can  be  taxed  without  own  consent,  or  by  that  of 
the  representative  whom  he  has  elected,  "nor  bound  by 
any  law  to  which  they  have  not  in  like  manner  assented, 
for  the  public  good.  "  There  is  a  clause  which  does  not 
relate  to  any  state  of  things  outside  of  the  constitution 
prior  to  the  constitution,  or  posterior  to  the  constitution' 
but  it  relates  to  things  as  they  exist  under  the  constitu- 
tion. In  the  abstract  theory  of  the  constitution,  not  a 
part,  but  the  whole  legislature  enacts  the  laws.  How 
do  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  run  ?  Not  be  it  en- 
acted by  a  majority  of  the  general  assembly,  but  be  it 
enacted  by  the  general  assembly.  In  the  abstract  the- 
ory of  the  constitution,  not  a  mere  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple are  regarded  as  assenting  and  giving  authority  to  the 
laws,  but  every  man  in  the  community  is  regarded  as 
having  assented  to  them  through  his  representative.  He 
agrees  to  give  that  assent  in  the  constitutional  compact, 
when  he  delegates  the  legislative  power  to  an  assembly, 
of  which  his  own  representative  is  a  member,  and  agrees' 
that  a  part,  less  than  the  whole,  shall  control  the  will 
and  the  action  of  the  whole.  We  have  the  right  to  pre- 
scribe in  our  constitution  what  part  of  the  legislative 
assembly  shall  stand  for  the  whole,  and  control  the 
whole.  If  we  merely  constitute  the  assembly,  and  are 
silent  as  to  the  rest,  we  of  course  subject  it  to  the  com- 
mon rule  applied  to  assemblies  generally,  that  a  major- 
ity of  the  assembly  is  to  represent  and  control  the  will 
of  the  whole.  If  we  chose,  we  could  require  the  con- 
currence of  two-thirds  to  control  the  will  and  action  of 
the  whole.  So  we  could  make  a  smaller  number  neces- 
sary. In  the  organization  now  existing,  less  than  a  ma- 
jority may  represent  and  act  for  the  whole  assembly. 
A  majority  of  a  quorum  can  act.  We  have  the  right  to 
settle  this  question  now,  what  part  of  the  legislative  as- 
sembly shall  we  authorize  to  stand  for  and  control  the 
will  of  the  whose  assembly.  Gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  say  that  part,  that  represents  the  counties  contain- 
ing a  majority  of  all  the  voters  in  the  State.  We  say 
that  part,  that  represents  constituencies  who  are  most 
interested  in  a  wise  and  safe  exercise  of  legislative  pow- 
er. Here,  then,  we  come  back  to  the  practical  question 
to  be  settled  by  this  Convention, 

At  this  point,  I  repeat  the  question  put  a  few  days 
ago  by  my  friend  from  Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  is 
there  any  one  here  who  is  prepared  to  prosecute  to  its 
legitimate  consequences  this  doctrine,  that  the  numeri- 
cal majority  should  elect  and  control  the  legislative  de- 
partment ?  Is  any  one  here  prepared  to  have  the  legis- 
lature elected  by  the  numerical  majority  and  responsi- 
ble to  it?  If  you  desire  that  the  numerical  majority 
shall  control  the  representative  body,  you  should  make 
that  majority  the  constituent  of  the  representative  bo- 
dy Gentlemen  who  adhere  to  this  majority  principle 
can  only  secure  their  object  by  electing  the  legislature 


370 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


by  general  ticket.  It  is  not  the  object  of  the  system  of  Igress  which  modern  society  has  made  in  the  fcience  of 
representation  of  counties  and  districts,  to  take  the  sense  government.  If  there  is  any  one  thing,  as  the  gentle- 
of  the  numerical  majority.  I  say  it  without  fear  of  sue-  man  from  Fauquier  says,  which  experience  i'uily  de- 
cessful  controversy,  that  the  wit  of  man  cannot  make  monstrates,  it  is  that  when  all  power  is  trusted  in  one 
such  a  system  of  representation  of  counties  and  districts,  hand,  or  under  the  control  of  one  body,  whether  it  be 
as  will  constitute  the  representative  body  a  faithful  ex-  ten>  olle  hundred  or  a  hundred  thousand,  despotism,  ty- 
ponent  of  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  community,  ranny  and  usurpation  will  be  the  natural  result.  The 


If  it  really  is  the  great  paramount  controlling  purpose 
of  the  organization  of  the  legislative  department  to  make 
it  the  true  experiment  of  the  will  of  the  numerical  ma- 
jority, then  the  representative  system  is  one  of  the  most 
absurd,  ridiculous  and  bungling  pieces  of  machinery  ever 
put  in  operation  by  sane  men.    It  is  a  purpose  which 
our  system  of  representation  cann  t  accomplish.  I  will 
illustrate  this  by  imagining  a  state  of  things  which  I 
trust  may  never  occur.    Suppose  that  the  views  of  west- 
ern gentleman  prevail,  this  basis  is  adopted,  and  power 
is  transferred  west  of  the  mountain.    Let  me  imagine 
that  some  measure  of  sectional  injustice  is  meditated 
against  the  ea-t.    The  people  on  this  side  of  the  mount- 
ains will,  of  course,  be  unanimous  against  it.  One-third 
of  these  on  the  other  side,  restrained  by  a  sense  of  jus- 
tice, may  also  oppose  it,  and  yet  be  so  dispersed  through- 
out the~Vest  as  not  to  be  able  to  elect  a  single  delegate. 
A  minority  of  the  whole  people  will  thus  control  the  le- 
gislature, and  a  measure  of  gross  outrage  perpetrated  in 
defiance  of  the  will  of  the  majority.    I  might  multiply 
instances,  but  it  must  be  admitted  by  every  candid  man, 
that  the  sense  of  the  majo  ity  of  the  separate  constitu- 
encies will  often  differ  from  the  sense  of  the  majority 
of  the  whole.    In  such  cases,  which  is  to  control?  Will 
the  advocates  of  the  majority  principle  answer  me  that 
question  ?    In  case  of  conflict  between  the  will  of  his 
own  constituents  and  that  of  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  State*  to  which  is  the  representative  to  conform 
his  action?    If  it  is  our  incumbent  duty  in  arranging  the 
organic  law,  to  provide  that  the  numerical  majority 
shall  control  the  legislature,  surely  it  will  be  no  less 
the  duty  of  those  who  are  chosen  to  execute  this  organic 
law,  to  co-operate  in  this  design.    If  the  whole  object 
and  intention  of  this  part  of  the  constitution  is  to  place 
the  legislature  under  the  control  of  the  numerical  ma- 
jority, will  it  not  be  treason  to  that  constitution  for  any 
member  of  this  legislature  to  act  otherwise  than  in  strict 
subjection  to  the  will  of  that  majority.    To  be  consis- 
tent with  themselves  gentlemen  must  assume  that  the 
representative  ought  to  disregard  the  will  of  his  imme- 
diate constituents,  where  it  is  in  conflict  with  that  of  the 
majority  of  the  whole.    They  must  here  range  them- 
selves along  side  of  the  opponents  of  liberal  principles 
both  in  this  country  and  England.    The  generally  re- 
ceived view  of  the  friends  of  popular  government  is 
that  each  representative  is  elected  by  and  for  his  own 
constituents,  and  is  bound  by  their  will  ;  he  is  no  more 
t\t  liberty  to  consult  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  whole  State,  when  in  conflict  with  that  of  his 
own  constituents,  than  he  is  at  liberty  to  consult  the  will 
of  a  foreign  despot.    That  is  the  doctrine  of  the  right 
of  instructions  long  since  settled  in  this  country,  at 
least  definitely,  and  unanimously  settled  by  the  demo- 
cratic party  of  the  country.    The  opposite  opinion — 
that  of  the  tory  party  in  England — is  that  the  represen- 
tative is  elected  for  the  whole  State  or  Kingdom,  and 
bound  by  no  peculiar  responsibility  to  his  own  imme- 
diate constituency.    If  I  take  a  position  alongside  of 
gentlemen  who  contend  thit  a  majority  of  the  communi- 
ty must  control  the  legislature,  I  have  to  abandon  the 
faith  in  which  I  was  reared,  which  teaches  me  that  the 
representative  ought  to  be  the  mere  reflection  of  the 
will  of  his  constituents,  and  must  accede  to  doctrines 
that  have  been  cherished  by  the  tory  party  in  England. 
I  must  stand  by  the  old  alter,  and  worship  in  the  old 
temple.    If  then  the  representative  is  the  mere  agent  of 
the  constituency,  when  you  distribute  representation 
among  the  counties  and  election  districts,  you,  in  ef- 
fect, entrust  the  legislative  power  of  the  government 
to  those  counties  and  election  districts.    There  is  the 
theory  of  our  goreniment  ;  ay®*  there  is  the  great  pro-' 


concentration — the  great  apostle  of  liberty  has  told  us — 
of  all  power  in  the  same  hands  is  exactly  the  definition 
of  tyranny.  What,  I  ask,  is  the  great  improvement  in 
modern  political  science  ?  It  is  the  diffusion  of  power  ; 
the  distribution  of  power  and  the  breaking  up  of  the 
consolidation  of  power.  The  great  principle  asserted  in 
our  bill  of  rights  is  that  power  in  the  first  place  shall 
be  distributed  among  the  various  governmental  depart- 
ments, and  that  all  power  shall  not  be  in  one  or  the  oth- 
er. The  executive  power  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  (  ne  ; 
the  legislative  power  in  another,  and  the  judicial  power 
in  the  hands  of  a  third.  This  is  one  step  in  the  pro- 
gress of  political  improvement,  but  the  great  step,  the 
greatest  achievement  of  modern  politicafscience  is  this 
representative  system,  by  which  the  consolidation  of 
power  is  broken  up,  and  the  control  of  government  is 
taken  from  the  hands  of  one  individual  unit,  and  dis- 
tributed through  a  variety  of  communities.  Now,  upon 
what  principle  will  you  distribute  power  among  those 
communities  ?  That  is  the  question.  You  say  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  voters.  We  say  that  is  an 
unsafe  principle,  because  we  desire  to  have  power  lodged 
in  hands  not  interested  in  abusing  it.  We  say  that  in 
this  distribution  of  power  you  must  put  most  power 
where  there  is  most  interest  to  use  that  power  wisely ; 
where  there  are  the  most  subjects  of  legislation.  Give 
it  to  those  communities  who  have  the  most  subjects  of 
legislation,  and  are,  therefore,  the  most  directly  inter- 
ested in  a  wise  use  of  legislative  power.  Governments 
do  not  confine  themselves  to  the  protection  of  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  citizen.  Whether  they  are  right  or 
wrong  in  overstepping  that  line  of  duty  I  do  not  now 
inquire.  I  content  myself  for  the  present  with  the  fact 
that  government  is  a  vast  agency  for  collection  and  ex- 
penditure ;  a  tax  collecting  and  a  tax  disbursing  instru- 
ment. ^  Shall  we  entrust  the  power  in  the  hands  of  those 
whose  interests  will  be  most  prompted  by  the  heaviest 
expenditures  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  interested  to 
increase  the  burthens  of  the  community  ?  What  secu- 
rity have  we  that  these  burthens  will  not  be  rendered 
intolerable?  But  you  say  that  when  you  increase  the 
taxation  you  will  increase  in  the  same  proportion  the 
burthens  on  each?  Why,  what  security  is  that?  I 
will  illustrate  my  view,  so  that  I  may  be  more  clearly 
understood.  Here  is  one  of  the  counties  I  represent, 
Orange  county,  with  a  population  of  3,660  paying  a  tax 
of  $5,550,  and  here  is  the  county  of  Braxton  with  a  pop- 
ulation of  4,125,  paying  a  tax  of  $150. 

Now,  suppose  these  two  counties  were  forming  a  com- 
pact of  government,  would  it  be  just  to  put  the  power 
to  distribute  the  taxes  which  Orange  pays,  in  the  hands 
of  Braxton,  merely  because  the  last  county  had  the  most 
voters  ?  When  Braxton  felt  the  necessity  for  money, 
she  could  very  easily  double  the  taxes,  and  raise  $11,000 
in  Orange,  and  $1,500  in  her  own  limits,  and  then  apply 
the  whole  for  her  own  benefit.  And  would  it  be  any 
justification  to  Orange,  for  Braxton  to  say  you  are  rich 
and  we  are  poor,  and  no  injury  can  be  done  you,  if,  when 
the  tax  is  doubled  on  you  it  is  doubled  cn  us  ?  The  answer 
of  Orange  would  bs  that  you  can  very  easily  afford  to 
take  $1,500  out  of  your  own  pockets,  when  you  bring 
back  to  yourself  more  that  $12,000,  and  expend  the 
whole  amount  as  you  please.  Would  it  be  any  securityf 
I  ask  you,  in  constituting  a  government  here,  to  place 
this  tax-collecting  and  distributing  power  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  are  interested  in  increasing  the  burthens 
of  government,  and  with  whom  the  necessity  for  im- 
provement and  the  power  of  improvement  that  junctio 
juris  et  seisinae,  according  to  the  views  that  we  have 
heard  here,  vests  a  complete  right  to  other  people's  mo- 
ney. But  the  experience  of  the  pant  has  been  referred,  to 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


371 


in  contravention  of  this  view,  and  we  are  told  that  the 
mixed  basis  has  not  proved  a  security  to  us  heretofore; 
that  theburthensof  the  community  have  been  increased, 
and  increased  by  the  agency,  in  fact,  of  that  Piedmont 
country,  which  advocates  the  mixed  basis.  Gentlemen 
forget  that  the  mixed  basis  has  not  heretofore  been  the 
actual  basis  of  representation.  But  I  pass  that' by. 
The  Piedmont  country,  heavily  as  she  contributes  to  the 
treasury,  has  not,  you  say,  declined  to  accumulate  upon 
herself  and  the  rest  of  the  State,  the  heavy  burthens  of 
taxation,  when  it  became  her  interest  to  increase  the 
burthens,  because  the  disbursements  were  made  in  that 
quarter.  When  it  became  the  interest  of  that  section 
to  increase  the  burthens  of  taxation,  we  are  informed 
that  they  have  not  hesitated  to  aid  in  increasing  them. 
Piedmont  was  in  a  minority,  however,  and  it  was  by  the 
aid  of  others  equally  interested,  that  this  increase  of 
taxation  and  disbursement  was  effected.  But  because 
taxation  has  been  increased  by  the  agency  in  part  of  a 
country  interested  in  such  increase,  we  are  told  we  must 
feel  perfectly  safe  in  putting  the  taxing  power  in  hands 
interested  to  procure  a  still  larger  increase  of  taxation. 
At  the  very  moment  that  they  point  us  to  the  abuse  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  those  interested  to  abuse  it,  they 
invite  us  to  entrust  still  larger  powers  to  hands  yet 
more  interested  to  abuse.  Piedmont  and  the  west  to- 
gether, have  been  heretofore  interested  in  increasing  cis- 
bursoments,  and  having  the  power,  have  increased  them  ; 
theiefore,  you  must  place  controlling  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  west,  which  is  interested  to  procure  still  heavier 
disbursements  !  I  do  not  perceive  the  force  of  that  lo- 
gic. The  Piedmont  country,  with  the  aid  of  the  west, 
we  are  told,  has  imposed  upon  tidewater;  therefore, 
tide-water  must  strip  herself  of  power,  and  increase  the 
preponderance  over  her  of  Piedmont  and  the  west  both  ! 
The  tide-water  section  must  not  trust  herself  with  pow- 
er, for  fear  that  the  sagicious  Piedmont  will  make  dupes 
and  victims  of  them,  and  use  the  power  of  tide-water 
for  their  own  exclusive  benefit !  The  mixed  basis  gives 
Piedmont  forty-two  members,  and  tide-water  forty,  I 
believe.  In  order  to  weaken  Piedmont,  you  must  re- 
duce her  by  the  suffrage  basis  to  thirty-seven,  and  by 
the  same  act  reduce  yourselves  to  thirty-three — increa- 
sing considerably  the  relative  preponderance  of  Pied- 
mont over  tide-water.  The  power  thus  stript  from  both, 
is  to  be  transferred  to  the  west — that  very  section  most 
deeply  interested  in  that  course  of  legislation,  of  which 
the  tide-water  people  complain  so  much.  In  addressing 
such  appeals  as  those  to  the  tide-water  people,  gentle- 
men may  accompany  them  with  what  compliments  they 
choose  to  the  simplicity  of  heart  of  those  people.  I 
must  be  excused  for  saying,  that  this  course  of  argument 
implies  for  them,  at  least  ^equal  simplicity  of  heart.  It 
is  the  interest  of  the  tide-water  people,  gentlemen,  say  to 
co-operate  hereafter  with  the  west  in  the  legislature. 
On  this  ground,  the  tide-water  delegates  are  invoked  to 
strengthen  the  legislative  power  of  the  west,  by  strip- 
ping themselves  of  it.  I,  for  one,  cannot,  for  the  life  of 
me,  discern  this  new-found  identity  of  interest  between 
these  two  sections.  But  if  it  does  exist,  surely  the  peo- 
ple of  the  tide-water  will  be  as  quick  to  discern  it  as 
their  delegates  upon  this  floor,  and  when  they  do  discern 
it,  they  will  unite  whatever  powers  we  give  to  them, 
with  the  western  powers  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  I 
must  be  allowed  to  believe  that  no  power  will  be  so 
well  employed  for  the  benefit  of  tide- water  interests,  as 
the  power  which  tide  water  herself  will  control. 

But  the  Piedmont  is  denominated  a  dangerous  power 
in  the  community,  and  she  must  be  depressed.  The 
mixed  basis  does  not  depress  her  enough.  You  must 
organize  your  government  on  a  principle  of  contest  and 
of  war  with  the  Piedmont — a  contest  in  which  Pied- 
mont men  and  Piedmont  interests  are  to  be  arranged  on 
one  side,  and  all  the  rest  of  Virginia  on  the  other.  The 
mixed  basis  is  to  be  rejected,  because  it  gives  danger- 
ous strength  to  the  Piedmont.  Well,  the  mixed  basis 
gives  the  Piedmont  only  forty-two  members  in  a  house 


of  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  leaves  her  in  a  minority  of 
sixty-six  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Delegates.  When- 
ever Piedmont  attempts  a  course  of  action  adverse  to 
the  general  interests,  the  mixed  basis  enables  you  to 
rally  a  legislative  force  of  nearly  three  to  one  against 
her.  In  the  name  of  Heaven,  if  three  to  one  be  not 
odds  enough  against  Piedmont,  what  odds  will  gentle- 
men ask  before  they  venture  in  the  contest?  If  a  ma- 
jority of  sixty-six  is  not  enough,  how  much  will  you 
have  the  face  to  demand  ?  It  has  always  been  the  boast 
of  English  pride,  that  one  British  soldier  was  equal  to 
two  of  any  other  country,  and  I  must  confess  my  grati- 
tude for  the  compliment  which  gentlemen  are  paying  to 
the  Piedmont  country  in  intimating  that  in  legislative 
contests  involving  the  prowess  of  statesmen,  any  one 
man  from  Piedmont  is  equal  to  any  three  men  from  the 
other  parts  of  the  State.  You  aie  afraid  to  trust  your- 
selves in  a  contest  with  Piedmont,  unless  you  are  three 
to  one  against  her.  You  are  organizing  the  government 
on  the  principle  of  war  upen  the  Piedmont,  and  is  your 
spirit  of  chivalry  such  that  you  will  not  let  us  ge 'into 
the  contest — stript  of  our  pristine  strength  as  we  shall 
be  even  with  the  mixed  basis — unless  you  first  have  us 
bound  and  fettered?  I  appeal  to  my  tide-water  friends 
if  they  desire  to  go  into  a  contest  with  us,  if  indeed  one 
is  to  go  on,  with  such  odds  on  their  side  as  these. 

But  we  are  told  that  guaranties  will  afford  the  pro- 
tection that  we  require.  Now,  1  happen  to  be  one  of 
those  who  do  not  believe  in  these  guaranties,  or  in  their 
I  efficacy,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  I  fear  power.  I 
have  been  taught  to  dread  power,  and  I  do  not  think 
power  is  less  dangerous  even  when  restrained  upon  one 
jside  while  it  has  free  scope  everywhere  else.  Provide 
guaranties  again«t  power  !  Will  gentlemen  tell  me  that, 
'standing  here  and  forming  a  constitution  which  looks, 
or  ought  to  look,  to  the  indefinite  future,  they  can,  at 
jthis  moment  of  time,  foresee  what  various  forms  of 
aggression  power  will  assume  and  provide  against 
them?  Power  is  always  shifting  its  aggressions,  its 
forms  of  attack,  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man  to 
guard  against  its  abuse  in  all  instances  in  the  future. 
But  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  told  us 
that  the  paper  guaranties  were  very  valuable,  and  that 
they  have  afforded  us  ample  protection  heretofore,  and 
that  we  would  have  suffered  no  injustice  at  the  hands  of 
the  general  government,  had  we  had  guaranties  in  ex- 
press forms  on  the  subject  in  which  we  have  suffered 
injustice.  This  reference  affords  a  happy  illustration  of 
the  views  which  I  have  just  presented  to  the  committee. 
Could  the  federal  Convention  that  formed  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  have  foreseen  the  acts  of  ag- 
gression which  took  place  but  a  few  months  ago,  and 
could  they  have  provided  against  them,  does  any  gentle- 
man believe  that  they  would  not  at  once  have  done  so. 
Does  any  man  in  this  hall  believe  that  they  could  have 
foreseen  that  we  were  to  have  acquired  territory  from 
Mexico,  and  that  there  would  be  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  the  north  to  deprive  us  of  our  just 
rights,  in  relation  to  that  territory  ?  It  is  but  an  in= 
stance  of  one  of  the  multiform  aspects  in  which  unre- 
strained power  will  present  itself,  and  it  is  but  addi- 
tional evidence  of  the  total  inability  of  man  to  provide 
against  these  abuses  of  power.  But,  says  the  gentle- 
man, if  we  had  had  express  guaranties  on  these  sub- 
jects, they  would  have  been  observed,  and  it  was  but 
from  the  fact  of  the  absence  of  such  guaranties  that 
aggressions  have  been  committed  upon  us.  Let  me  ask 
his  attention  to  one  guaranty  in  the  federal  constitution, 
and  let  me  ask  him  also  if  it  is  not  as  explicit  a  guaran- 
ty as  any  of  his  colleagues  can  make  ? 

"  Congress  shall  make  no  law  abridging  the  freedom 
of  speech  or  of  the  press.  " 

That  was  one  of  the  amendments  adopted  in  1791. 
There  is  a  guaranty  against  the  abuse  of  power.  Yret 
ten  years  had  scarcely  elapsed  before  that  guaranty  was 
violated,  and  the  federal  statue  book  was  disgraced  with 
the  sedition  law.  Can  you  form  any  guaranty  more 
explicit  than  that  ?    That  is  the  example  to  which  gen- 


372 


tlemen  appeal  as  evidence  in  support  of  the  value  of  ex- 
press guaranties  ! 

I  have  another  reason  to  mistrust  the  efficacies  of 
guaranties.  The  moment  that  these  restraints  become 
onerous  restrictions  upon  the  powers  of  the  majority, 
that  majority  will  get  rid  of  them.  They  will  continue 
to  be  restraints  just  so  long  as  the  majority  choose  to 
be  restrained  by  them,  and  then  they  would  be  snapped 
like  pack-thread.  The  same  power  that  puts  them  in 
the  constitution  could  very  easily  put  them  out  of  the 
constitution.  The  same  majority  that  would  control 
the  government  in  all  its  departments,  would  control 
the  constitution  itself.  They  would  very  soon  amend 
your  constitution,  and  purge  it  of  guaranties  whenever 
these  guaranties  might  become  objectionable  to  them. 
And  then  my  friends  of  the  guaranties  would  have  to 
swallow  the  white  basis  in  its  unsophisticated  purity. 
The  pill  would  then  have  no  sugar  upon  it.  But  here 
are  these  gentlemen  from  the  Jefferson  district  with 
another  guarantee  to  secure  their  guaranties.  They 
say  that  they  will  require  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
legislature  before  another  Convention  shall  be  called. 
'I  do  not  understand  that  that  proposition  commands  the 
general  support  of  western  gentlemen.  The  chairman 
of  the  .basis  committee,  (Mr.  Summers,)  in  his  remarks 
about  guaranties  this  morning,  gave  no  intimation  of  his 
assent  to  it.  And  I  must  confess  my  surprise  that  such 
a  proposition  should  be  presented  in  the  quarter  from 
which  it  comes.  Are  gentlemen  who  are  contending 
for  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  the  right  of  the 
majority  to  rule,  going  to  beat  down  and  lay  prostrate 
that  principle  as  applied  to  the  organization  of  the  gov- 
ernment ?  You  who  are  so  much  afraid  of  the  rule  of 
the  minority  that  you  will  not  trust  it  to  the  powers  of 
ordinary  municipal  legislation,  will  yet  authorize  that 
minority  to  enforce  upon  you  an  organic  law — a  form 
of  government  that  is  objectionable  to  you  !  Let  me 
enquire  where  is  the  difference  in  principle  between 
the  original  establishment  of  a  law  by  a  minority,  and 
the  continuance  of  that  law  by  a  minority  after  a  change 
of  circumstances  has  rendered  it  objectionable  to  the 
majority  ?  Does  not  the  law  derive  its  valid  existence 
from  the  will  of  the  minority  by  whom  it  is  kept  in 
force  ?  Gentlemen  are  willing  to  abandon  their  princi- 
ple here,  provided  they  get  the  power  of  legislation. 
Yet  they  do  not  want  power — only  principle !  1  will 
pass  that  by,  and  inquire  what  security  such  a  guarantee 
would  afford?  Does  any  man  here  seriously  believe 
that  such  a  provision  as  that  would  prevent  a  majority 
in  full  possession  of  the  government  from  affecting  such 
amendments  to  the  constitution  as  they  might  determine 
to  introduce  ?  Why,  even  now,  when  they  have  not  that 
complete  mastery  over  the  government  which  they  seek, 
they  tell  us  boldly  that  the  majority  of  the  community 
are  entitled  to  obtain  the  organic  reforms  which  they 
demand,  and  unless  we  will  give  them  in  the  form  which 
they  desire,  very  distinct  intimations  are  given  to  us 
that  ulterior  measures  will  be  adopted  in  order  to  en- 
force the  will  of  the  majority.  Suppose  they  now  had 
control  over  the  government,  does  any  one  suppose  that 
a  provision  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote  to  procure  an 
amended  constitution  would  stand  in  their  way?  We 
should  hear  very  able  and  ingenious  arguments,  based 
upon  the  bill  of  rights — arguments  perfectly  satisfactory 
to  those  seeking  the  change,  proving  that  such  a  pro- 
vision is  an  insufferable  violation  of  the  rights  of  man, 
and  of  no  valid  obligation.  The  gentleman  from  Jeffer- 
son, (Mr.  Hunter,)  says  that  the  majority  could  only 
avoid  such  a  provision  by  a  revolution.  If  the  occasion 
ever  arises,  I  predict  that  he  will  find  the  majority  desi- 
ring the  reforms  will  entertain  a  different  opinion,  and 
will  demand  the  reforms  as  a  legal  right.  But  even  if 
they  have  to  resort  to  revolution,  what  a  safe  and  easy 
thing  will  be  a  revolution  when  the  government  is  on 
the  side  of  the  revolters.  It  cannot  be  difficult'to  upset 
a  government  that  wants  to  be  upset.  It  will  be  very 
easy  to  overrun  the  forms  of  the  organic  law  when  the 
law-making  and  law-executing  power  are  in  the  hands 
of  those  seeking  the  change. 


Upon  such  considerations  as  these,  I  shall  support  the 
mixed  basis  proposition.  Like  the  gentleman  from 
Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  who  addressed  the  com- 
mittee some  days  ago,  I  cannot  support  it  as  a  first 
choice  proposition.  When  I  look  around  me  and  con- 
template the  peculiar  condition  of  a  great  interest  in 
this  State,  for  which  we  ought  to  provide,  I  want  some- 
thing accomplished  in  the  organization  of  government 
which  the  mixed  basis  will  not  accomplish  to  my  satis- 
faction. Gentlemen  will  of  course  understand  me  as 
having  reference  to  that  great  and  sensitive  property 
interest  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr. 
Scott,)  referred  the  other  day.  Congregated  in  one 
quarter  of  the  State  are  400,000  slaves,  worth  near 
$150,000,000.  Between  the  owners  of  this  property  and 
that  portion  of  the  State  containing  a  majority  of  the 
white  population,  mountains  interpose,  and  no  peculiar 
tie  of  business  or  of  social  intercourse  binds  them  in  in- 
separable identity  of  feeling  and  interest.  I  tremble 
when  I  anticipate  the  day  when  the  unrestricted  con- 
trol over  the  powers  of  this  government  shall  pass  into 
hands  not  interested  in  the  preservation  of  that  proper- 
ty, for  the  history  of  the  world  shows  that  whenever 
this  property  has  been  subject  to  power  in  the  hands  of 
those  not  interested  in  it,  it  has  been  made  the  subject 
of  oppression.  I  am  solicitous  for  protection  for  this 
property — yes,  liberty  for  the  property  holder — the  best 
definition  of  liberty  that  I  have  ever  read  is  that  given 
by  Sir  James  Mcintosh,  when  he  said  it  is  security  from 
wrong.  I  have  all  proper  confidence,  I  trust,  in  the 
people  of  the  west,  but  it  is  a  principle  of  human  na- 
ture that  when  it  becomes  the  interest  of  a  community 
to  act  in  a  particular  direction,  it  will  so  act.  What 
did  we  hear  the  other  day  from  the  gentleman  from 
Monongalia  ?  (Mr.  Willey.)  Why,  if  they  did  not  get 
this  white  basis — a  very  distinct  intimation  I  thought 
it  was — if  this  slave  property  stood  in  the  way  of  the 
progress  of  the  west  to  power,  they  would  resort  to 
measures  for  the  destruction  of  that  which  thus  stood  in 
their  way. 

Well,  this  is  the  state  of  feeling  now.  If  they 
are  persuaded  that  this  slave  property  stands  in  the  way 
of  their  rights  now,  how  do  we  know  in  what  other  as- 
pects it  may  be  presented  as  standing  in  the  way  of 
these  rights  in  the  future  ?  It  is  the  very  argument  upon 
which  the  free  soil  party  of  the  north  bases  itself.  They 
declare  that  slave  labor  is  an  interference  with  the 
rights  of  freemen,  and  it  is  because  this  people  believe 
that  it  is  an  interference  with  their  rights  and  interests 
that  they  have  sought  to  perpetrate  those  acts  of  injus- 
tice upon  the  south.  Those  people,  too,  have  all  these 
moral  feelings  of  which  gentlemen  talk.  They  have 
sound  hearts— they  have  fought  for  their  country,  and 
their  bones  lie  bleaching  on  the  battle-fields  too.  Yet, 
in  pursuance  of  what  they  called  a  great  principle,  when 
it  became  their  interest  to  perpetrate  wrong,  they  hesi- 
tated not  to  perpetrate  it.  There  were  not  wanting 
men  among  them  to  persuade  them  that  in  so  doing  they 
were  acting  in  the  prosecution  and  assertion  of  these 
rights.  I  do  not  know,  I  cannot  foresee  what  particu- 
lar view  of  human  rights  may  be  taken  in  the  different 
sections  of  the  State  in  all  future  time.  I  do  not  know 
what  will  be  their  interests,  and  therefore  I  am  not 
willing  to  subject  this  immense  interest  to  the  control 
of  those  who  may  take  such  a  view  of  their  rights  and 
interests  as  to  require  this  property  to  be  destroyed.  I 
feel  especial  occasion  for  caution — when  I  am  already 
told  by  their  delegates  here  that  they  will  take  that 
view  of  the  subject  if  we  do  not  give  them  this  white 
basis,  if,  I  understand,  that,  if  this  great  property  in- 
terest enters  as  an  element  into  the  mixed  basis,  and 
stands  as  a  barrier  between  them  and  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  wishes  much  longer,  as  the  intimation  is 
most  distinctly  made  to  us,  they  will  remove  that  bar- 
rier. I  am  not  willing  to,  trust  my  interests  and  their 
safety  and  protection  in  the  hands  of  those  who  take 
such  views  of  their  rights  and  interests  as  may  require 
the  sacrifice  of  my  interest  and  my  rights.  These  very 
northern  people  to  whom  I  have  referred,  have  supposed 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVEOTION. 


373 


that  in  sacrificing  the  rights  of  the  so.uth,  they  were  act- 
ing in  accordance  with  a  course  of  justice  and  proprie- 
ty. I  do  not  ask  that  the  government  shall  be  placed  in 
the  hands  of  those  interested  in  this  property.  I  should 
be  content  if  they  were  empowered  to  check  and  pre- 
.vent  unjust  and  oppressive  action  when  attempted.  I 
.  utterly  despair,  however,  of  obtaining  such  an  organi- 
zation of  this  government  as  will  secure  for  this  inter- 
est the  permanent  protection  which  I  seek  for  it.  If  I 
cannot  get  that,  I  must  take  the  best  that  I  can  get — re- 
serving to  myself  the  privilege,  should  an  opportunity 
occur,  of  successfully  accomplishing  my  views,  of  avail- 
ing myself  of  it. 

I  have  already  detained  the  committee  longer  than  I 
ought  to  have  done.  I  must  tender  to  the  committee 
my  unaffected  thanks  for  the  very  kind  attention  with 
which  they  have  honored  me.  It  may  be  some  compen- 
sation to  assure  them  that  their  kindness  has  enabled 
ine  to  present  my  views  in  a  much  briefer  space  than  I 
could  have  done  had  I  been  compelled  to  labor  to  at- 
tract their  attention. 

Mr.  C  ARLILE.  The  deep  interest,  which  in  common 
with  my  constituents,  I  feel  in  connexion  with  the  sub 
ject  now  under  consideration,  must  be  my  apology  to  the 
committee  for  trespassing  upon  its  patience  at  this  time. 

I. am  fully  sensible  that  I  have  occupied  already  upon 
the  subjects  which  have  been  before  the  Convention  too 
much  of  its  time.  I  am  aware  that  for  one  of  my  years 
and  inexperience  in  the  presence  of  a  body  like  this,  pos- 
sessing its  talent,  its  learning,  it  would  perhaps  have 
been  better  if  i  had  refrained  f  :om  troubling  the  Con 
vention  with  many  of  the  remarks  which  I  have  had  the 
honor  of  addressing  to  it,  but  I  trust  that  what  I  have 
said  and  what  I  may  say,  will  not  be  attributed  to  a 
want  of  a  proper  estimate  of  the  body,  and  of  all  that  is 
due  to  it ;  but  to  the  true  reason  which  is  the  all  absorb- 
ing interest  I  feel  in  the  questions  presented  to  us,  and 
the  consciousness  that  the  people  I  have  the  honor  in 
part  to  represent,  are  watching  with  almost  breathless 
anxiety  the  result  of  your  deliberations.  For  the  future 
I  sh  til  endeavor  to  occupy  less  of  your  time  than  I  have 
in  the  past.  When  this  amendment  was  introduced  by 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  it  will  be  re- 
membered, that  so  soon  as  I  could  get  the  floor,  I  did  so 
for  the  purpose  of  expressing  the  hope  that  that  gentle 
man  would  have  assigned  to  the  committee  the  reasons 
which  influenced  him,  and  which  he  must  suppose  would 
have  influenced  it,  to  prefer  his  amendment  to  the  pro- 
positions reported  from  the  committee  on  the  basis  and 
apportionment.  I  conceived  it  to  be  in  conformity  with 
all  parliamentary  usage  ;  nay,  I  believed  it  but  respect- 
ful to  the  body  itself,  that  when  a  member  submits  a 
proposition  for  consideration  to  members  here,  and  asks, 
as  he  has  a  right  to  do,  that  they  shall  vote  upon  it,  that 
lie  should  state  the  reasons  why  the  committee  or  the 
Convention  should  adopt  it,  particularly  when  it  is  an 
amendment  to  the  report  of  a  committee  appointed  b; 
the  body  itself,  ordered  to  consider  of  as  well  as  to  re- 
port upon  the  subjects  to  it  referred,  and  which  in  the 
proper  discharge  of  its  duties,  it  is  to  be  presumed  it  has 
done  ;  but,  in  this  instance,  we  have  had  a  reversal  of 
this  rule,  and  gentlemen  have  led  off  in  opposition  to  the 
amendment  as  well  as  gentlemen  in  favor  of  the  amend- 
ment, without  the  benefit  of  such  an  argument  until  day 
before  yesterday,  as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  is  ca- 
pable of  making  ;  and  what  has  been  the  result  ?  Why, 
that  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  (Mr.  Pubkins)  and  oth- 
•er  gentlemen  who  have  advocated  before  the  committee 
this  amendment,  have  advocated  it  upon  the  ground,  as 
they  assert,  that  it  is  necessary  to  secure  their  constitu- 
ents, the  minority  of  the  people  in  this  Commonwealth, 
from  excessive  taxation  and  from  a  wasteful  expenditure 
of  the  public  money  ;  in  other  words,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  them  to  fetter  the  very  system  which  the  gen 
tleman  from  Fauquier,  the  mover  of  the  amendment,  says 
•  It  is  his  intention,  and  was  so  designed  by  him  in  propo 
sing  the  amendment,  and  in  the  advocacy  of  the  princi- 


ple contained  in  it,  to  assist  and  not  to  fetter.  ISTow  we 
have  an  argument  to  meet  of  the  gentleman  from  Hali- 
fax and  those  think  him  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  be- 
cause the  mixed  basis,  as  they  contend,  will  cripple  and 
to  some  extent  arrest  the  system  of  internal  improve- 
ment, as  well  as  the  argument  of  the  mover  of  the  a- 
mendment  in  support  of  the  proposition,  because  it  will 
not  cripple  or  fetter  this  system  of  internal  improvement. 
In  other  words,  the  gentleman  from  Halifax  and  those 
who  think  with  him,  advocate  the  mixed  basis,  because 
they  say  the  suffrage  basis  would  transfer  the  power  of 
the  State  to  the  friends  of  internal  improvement;  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  advocates  the  mixed  basis  be- 
cause he  says  he  is,  and  has  ever  been  a  friend  to  the 
system  of  internal  improvement,  and  opposes  the  suffrage 
basis  because  he  says  its  adoption  would  arrest;  if  in- 
deed it  did  not  destroy  altogether,  the  system  of  intern- 
al improvement,  for  he  contends  the  suffrage  basis  will 
be  accompanied  with  such  restrictions  upon  the  taxing 
and  appropriating  power  as  will  prevent  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government  from  making  extravagant 
appropriations  to  works  of  internal  improvement. 

I  design,  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  to  refer  to  tb  e- 
history  of  the  constitution  of  which  George  Mason  was 
the  author,  and  I  shall  show  that  the  exposition  which 
the  gentleman  from  Culpeper  (Mr.  Barbour)  has  sought 
to  give  to  the  bill  of  rights,  by  contrasting  it  with  the 
constitution  of  1776,  is  not  sustained  by  the  authority 
to  which  he  has  referred.  But  before  1  do  this,  and  be- 
fore I  enter  particularly  upon  that  course  of  remark 
which  I  design  to  do,  and  state  the  objections  which  I 
have  to  the  amendment  as  well  as  to  the  mixed  basis 
part  of  the  committee's  report,  I  desire  to  notice  so  much 
of  the  bill  of  rights  as  declares  that  the  majority  of  the 
community  hath  the  indubitable,  inalienable  and  inde- 
feasible right  to  alter,  reform,  or  abolish  the  government 
in  such  a  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to 
the  public  weal,"  Ail  parties  here  now,  seem  to  agree 
not  only  to  the  bill  of  rights  as  it  is  written,  but  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  announced  in  bis 
argument  that  he  would  not  add  to,  or  subtract  from  it; 
and  of  course  he  concedes  that  if  the  preposition  which 
he  has  submitted  as  an  amendment,  and  which  is  now 
under  consideration,  be  opposed  to  the  principles  con- 
tained in  the  bill  of  rights,  it  would  not  receive  his  ap- 
probation. But  to  reconcile  the  proposition  which  he 
has  submitted  with  the  bill  of  rights,  he  assumes  that 
the  phrase,  ''majority  of  the  community,"  as  used  in  the 
bill  of  rights,  means  a  governmental  majority ;  not  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people,  but  a  majority — as  stated  by  some 
gentlemen — of  interest :  a  majority  of  those  who,  for  the 
time  being,  have  possession  of  the  government.  It  is 
my  purpose  to  ascertain  what  the  phrase,  "majority  of 
the  community,"  means,  as  is  used  in  the  bill  of  rights, 
and  who  and  what  is  included  within  the  meaning  of 
these  words.  I  answer,  without  hesitation,  that  it  means 
nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  a  majority  of  the 
people;  in  other  words,  a  majority  of  the  men  of  sane 
minds  and  mature  age  in  the  community.  The  number 
of  persons  included  within  its  broad  signification,  is  not, 
and  cannot  be  limited  by  any  conventional  or  govern 
mental  restrictions,  for  the  bill  of  rights  speaks  as  be- 
hind all  constitutions,  as  behind  all  organized  govern- 
ments. It  speaks  of  man  in  his  primary  and  natural  ca- 
pacity ;  it  speaks  of  him  as  in  the  exercise  of  primary 
or  natural  rights.  All  the  rights  spoken  of  in  that  in- 
strument, appertain  to,  and  belong  to  man  in  his  unor- 
ganized state,  and  behind  all  forms  or  obligations  of  go- 
vernment. And,  so  thoroughly  is  this  idea  embodied  in 
the  bill  of  rights,  that  it  is  declared,  no  matter  what 
may  be  the  form  of  government,  it  cannot  deprive  man 
of  these  rights.  If,  therefore,  these  rights  exist,  inde- 
pendent of,  and  prior  to  government,  as  my  friend  from 
Culpeper  admitted,  and  cannot  be  taken  away  or  modi- 
fied by  government,  it  follows  that  the  phrase,  "majori- 
ty of  the  community,"  cannot  mean  a  conventional  or 
governmental  majority;  and  if  it  could — as  gentlemen 


374 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


would  like  to  have  it — mean  a  governmental  majority' 
the  practical  operation  of  the  doctrine  would  be  to  de 
feat  the  very  object  had  in  view;  for  it  would  recognize 
in  a  majority  of  the  existing1  government,  power  to  per- 
petuate itself ;  in  other  words,  whether  the  governmen- 
tal majoiity  be  composed  of  a  majority  of  the  communi- 
ty, or  of  a  miuority,  if  the  phrase,  '-majority  of  the  com- 
munity," means  a  governmental  majority,  it  would,  of 
necessity,  give  to  that  governmental  majority  the  abso- 
lute power,  of  perpetuating  itself,  and  would  forever 
preclude  the  majority  of  the  people  from  the  exercise  of 
that  right  which  the  bill  of  rights  declares  is  inherent  in 
them,  and  a  natural  right,  to  wit :  the  power  to  alter, 
reform  or  abolish  the  government;  and  if  this  construc- 
tion, which  is  sought  to  be  put  upon  this  phrase,  be  cor- 
rect, the  inevitable  result  must  be  to  defeat  the  very  ob- 
ject had  in  view  by  the  framers  of  the  bill  of  rights  it- 
self. And  what  would  be  its  effect  ?  If  this  phrase  means 
a  governmental  majority,  by  what  authorty  could  a  Con- 
vention of  the  people  to  change,  alter  or  reform  their  go- 
vernment, be  re-assembled,  unless  it  should  be  the  au- 
thoiity  of  the  governmental  majority;  and,  instead  of  a 
majority  of  the  people  having  the  right  inherent  in  them 
to  change,  reform,  or  alter  their  government,  no  matter 
how  oppressive,  no  matter  how  injurious,  unless  they 
first  obtain  the  consent  of  the  governmental  majority, 
which,  in  this  instance,  is  a  minority  of  the  people,  they 
could  never  exercise  that  right  which  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  bill  of  rights  to  secure  to  them. 

Now,  it  does  seem  to  me  the  bare  statement  of  the  prop- 
osition will  at  once  sustain  the  position  which  I  assume 
here,  that  the  phrase, 15  majority  of  the  commuity,"  means 
nothing  more  or  less  than  the  majority  of  the  people  ;  and 
that  if  any  other  construction  is  given  to  it,  that  the  very 
right  sought  to  be  secured  in  the  bill  of  rights  itself,  is 
defeated.  But  in  order  further  to  sustain  that  exposi 
tioii  of  that  phrase,  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  the  exposition  which  has  been  given 
to  it  by  every  organized  State  in  this  confederacy,  hav- 
ing a  bill  of  rights  prefixed  to  its  constitution  ;  and  fur- 
ther, I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
that  cotemporaneous  exposition  of  which  my  friend  from 
Culpeper  has  spoken,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  made  by  the  thirteen  colonies  a 
fhw  days  after  this  bill  of  rights  itself  was  adopted,  and 
written  by  one  of  Virginia's  most  illustrious  sons ;  one 
who,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  was  fully  acquainted  with  the 
meaning  designed  to  b<.  given  to  that  phrase  in  the  bill 
of  rights  adopted  in  his  own  State;  and  that  exposition 
which  he  gave  to  it,  that  exposition  which  the  thirteen 
colonies,  in  Convention  or  Congress  assembled,  (call  it  by 
what  name  you  will,)  gave  to  it,  is  the  exposition  that  I 
have  given  to  it,  and  that  every  candid  maa  must  give 
to  it. 

Permit  me  to  read  from  that  portion  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  which  refers  to  the  right  to  change, 
alter,  or  reform  the  government  : 

45  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident :  that  all  men 
are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Cre- 
ator with  certain  alienable  rights  ;  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happine;s  ;  that  to  secure 
these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  de 
riving  their  just  powers  frem  the  consent  of  the  govern 
ed  ;  that,  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes 
destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to 
alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government, 
laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing 
its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  like 
ly  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness." 

There  the  word  people  is  used  instead  cf  the  word 
commu  iity.  We  must  of  necessity  declare  that  this  right 
belongs  to  the  people,  to  be  exercised  by  them  ;  and  in 
any  conflict  as  to  the  manner  of  its  exercise,  the  minority 
should  yield  to  the  majority.  Of  the  thirteen  original 
States,  eight  of  them  have  prefixed  to  their  constitutions 
a  bill  of  rights.  I  shall  not  detain  the  committee  by 
reading  extracts  frora  all ;  but  I  will  go  to  the  little  State 


of  Rhode  Island ;  and  I  fina"  there,  that  her  declaration 
of  rights  alludes  to.  what  were  the  opinions  upon  this 
subject,  of  the  father  of  hia  country,  and  the  very  first 
section  reads  in  this  way  : 

"In  the  words  of  the  father  of  his  country,  we  declare, 
that  the  basis  of  our  political  system,  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  and  to  alter  their  constitutions  of  govern- 
ment." 

The  constitutions  of  seven  others  of  the  original  States, 
will  be  found  to  contain  the  very  same  exposition,  and 
in  almost  the  very  same  language,  that  is  contained  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  is  further  to  be 
found,  that  this  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  and  the  principle  which  it  contains,  has 
not  been  adopted  in  the  constitution  of  any  of  the  thir- 
ty-one States,  save  the  single  State  of  South  Carolina; 
and  I  desire  to  read  the  4th  and  5th  sections  of  the  a- 
mendment,  and  then  to  read  the  sections  corresponding 
with  it,  in  the  Constitution  of  South  Carolina ;  and  I 
trust  that  our  reporter  will  have  them  published  in  par- 
rallel  columns,  so  that  they  may  the  more  readily  be 
contrasted,  when  they  go  forth  to  the  country. 


MK,  SCOTT  S  SUBSTITUTE. 

The  4th  section  of  the  gen- 
tleman's amendment  reads : 

"  Representation  in  both 
legislative  bodies  shall  be 
apportioned  amongst  the 
counties,  cities  and  towns, 
according  to  the  number  of 
white  inhabitants  contain- 
ed, and  the  amount  of  all 
taxes  paid  in  each;  deduct- 
ing from  such  taxes,  all  tax- 
es paid  on  licenses  and  law 
process.  In  making  such 
apportionment,  there  shall 
be  allowed  one  delegate  for 
every  part  of  the 

said  inhabitants,  and  one 
delegate  for  every 
part  of  said  taxes ;  and  in 
like  manner,  there  shall 
be  allowed  one  senator  for 
every  part  of  the 

same;  Provided,  that  the 
representation  of  no  city  or 
town,  shall,  at  any  lime,  ex- 
ceed delegates  and 
senators  ;  but  the 
surplus  fractions  thereof, 
whether  of  population  or 
taxation,  or  of  both  combin- 
ed, shall  be  estimated  in 
assigning  representation  to 
the  sections  of  the  State  in 
which  they  are  respectively 
situated." 

Fifth  section: 

'The  general  assembly, 
after  the  year  ,  and 

at  intervals  thereafter  of 
not  less  than  ten  years,  shall 
re  apportion  representaiion 
in  both  legislative  bodies, 
according  to  the  principle 
and  in  the  manner  herein 
declared-  but  in  every  re- 
apportionment, the  amount 
of  taxes  shall  be  estimated 
from  the  average  of  the  ten 
precedii  g  years." 


S    CAROLINA  CONSTITUTION. 

"  The  house  of  represen- 
tatives shall  consist  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-four 
members,  to  be  apportioned 
among  the  several  election 
districts  of  the  State,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of 
white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes 
raised  by  the  legislature, 
whethf  r  direct  or  indirect, 
or  of  whatever  species,  paid 
in  each,  deducting  therefrom 
all  taxes  paid  on  account  of 
property  held  in  any  other 
district,  and  adding  thereto 
all  taxes  elsewhere  paid  on 
account  of  property  held  in 
such  district.  An  enumera- 
tion of  the  white  inhabi- 
tants, for  this  purpose,  shall 
be  made  in  the  year  1809, 
and  in  the  course  of  every 
tenth  year  thereafter,  in 
such  manner  as  shall  be  by 
law  directed  ;  and  represen- 
tatives shall  be  assigned  to 
the  different  districts  in  the 
above  mentioned  propor- 
tion, by  the  act  of  the  legis- 
lature at  the  session  immedi- 
ately succeeding  the  above 
enumeration." 

"  In  assigning  representa- 
tives to  the  several  districts 
of  the  State,  t'  e  legislature 
shall  allow  one  representa 
tive  for  every  sixty-second 
part  of  the  whole  taxes  rais- 
ed by  the  legislature  of  the 
State." 

"  In  every  apportionment 
of  representation  under 
these  amendments,  which 
shall  take  place  after  the 
first  apportionment,  the 
amount  of  taxes  shall  be 
estimated  from  the  average 
of  the  ten  preceding  years.'' 


Here  in  the  South  Carolina  constitution  we  have  the 
blanks  filled  up,  and  I  presume  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  should  his  amendment  be 
adopted  by  the  Convention,  to  fill  up  his  blanks  in  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


375 


same  proportion  that  they  are  filled  up  in  the  South 
Caiolina  constitution. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  ths  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  is  strikingly  like  the  South 
Carolina  constitution,  so  much  as  to  warrant  the  belief 
that  it  has  been  copied  from  that  instrument.  Even 
the  re-apportionment  requiring  the  General  Assembly 
to  take  the  average  of  the  ten  preceding  years,  it  is 
found,  follows  almost  word  for  word,  this  provision  in 
the  constitution  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  Now, 
I  presume,  if  it  shall  be  determined  by  the  Convention 
to  engraft  upon  our  orgauic  law  this  South  Carolina 
article,  that  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier  in  order  to  preserve'that  harmony  that  should 
exist  in  the  provisions  of  that  instrument,  to  propose  to 
incorporate  also,  the  sixth  section  of  the  constitution  of 
South  Carolina,  which  I  take  it  for  granted  was  incor- 
porated in  the  constitution  of  the  State,  for  the  very  same 
reason  that  gentlemen  desire  to  incorporate  this  principle 
of  the  mixed  basis  into  our  constitution,  which  is  assigned 
to  be  the  necessity  for  the  minority  to  have  the  majority 
in  the  legislative  department  of  the  government,  because 
of  its  peculiar  property.  And  to  give  additional  secu- 
rity, the  people  of  South  Carolina  have  adopted  the 
sixth  section,  which  1  shall  read,  and  which  I  expect 
will  be  proposed  to  this  Convention,  should  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  be  adopted. 

The  sixth  section  of  the  constitution  of  South  Caro- 
lina, is  as  follows : 

"No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  house  of 
representatives  unless  he  is  a  free  white  man,  of  the  age 
of  twenty -one  years,  and  hath  been  a  citizen  and  resident 
in  this  State  three  years  previous  to  his  election.  _  If  a 
resident  in  the  election  district,  he  shall  not  be  eligible 
to  a  seat  in  the  house  of  representatives,  unless  he  be 
legally  seized  and  possessed,  in  his  own  right,  of  a  set- 
tled freehold  estate  of  five  hundred  acres  of  land,  and 
ten  negroes." 

Now,  these  people  have  been  consistent.  They  have 
evidently  organized  their  government  for  the  protection 
and  the  protection  alone,  of  that  portion  of  the  people 
that  may  be  possessed  of  this  property,  of  which  we 
have  heard  so  much  during  our  session  here;  and  they 
have  not  only  required  that  it  shall  have  representation 
in  the  General  Assembly,  but  they  have  gone  further 
and  required  that  he  who  aspires  to  become  a  repi  esen- 
tative  must  be  possessed  of  five  hundred  acres  of  land 
and  ten  negroes,  thus  confining  the  exercise  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  government  to  the  owners  of  this  peculiar 
property. 

Mr.  NEESON.  With  the  permission  of  the  gentle- 
man, I  niu'-fc  that  the  committee  now  rise. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.    Oh,  no;  it  is  only  2  o'clock.  ' 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Neeson,  and  there  were — a  count  being  had — ayes  43, 
noes  19 — no  quorum. 

The  committee  then  rose,  and  the  Chair  reported  the 
fact  to  the  Convention  that  there  was  no  quorum  pre- 
sent, when 

On  motion  of  Mr.  LETCHER,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow  morning  at  11  o'clock. 


Mr.  WISE.  1  moved  10  o'clock  the  other  da_y  as  tho 
hour  for  our  meeting,  but  it  did  not  answer,  because  it 
was  too  early  to  g«t  a  quorum.  Wo  changed  the  hour 
to  11  o'clock  again,  in  order  that  we  might  have  a  quo- 
rum present,  but  on  the  very  first  meeting  of  the  Con- 
vention at  that  hour,  we  find  that  no  quorum  id  present. 
L  move  a  call  of  the  roll. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  roll  was  called  by 
the  Secretary,  when  the  following  gentlemen  were  found 
to  be  absent,  as  follows: 

Messrs.  Anderson,  Arthur,  Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Botts, 
Bowden,  Brown,  Burges,  Byrd  of  Fredeiick,  Caperton, 
Carter  of  Russell,  Chambers,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cocke, 
Davis,  Deneale,  Edwards,  Faulkner,  Ferguson,  liuney, 
i  lood,  Fulkerson,  Fuqua,  Garland,  M.  R.  H.  Gainett, 
Goode,  Hays,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Jacob,  Jones,  Knote,  Lion- 
berger,  Lynch,  Lyons,  McCamant.McCandlish,  McComas, 
Meredith,  Newman,  Petty,  Randolph,  Ridley,  Saunders, 
Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of 
Richmond  city,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Kanawha, 
Smith  of  King  &  Queen,  Suowden,  Stanard,  Straughan, 
Strother,  Tate,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Watts  of  Norfolk 
county,  Watts  of  Roanoke,  White,  Whittle,  Williams 
of  Fairfax,  Williams  of  Shenandoah,  Woolfolk,  and 
Wysor— 68. 

Mr.  WISE.  A  quorum  beinar  present,  I  have  no  de- 
sire to  proceed  further  with  the  call. 

Further  proceedings,  under  the  call,  were  then  sus- 
pended. 

WESTERN  LAND  TITLES. 

Mr.  WISE.  When  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
western  land  titles  shall  be  tuken  up  for  consideration, 
I  shall  move  to  amend  the  second  section  of  the  report 
by  inserting  after  the  words  "October  next,"  the  words 
'"on  warrants  issued  before  the  first  day  of  March, 
1851,"  so  that  the  section,  as  amended,  will  read  : 

Skc.  2.  No  grant  or  patent  shall  hereafter  issue  to  any 
person  for  forfeited,  or  waste,  and  unappropriated  land's 
lying  west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains,  except  upon 
surveys  made  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  and  which 
shall  be  returned  to  the  land  office  before  the  first  day 
of  October  next,  on  warrants  issued  before  the  first  day 
of  March  1851.  But  such  land  may  be  proceeded 
against  and  sold  under  decrees  of  the  circuit  or  superior 
court  of  the  county  in  which  the  same,  or  the  greater 
part  thereof,  may  lie,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed  by  law. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

The  Convention  th  n  resumed,  in  committee  ©f  the 
whole,  (Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair )  the  consideration  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Scott  of  Fauquier. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  On  yesterday  I  alluded  to  the  fact 
that  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  member  from  Fau- 
quier,. (Mr.  Scott,)  had  been  advocated  by  gentlemen 
upon  ground  that  it  was  necessary  for  their  protection 
against  excessive  taxation  in  const  quence  of  appropri- 
ations to  works  of  internal  improvement,  that  the 
mixed  bans  principle  should  be  engrafted  into  our  con- 
stitution. I  alio  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  advoc  'ted  the  amendment 
upon  the  opposite  ground,  that  the  white  basis  as  he 
contended  would  check  this  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments, and  thereby  check  the  necessity  for  taxation ; 
and  it  was  because  it  would  have  this  effect  that  he 
preferred  the  mixed  basis  of  representation.    I  desire 


FRIDAY,  February  28,  1851. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Man  ley. 
The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

committee  on  legislative  guaranties,  «fec. 

The  PRESIDENT  announced  the  following  gentlemen  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  this  additional 
as  the  committee,  under  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Hunt  r,  |  difference  between  the  advocates  of  that  proposition, 
adopted  yesterday  :  Messrs.  Hunter,  Letcher,  S^ith  of!  This  substitute  as  well  as  the  principle  contained  m  the 
Greenbrier.  Carter,  and  Moncure.  I  mixed  basis  part  of  the  committee  b  report  is  advocated 

Mr.  PENDLETON.  I  move  that  the  Convention  now  here  by  gentlemen  who  denounce  tne  principles  con- 
resolve  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole.  |  tained  in  the  bill  of  rights,  as  a  string  of  abstractions. 

A  count,  beine  had  on  the  motion,  there  were-ayes  j  It  is  also  advocated  by  gentlemen  who  profess  toad- 
42,  noes  9 — no  quorum  voting". 


'  her*  to  these  principles,  and  who  seek  to  reconcile  tlm 


376 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


principle  of  the  mixed  basis  with  the  principles  con- 
tained in  that  sacred  instrument.  Now,  what  is  the 
natural  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  opposite  opin- 
ions, assigned  as  reasons  by  gentlemen  who  support  the 
same  proposition  ?  That  it  is  the  intention  of  eastern 
gentlemen  to  hold  on  to  the  power  whi?,h  they  now 
have,  in  the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  Greenes- 
vilie,  (Mr.  Chambliss,)  at  all  hazards,  and  to  the  last 
extremity — aye,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  every  principle 
which  has  heretofore  been  held  sacred  by  a  republican 
people.  I  alluded  to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  and  particularly  to  that  part  of  it  where 
he  contended  that  the  phrase  "  majority  of  the  comma 
nity,''  as  tfsed  in  the  bill  of  rights,  meant  a  government- 
al majerity.  I  endeavored  to  show,  and  I  think  I  did 
show  beyond  all  cavil  or  doubt,  that  it  meant  no  such 
thing,  but  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  majori- 
ty of  the  people;  because  the  idea  of  a  governmental 
majority  pre-suppose  a  prior  existing  government,  and 
that  the  rights  of  that  majority  are  derived  from  the 
government  through  some  conventional  or  constitution- 
al regulation,  which  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  as  used  in  the  bill  of  rights,  because,  as  was  cor 
rectly  stated  by  my  friend  from  Culpeper,  (Mr.  Bar- 
bour,) on  yesterday,  the  bill  of  rights  speaks  as  prior  to 
all  government,  behind  all  government,  and  is  nothing 
but  a  declaration  of  those  rights  which  belong  to  man 
in  his  unorganized  state,  and  of  which  he  cannot  be  de- 
prived, in  the  language  of  that  instrument,  when  he 
enters  into  a  state  of  society,  nor  can  he  deprive  or 
divest  his  posterity  of  them,  because  the  practical  op- 
eration of  the  doctrine  that  the  phrase  means  a  govern- 
mental majority  would  defeat  the  very  right  sought  to 
be  secured,  and  recognise  the  right  in  the  governmental 
majority,  although  composed  of  a  small  minority  of 
the  people,  to  perpetuate  itself.  But  I  desire  to  assign 
another  reason,  and  call  the  attention  of  the  committee 
to  the  language  of  the  bill  of  rights,  and  to  the  words 
immediately  succeeding  the  phrase  to  which  I  have 
alluded.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  tl  ird  section,  and 
after  providing  that  when  any  government  shall  be 
found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  its  purposes  "the  ma- 
jority of  the  community  hath  the  inalienable,  indubita- 
ble and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter  or  abolish  it, 
provides  that  this  right  shall  fee  exercised  in  such  man 
ner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to  the  public 
weal. 

Now,,  I  wish  to  know,  if  any  other  majority  than 
that  of  a  majority  of  the  people  is  alluded  to  in  thi 
phrase,  what  is  that  majority?  Surely  it  cannot  be 
property,  for  it  has  no  judgment  to  exercise.  Property 
has  not  the  faculty  of  reason.  The  very  language  of 
the  instrument  itself  carries  with  it  the  conviction  that 
the  exercise  of  the  judgment  was  in  the  contemplation 
of  the  framers  of  that  bill  of  rights,  and  that  that  judg- 
ment should  be  exercised  in  order  for  that  majority  to 
determine  whether  they  would  reform,  alter  or  abolish 
their  government.  But  I  was  not  content  with  this;  I 
called  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  language 
contained  in  the  declaration  of  independence,  adopted 
by  the  thirteen  original  colonies  but  twenty-two  days 
after  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia  was  adopted,  written 
by  one  of  the  most  distinguished  statesmen  Virginia 
«ver  produced — by  one  who,  it  is  presumed,  understood 
the  meaning  of  the  bill  of  rights  adopted  by  his  own 
State  as  well  as  gentlemen  of  the  present  day.  But  I 
further  referred,  as  a  cotemporaneous  exposition  of  this 
phrase,  to  every  declaration  «of  rights  made  by  the 
States  of  this  Union,  and  we  find  that  "community" 
and  people  are  used  as  precisely  synonymous  terms. 
Then  I  referred  to  the  fact  that  of  all  the  States  of  this 
Union,  but  one  solitary  State  had  engrafted  upon  its 
organic  law  the  principle  sought  to  be  engrafted  upon 
ours,  by  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier.  And  I  contrasted  the  provision  in  this  re 
spect  with  that  in  the  constitution  of  South  Carolina, 
and  I  again  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 


propriety  and  absolute  necessity,  if  they  will  carry  out 
this  principle  of  basing  representation  upon  persons 
and  property,  of  also  requiring,  in  order  to  afford  that 
security  which  they  demand  at  our  hands,  thau  exercise 
of  governmental  powers  in  the  legislative  department 
of  the  government  shall  only  be  confided  to  tho&e  who 
possess  a  fair  proportion  of  this  property  which  it  is 
said  is  to  be  protected,  and  not  only  protected,  but  for 
which  gentlemen  claim  in  addition  representation  in  the 
legislative  department.  But  it  is  argued  by  my  friend 
from  Culpeper,  that  as  the  constitution  and  the  bill  of 
rights  adopted  in  1776  were  both  the  workmanship  of 
George  Mason,  and  as  that  constitution  did  no  appor- 
tion representation  throughout  the  Commonwealth  upon 
the  white  population  of  each  given  distn  ct,  and  give 
to  the  same  number  of  voters  the  same  representation 
in  the  legislative  department,  that  therefore  the  mean- 
ing contended  for  here  by  the  friends  of  the  suffrage 
basis  cannot  be  correct.  Now,  no  one  knows  better 
than  my  friend  from  Culpeper  that  that  constitution 
was  framed  under  circumstances  that  would  not  have 
permitted  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  bill  of  rights 
to  be  carried  out  to  their  fullest  extent.  He  knows  that 
it  is  part  of  the  history  of  that  time  that  Mr.  Jefferson, 
then  in  Philadelphia,  forwarded  to  that  Convention  a' 
constitution,  which  in  many  respects  was  preferred  by 
that  Convention,  and  by  George  Mason  himself,  to  the 
constitution  which  they  had  adopted,  but  was  not  adopt- 
ed for  want  of  time  and  for  other  reasons  which  are 
known  to  gentlemen;  but  they  contented  themselves 
with  the  constitution  which  they  had  already  adopted, 
and  prefixed  to  it  the  preamble  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  con- 
stitution. ISTow,  justice  to  the  memory  of  that  man  re- 
quires that  he  should  not  be  charged  with  a  violation  of 
his  own  principles,  because  circumstances  that  the  sur- 
rounded him  did  not  admit  the  carrying  them  out  to 
their  fullest  extent ;  and  having  laid  down  in  the  bill 
of  rights  these  principles  which  are  declared  in  that 
instrument  to  belong  to  man  in  his  primary  capacity, 
and  of  which  he  cannot  be  deprived,  he  knew  full  well 
that  it  was  in  the  power  of  those  who  were  to  come 
after  him  to  complete  the  work  which  he  had  begun. 

But,  my  friend  from  Culpeper  objects  to  the  suffrages 
basis,  and  to  the  report  of  the  committee  made  by  the 
white  basis  part  of  it,  because  that  committee,  in  work- 
ing out  the  principle  contained  in  that  report,  have  not 
done  it  correctly.  Now,  I  submit  to  him,  if  it  be  a  fair 
argument  to  object  to  a  principle  because  its  details  have 
not  been  properly  carried  out,  and  because  those  to 
whom  the  duty  was  assigned  of  working  out  that  prin- 
ciple in  tjke  apportionment  of  representation  have  failed 
to  discharge  that  duty.,  and  have  departed  from  the 
principle.  If  the  principle  be  right,  it  is  the  duty  of 
my  friend  from  Culpeper  to  assist  in  correcting  this  re- 
port, and  to  carry  out  the  principle  by  making  a  proper 
apportionment;  and  it  will  not  justify  him  to  disregard 
the  principle  because  of  the  manner,  I  repeat,  in  which 
that  principle  has  been  worked  out.  I  conceive  that  to 
be  a  sufficient  argument  to  all  that  part  of  his  speech 
alluding  to  this  subject;  and  I  have  no  doubt,  if  he  will 
examine  with  the  same  care,  and  scrutinize  the  report 
of  the  mixed  basis  portion  of  the  committee,  he  will 
find  as  great,  if  not  greater,  inequality  in  working  out 
his  principle,  than  he  can  find  in  that  part  of  the  report 
under  the  letter  B.  But,  he  asks,  if  in  going  for  the 
suffrage  basis,  we  are  going  for  a  measure  we  believe  to 
be  adverse  to  the  interests  of  our  constituents  ?  I  an- 
swer by  saying  that  we  believe  the  suffrage  basis  to  be 
necessary  to  the  promotion  of  the  interests,  not  only  of 
our  constituents,  but  of  his  ;  we  believe  the  adoption  of 
the  suffrage  basis  necessary  to  the  interests  of  the  con- 
stituents of  every  ge'ntleman  upon  this  floor,  for  I  think 
the  highest  interest  a  freeman  can  have  is  to  secure  to 
himself  and  his  posterity  a  free  government,  and  to 
preserve  those  liberties  which  have  been  obtained  for 
him.  There  can  be  no  interest  that  would  justify  a  de- 
parture from  those  principles  which  lie  at  the  very 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


457 


sentation  and  taxation  go  hand  in  hand  ;  that  if  they 
bear  more  of  the  burthens  of  the  government  they  will 
exert  a  greater  influence  and  control  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  government^;  that  if  those  burthens  shall 
amount  to  exactions  they  will  be  arrested,  because 
those  very  burthens  will  increase  representation.  The 
evil  thus  cures  itself.  This  is  all  the  protection  the  East 
asks. 

I  have  thus  taken  two  interests  peculiar  to  Eastern 
Virginia  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  this  taxing 
power,  vested  in  a  legislature  organized  on  the  white 
basis,  may  be  so  used  as  to  destroy  those  interests,  be- 
cause that  power  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
are  not  responsible  to  those  paying  the  tax.  I  might 
take  other  interests  peculiar  to  the  East,  but  the  two  I 
have  taken  are  of  vast  magnitude  and  strikingly  illus- 
trate the  argument.  And  1  have  thus  shown  that  this 
plan  of  the  white  basis  effectually  destroys  the  great 
check  which  frequent  elections  were  designed  to  exert 
on  the  legislative  department. 

There  is  another  objection  to  the  organization  of  the 
legislative  department  on  the  white  basis.  Not  only 
does  it  surrender  this  taxing  power  without  retaining 
due  responsibility  over  the  body  in  which  it  is  placed, 
but  it  surrenders  all  those  other  checks  and  restraints 
which  a  wise  republican  government  ever  imposes  on 
those  entrusted  with  power.  One  of  the  most  impor- 
tant checks  on  the  representative  is,  that  he  and  his 
friends  shall  feel  and  share  in  the  measures  of  his  legis- 
lation. Mr.  Madison  mentions  this  as  one  of  the  most 
effectual  means  of  restraining  representatives  from  op- 
pressive measures.  He  says  :  "  That  they  can  make 
no  law  which  will  not  have  its  full  operation  on  them- 
selves and  their  friends,  as  well  as  on  the  great  mass  of 
society.  This  has  always  been  deemed  one  of  the 
strongest  bonds  by  which  human  policy  can  connect  the 
rulers  and  the  people  together.  It  creates  between 
them  that  communion  of  interest  and  sympathy  of  sen- 
timent of  which  few  governments  have  furnished  exam- 
ples, but  without  which  every  government  degenerates 
into  tyranny."  So  essential  is  this  principle  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  republican  government,  to  prevent  it 
from  "  degenerating  into  tyranny,"  that  it  is  embodied 
in  the  bill  of  rights  itself.  It  is  thus  expressed  in  that  in- 
strument :  "  That  the  legislative  and  executive  powers 
of  the  State  should  be  separate  from  the  judiciary,  and 
that  the  members  of  the  two  first  may  be  restrained 
from  oppression  by  feeling  and  participating  the  bur- 
thens of  the  people,  they  should,  at  fixed  periods,  be 
reduced  to  a  private  station  ;  return  into  the  body  from 
which  they  were  originally  taken,  and  the  vacancies  be 
supplied  by  frequent,  certain  and  regular  elections." 
This  is  the  great  check  to  prevent  representatives  from 
oppressing  the  people  by  unjust  taxes,  that  they  and 
their  friends  should  "  feel  and  participate  "  in  those 
burthens.  Now,  I  ask  if  a  legislature  organized  on  the 
plan  of  the  white  basis  furnishes  this  check?  May  not 
such  representatives  impose  taxes  on  property,  which 
they  and  their  friends  would  not  "  feel  and  participate 
in?"  Take  slaves,  merchants'  licences  and  the  whole 
list  of  taxable  property  on  which  the  East  pays  five  and 
six  times  as  much  as  the  West,  and  may  they  not  im- 
pose burthens  on  us  which  they  and  their  friends  will 
not  participate  in,  because  they  do  not  possess  the  pro- 
perty on  which  those  burthens  are  levied  ?  Or  if  they 
do  possess  it,  it  is  to  so  small  an  extent  as  to  furnish  no  re- 
straint in  preventing  them  from  fastening  on  us  a  system 
of  excessive  taxation.  There  is  no  communion  of  in- 
terest, no  sympathy  of  sentiment,  between  the  rulers 
such  a  plan  would  give  and  those  who  would  have  to 
bear  their  oppressive  measures,  and  so  long  as  we  cherish 
the  principles  of  republican  government  we  can  never 
surrender  this  check  on  our  rulers;  a  check,  without 
which,  it  has  been  said,  every  government  "  degen- 
erates into  tyranny."  There  is  another  objection  to 
this  white  basis  plan.  It  not  only  takes  the  taxing  power 
from  those  who  pay  the  taxes,  but  it  also  deprives 
them  of  the  power  of  appropriating  those  taxes  when 
raised.  Now,  if  a  tax  be,  as  I  have  stated,  a  contribu- 
tion paid  by  the  consent  of  the  people,  or  their  repre- 
43 


sentatives,  does  it  not  follow  as  a  legitimate  deduction 
from  that  definition,  that  the  right  to  appropriate  that 
tax  should  be  entrusted  to  those  who  pay  it  ?  That  a 
tax  must  be  raised  by  consent  recognizes  the  right  of 
appropriation  to  be  in  those  by  whose  consent  it  is 
raised.  If  this  be  not  so  why  may  not  any  other  gov- 
ernment assume  to  itself  the  right  of  appropriating  the 
tax  that  we  raise  ?  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  the  power 
of  appropriation  is  as  much  liable  to  abuse  as  the 
power  of  taxation  itself,  and  should  therefore  be  as 
strictly  guarded.  And  yet,  a  legislature  organized  on 
the  white  basis,  and  thus  controlling  the  appropriating 
power,  may  divert  the  taxes  from  the  interests  of  those 
who  pay  them,  to  build  up  the  interests  of  those  who  do 
not  pay  them.  That  such  has  been  the  case  in  this 
State  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  in  the  debate 
have  demonstrated  beyond  all  doubt.  The  appropria- 
tions to  internal  improvements  will  illustrate  this  abuse. 
Our  statistics  show  that  one  section  of  the  State,  whose 
annual  taxes  exceed  $200,000,  has  received  only  a  few 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  appropriations  to  works  of 
internal  improvements,  whilst  other  sections,  whose  an- 
nual taxes  are  less,  have  received  millions  in  the  way 
of  appropriations  for  that  purpose.  Nay,  a  legislature 
thus  constituted  might  use  this  appropriating  power  for 
the  destruction  of  our  slave  property.  It  might  levy  a 
tax  upon  slaves  and  then  appropriate  the  amount  thus 
raised  to  the  manumission  of  those  slaves.  Where,  I 
ask,  is  the  security,  if  we  surrender  the  power  over  ap- 
propriation, as  well  as  that  over  taxation?  Gentlemen 
have  intimated  very  plainly,  that  if  it  became  the  inter- 
est of  the  West  to  strike  down  this  institution,  she  might 
do  it.  And  would  not  this  power  of  appropriation  be  a 
means  by  which  that  end  might  be  accomplished?  Then 
as  this  appropriating  power  is  as  liable  to  as  much  abuse 
as  the  taxing  power,  it  should  be  as  strietly  guarded, 
and  the  agents  entrusted  with  it  should  be  as  directly 
responsible  to  those  who  pay  the  tax.  And  yet  by  this 
white  basis  plan  the  right  to  appropriate  the  taxes  when 
raised  will  be  vested  in  a  legislative  body,  a  majority 
of  whose  members  will  come  from  that  section  of  the 
State  which  pays  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  taxes. 

Another  objection  to  this  plan  of  the  white  basis  is, 
that  it  is  wholly  impracticable,  and  cannot  be  carried 
out  without  destroying  the  essential  feature  of  repre- 
sentative government;  that  of  representing  separate 
and  distinct  interests  in  separate  localities,  as  counties 
and  cities.  The  principle  upon  which  this  white  basis 
professes  to  act  is,  that  the  suffrage  of  one  qualified  vo- 
ler  shall  avail  as  much  as  that  of  another  qualified  vo- 
ter, and  that  an  equal  number  of  qualified  voters  shall 
be  entitled  to  equal  representation.  This  is  its  avowed 
principle,  and  yet  when  its  advocates  come  to  apply  the 
principle  and  to  work  it  out  at  their  leisure  and  in  their 
own  way,  they  utterly  discard  the  principle,  and  make 
almost  as  marked  inequalities  between  the  voters  in  the 
different  counties,  and  in  the  different  sections  of  the 
State,  as  they  charge  to  be  the  result  of  the  mixed  ba- 
sis plan.  Take  an  example.  Norfolk  city,  with  a  white 
population  of  9068  has  one  delegate  only,  whilst  Mor- 
gan with  a  population  of  3431  has  one  delegate  ;  the 
same  amount  of  representation.  Like  inequalities  pre- 
vail between  other  counties,  and  also  between  the  sena- 
torial districts  and  the  different  quarters  of  the  State. — 
This  is  the  practical  working  of  the  white  basis.  Then 
one  vote  does  not  avail  as  much  as  another,  nor  does  an 
equal  number  of  such  voters  in  one  part  of  the  State  re- 
ceive an  equal  representation  with  a  like  number  in  a 
different  part  of  the  State.  But  we  are  told  by  its 
friends,  that  this  departure  from  the  principle  in  prac- 
tice is  necessary  for  county  interests.  This  is  what  the 
advocates  of  the  mixed  basis  say  in  its  defence,  that  it* 
is  necessary  for  the  protection  of  property,  which  ex- 
ists in  unequal  quantities  in  different  sections  of  the 
State.  You  claim  the  right  to  discard  your  principle  in 
practice  when  you  think  it  necessary  to  adhere  to  county 
interests,  and  we  desire  the  same  privilege  when  we 
think  it  necessary  to  protect  our  interests.  Now  the  ob- 
ject of  county  representation  is  that  the  representative 
chosen  by  these  small  localities,  as  counties  and  cities, 


458 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


may  understand  the  wants  and  interests  of  those  by 
whom  he  is  chosen,  and  immediately  represent  them. 
You  cannot,  then,  carry  this  principle  of  the  white  ba- 
sis into  practice  and  make  every  vote  avail  as  much  as 
every  other  vote,  unless  you  obliterate  these  county  and 
district  lines,  and  make  the  State  a  consolidated  mass 
of  votes,  electing  by  general  ticket  the  whole  number 
of  members  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  ;  for  there 
is  not  a  single  instance  in  the  choice  of  the  one  hundred 
and  fifty  delegates  in  the  lower  house,  in  which  the 
votes  of  one  county  avail  as  much  as  the  votes  of  any 
other  county  in  electing  its  representative.  Why  then, 
I  ask,  do  you  contend  for  a  principle  which  you  do  not 
adhere  to  in  practice,  and  which  can  only  be  observed 
by  destroying  that  essential  feature  of  representative 
government,  which  gives  to  local  interests  separate  rep- 
resentation. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  to  the  committee  that  the 
legislative  department,  organized  on  the  plan  of  the 
white  basis,  does  not  furnish  that  ample  and  adequate 
protection  to  property,  which  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
that  it  should  receive.  In  discussing  the  abuses  to  which 
the  taxing  power,  under  the  control  of  the  legislature 
thus  constituted  would  be  liable,  I  have  not  said  that 
western  gentlemen,  or  the  western  people,  if  they  get 
the  control  of  this  department,  will  abuse  the  exercise 
of  the  taxing  power,  or  that  they  will  desire  to  abuse  it, 
but  I  do  say  that  they  may  abuse  it.  And  it  is  enough 
for  me  to  know  that  it  may  be  abused,  to  make  me  de- 
mand all  the  restrictions  and  all  the  safeguards  that  I 
can  have  thrown  around  it.  The  question  simply  is 
this  :  western  gentlemen  come  here  and  demand  to 
exercise  the  power  of  this  legislative  department,  we 
say  you  must  give  us  security  that  it  will  not  be  unjust- 
ly exercised,  and  you  decline  doing  so.  You  call  for 
power,  and  we  demand  checks  and  safeguards  before  we 
will  give  it.  You  cannot  give  them  and  we  withhold 
the  power.  That  is  the  only  question  and  the  only 
shape  and  form  in  which  I  desire  to  present  it. 

With  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  I  will  proceed 
to  examine  the  other  scheme,  which  proposes  to  base 
representation  on  population  and  taxation  combined, 
and  it  is  known  as  the  mixed  basis.  I  shall  confine  my 
remarks  to  the  principles  it  involves,  and  shall  endeavor 
to  show  the  committee  that  this  basis  furnishes  the 
necessary  protection  to  property,  and  it  does  it  by  intro- 
ducing into  this  legislative  department  of  government  a 
system  of  checks  and  balances.  Now  the  plan  of  the 
committee  proposes  to  organize  this  department  so  as  to 
consist  of  two  houses,  the  senate  and  house  of  rep- 
resentatives. These  two  houses  are  designed  to  act  as 
checks  upon  each  other,  and  in  order  to  make  that  check 
effectual  there  must  be  a  different  origin  of  the  two 
houses,  or  a  representation  of  different  interests  in  one 
or  both  of  them.  The  plan  of  the  committee  proposes 
no  such  representation  of  different  interests,  or  if  it  does, 
it  is  in  a  very  modified  form.  The  plan  of  the  commit- 
tee proposes  that  the  two  houses  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time,  by  the  same  qualified  electors,  representing 
the  same  interests,  feelings  and  sentiments  ;  the  only 
difference  between  the  two  houses  being  that  one  repre- 
sents larger  districts  and  for  longer  terms.  This,  if  it 
amounts  to  any  check  is  the  feeblest  that  can  be  devised; 
for  it  is  manifest  that  a  senator  by  this  plan  will  repre- 
sent the  same  feelings,  wishes  and  interests  that  the 
delegates  coming  from  the  several  counties  composing 
his  district  will  represent.  If  then  we  wish  to  organize 
this  department  on  true  republican  principles,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  our  institutions, 
we  must  introduce  there  some  other  check  to  carry  out 
the  design  which  the  two  houses  were  intended  to  fulfil. 
This  system  of  checks  and  balances  is  a  leading  and  es- 
sential feature  in  every  republican  government,  and  is 
the  true  distinguishing  feature  of  our  own.  Where  to 
find  these  checks  and  how  to  create  them,  is  a  question 
which  has  engaged  the  profound  attention  of  the  most 
enlightened  statesmen  of  the  country.  And  the  reason 
of  these  checks  upon  legislative  power  is,  because  that 
is  the  leading  and  overshadowing  department  in  every 


republican  form  of  government,  and  because  there  is  a 
constant  tendency  in  that  department  to  encroach  upon 
the  other  departments,  for  the  legislative  department 
feels  a  strong  confidence  in  its  own  strength,  arising 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  most  numerous,  and  is  the 
immediate  representative  of  the  people.  So  forcibly 
was  Mr.  Madison  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  checks 
upon  this  legislative  department,  that  he  said.  "It  is 
against  the  enterprising  ambition  of  this  department 
that  the  people  ought  to  indulge  all  their  jealousy,  and 
exhaust  all  their  precautions."  This  is  the  reason  for 
checks  upon  the  legislative  department  in  every  repub- 
lican government.  But  there  are  additional  and  weigh- 
ty reasons  peculiar  to  our  own,  arising  from  the  organi- 
zation of  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  government 
and  from  the  necessity  of  protecting  sectional  interests. 
The  executive  department  organized  by  the  plan  of  the 
committee  is  to  consist  of  an  executive  without  a  veto. 
He  will  possess  no  means  of  defending  his  department 
against  encroachments  from  the  legislative,  and  he  can 
exert  no  other  than  his  mere  personal  influence  to  de- 
fend his  department  against  any  such  encroachment. 
So  with  the  judiciary  department,  which  is  the  feeblest 
in  every  government,  and  least  calculated  to  resist  en- 
croachments— it  is  particularly  so  by  our  plan  ;  for  we 
propose  to  appoint  our  highest  judicial  tribunal  by  the 
legislature,  which  it  is  designed  to  restrain  by  pronounc- 
ing its  acts  unconstitutional. 

Now,  this  judiciary  department  may  sympathize  in 
feeling  or  interests  with  the  legislative  body  to  which  it 
owes  its  original  appointment ;  and  even  i*f  this  should 
not  be  the  case,  we  know  that  there  are  numerous  ways 
and  devices  by  which  legislative  ingenuity  can  evade 
the  restraints  of  judicial  construction.  Seeing,  then, 
that  the  plan  proposed  for  the  organization  of  the  two 
houses  of  the  legislature,  and  that  for  the  co-ordinate 
departments,  furnishes  the  slightest  if  any  check  on  the 
overshadowing  power  of  the  legislative  department,  the 
question  then  arises,  where  are  those  checks  to  be  found, 
and  when  found,  where  shall  they  be  placed?  I  answer, 
that  this  mixed  basis  plan  furnishes  the  checks  ana  pro- 
vides that  they  shall  be  placed  in  the  organization  of 
the  legislative  department  itself.  There  is  the  danger, 
and  there  should  be  placed  the  safeguards.  By  basing 
representation  upon  the  mixed  basis,  of  population  and 
taxation,  you  introduce  into  this  legislative  department 
a  multiplicity  of  opposite,  rival,  local,  conflicting.,  and 
sectional  interests,  and  in  this  multiplicity  of  interests 
consists  the  security  of  each.  For  it  is  only  when  the 
majority  is  united  by  a  common  interest  that  the  rights 
of  the  minority  are  insecure.  Take  a  legislative  body 
thus  constituted,  and  there  is  no  one  interest  so  over- 
shadowing and  diffused  through  the  State  as  to  com- 
mand a  majority  of  that  body.  Nor  will  there  be  any 
danger  on  the  other  hand  from  a  combination  of  those 
interests,  for  each  will  feel  that  its  own  security  consists 
in  the  preservation  of  every  other  interest  ;  and  each 
will  feel  that  if  it  combines  to  destroy  any  one  interest, 
a  like  combination  may  be  formed,  and  result  in  its  own 
destruction.  A  representation,  then,  of  these  local,  con- 
flicting, sectional,  and  rival  interests,  will  serve  to 
modify,  check  and  partially  control  each  other.  And 
the  action  of  a  legislature  thus  constituted,  whilst  it 
will  prevent  any  undue  influence  being  exerted  by  any 
one  interest,  will  furnish  ample  security  to  all  interests. 
Upon  this  subject  I  beg  leave  to  quote  again  a  passage 
from  Mr.  Madison.  Speaking  of  the  protection  afford- 
ed by  a  government  based  upon  a  union  of  interests,  he 
says  : 

"  In  a  free  government  the  security  for  civil  rights 
must  be  the  same  as  that  for  religious  rights.  It  con- 
sists, in  the  one  case,  in  the  multiplicity  of  interests,  and 
in  the  other,  in  the  multiplicity  of  sects.  The  degree 
of  security  in  both  cases  will  depend  on  the  number  of 
interests  and  sects." 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  this  does  not  mean  that  the 
mere  presence,  or  the  mere  existence  of  these  interests 
in  society  is  to  furnish  that  security,  particularly  if  you 
take  any  one  interest,  as  numbers,  and  clothe  it  with  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


459 


whole  powers  of  the  government,  legal  and  political. 
It  may  exert  this  power  to  destroy  any  one  interest, 
and  that  interest,  unarmed  with  like  power,  must  fall  hi 
the  conflict ;  but  the  security  which  a  multiplicity  of 
interests  affords,  consists  in  basing  the  government  on 
all,  giving  to  each  a  like  power  and  influence,  somewhat 
proportioned  to  its  magnitude  and  extent,  and  then  no 
one  interest  will  be  clothed  with  extraordinary  power 
to  crush  the  rest,  but  each  will  possess  a  means  of  de- 
fence commensurate  to  the  danger  of  attack.  This  I 
understand  to  be  the  theory  and  practical  working  of 
the  mixed  basis.  From  this  very  brief  sketch,  as  I  have 
endeavored  to  present  it,  it  must  be  apparent  that  this 
plan  of  the  mixed  basis  will  furnish  ample  protection 
to  every  interest  in  the  commonwealth  ;  because  it  or- 
ganizes the  legislative  department,  not  on  one  interest, 
as  numbers,  but  on  all  interests — not  on  one  species  of 
property,  but  on  the  taxation  on  every  species  of  pro- 
perty :  and  these  numerous  interests,  clothed  with  like 
power,  will  check,  restrain,  partially  control  and  modify 
each  other,  and  their  joint  action  thus  modified  will  re- 
sult in  a  system  ot  governmental  measures  which  will 
be  oppressive  to  no  one  interest,  but  conducive  to  the 
welfare  of  each,  and  affording  ample  protection  to  all. 
And  this  is  the  answer  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman 
from  Accomac. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  has  ever  serv- 
ed in  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  or  in  Congress,  when 
an  appropriation  bill  was  up  for  consideration,  wherein 
A  had  an  interest  which  B  and  C  objected  to,  and  B  had 
an  interest  which  A  and  C  objected  to,  and  C  had  an 
interest  which  A  and  B  objected  to,  but  all  three,  A,  B, 
and  C,  from  similar  motives,  unite  in  passing  the  bill  to 
the  injury  of  the  public  good  and  the  useless  expendi- 
ture of  the  public  money? 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  The  power  has  been  abused  be- 
yond all  doubt,  but  does  this  system  compare  at  all  with 
the  system  of  the  white  basis  which  proposes  to  take 
one  interest,  as  numbers,  and  clothe  it  with  the  whole 
power  of  the  government  ?  If  it  is  abused  when  all  are 
clothed  with  like  power,  what  in  the  name  of  God  must 
be  the  abuse  if  all  the  power  is  placed  in  the  hands  of 
men  interested  to  abuse  it  ?  Why,  there  would  be  no 
treasury  left.  [Laughter.] 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  to  this  committee  that  all 
interests  in  every  section  of  this  commonwealth  will  be 
protected  alike.  This  mixed  basis  does  not  propose  to 
represent  negroes  merely,  or  the  taxation  on  negroes, 
or  that  on  any  one  species  of  property  alone.  Gentle- 
men from  the  West  have  argued  this  question  as  though 
we  considered  negroes  the  only  property  in  the  State. 
Now,  1  say  distinctly,  that  warmly  as  I  am  attached  to 
that  interest,  and  God  knows  I  am  the  last  man  in  the 
commonwealth  that  would  destroy  it,  yet  I  would  ad- 
vocate this  principle  if  there  was  not  a  negro  to  be  found 
among  us.  There  are  other  interests  which  may  be 
abused  by  this  taxing  power,  and  I  have  endeavored  to 
enumerate  some  of  them.  Gentlemen  beg  the  question, 
and  I  think  I  see  the  object,  when  they  assume  that  we 
intend  to  protect  negroes  alone.  I  have  argued  it  on  no 
such  ground.  I  would  protect  every  species  of  property, 
especially  when  there  is  a  marked  diversity  of  interests 
in  the  different  sections  of  the  State.  This  mixed  basis 
protects  property  in  every  section  of  the  commonwealth, 
and  if  western  gentlemen  can  show  me  any  species  of 
property  they  own,  which  is  likely  to  be  abused  by  this 
legislative  department,  I  should  like  to  hear  it,  for  1 
have  not  heard  of  it  yet.  1  do  not  think  that  the  st  itis- 
tics  before  us  can  show  that  there  is  any  such  property 
in  the  West  able  to  bear  the  whole  burdens  of  govern- 
ment. 

Having  endeavored  to  show  that  this  principle  will 
give  protection  to  all  the  interests  of  this  common- 
wealth, by  basing  representation  upon  them,  and  giving 
them  the  same  powers  of  self-protection  to  the  extent 
of  those  interests  as  indicated  by  the  amount  of  taxa- 
tion each  contributes,  I  beg  leave  to  carry  the  inquiry  a 
little  further  and  see  if  it  endangers  the  personal  rights 
and  liberties  of  this  people.    Gentlemen  have  said  here 


I  that  we  might  make  the  western  people  do  menial  ser- 
vice. I  think  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me  thi» 
morning,  spoke  of  commoners  in  the  West  and  lords  in 
the  east ;  I  should  like  to  know  what  law  the  legisla- 
ture could  pass  affecting  the  personal  liberty  of  any 
man  in  the  commonwealth,  that  would  not  operate  uni- 
formly throughout  the  whole  commonwealth.  Does 
not  the  whole  criminal  code  operate  generally,  and  is 
it  not  obliged  to  be  so,  affecting  persons  uniformly 
throughout  the  commonwealth?  And  the  members  of 
the  legislature  and  their  friends,  whether  from  the  East 
or  West,  who  pass  laws  affecting  personal  rights,  will 
feel  and  participate  in  the  operation  of  such  laws  alike 
with  all  the  other  citizens  of  the  commonwealth.  This 
is  the  security  against  the  abuse  of  this  power,  so  far  as 
personal  rights  and  liberty  are  concerned.  It  is  the 
check  which  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  spoke  of, 
the  check  of  self  interest.  Not  so  with  laws  affecting 
property,  they  do  not  operate  uniformly  throughout  the 
commonwealth.  They  operate  in  some  and  affect  the 
thing  wherever  it  is  to  be  found,  and  that  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  laws  affecting  the  rights  of  persons 
and  those  affecting  the  rights  of  property.  Gentlemen 
do  not  seem  to  take  this  distinction. 

The  mixed  basis  then,  which  gives  the  control  of  the 
legislative  power  to  the  East,  so  constitutes  that  body  as 
to  render  it  impossible  that  it  can  pass  any  law  which 
will  in  any  manner  affect  the  personal  rights  and  liber- 
ties of  the  western  people,  that  will  not  affect  them  in 
like  manner.  But  I  maintain  that  a  government  orga- 
nized on  this  mixed  basis  will  afford  better  protection 
against  foreign  danger,  than  if  it  be  organized  on  the 
white  basis.  If  the  white  basis  prevail,  and  oppres- 
sions fall  on  the  property  holders  of  the  country,  think 
you  if  foreign  danger  threatens,  that  they  will  hasten 
with  zeal  and  alacrity  to  the  defence  of  that  govern- 
ment, which  instead  of  being  a  kind  protector  has  been 
an  oppressive  tyrant?  which  has  burthened  their  pro- 
perty with  taxation  and  disregarded  its  rights?  No,  sir, 
such  is  not  human  nature. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  government  be  organized  on 
the  mixed  basis,  it  reposes  on  a  foundat.on  broad  and 
deep,  resting  upon  all  the  great  interests  of  the  State, 
and  whenever  danger  approaches,  come  from  what  quar- 
ter it  may,  you  enlist  in  defence  of  this  government  all 
the  interests  of  the  people,  as  well  as  their  affections 
and  duties.  You  make  the  interest  of  the  man  unite 
with  the  duty  of  the  patriot,  and  that  is  the  strongest 
bulwark  e  ny  government  can  rear  in  defence  of  its  lib- 
erties against  foreign  danger. 

I  have  already  detained  the  committee  longer  than  I 
designed,  but  there  are  some  one  or  two  objections 
which  have  been  made  in  a  general  way,  which  I  desire 
to  notice.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  meet  the  objections 
urged  to  the  details  of  the  scheme  as  worked  out  by  the 
committee,  because  it  will  be  time  enough  to  consider 
them  when  they  are  before  us.  It  has  been  urged  as  an 
objection  to  the  mixed  basis,  that  it  makes  money  rule 
men,  that  it  makes  wealth  rule  the  people.  That  is  not 
my  understanding  of  it.  I  do  not  understand  that  by 
basing  this  government  in  part  upon  the  property  of  the 
country,  as  indicated  by  the  tax  list,  that  you  make 
money  rule  men.  What  is  the  object  of  introducing 
this  i  epresentation  of  different  interests  into  the  legis- 
lative department  ?  What  is  it  but  that  they  shall  check, 
control  and  restrain  each  other?  Well,  is  not  that  ob- 
ject intended  by  having  the  legislature  to  consist  of  two 
houses,  the  one  set  of  agents  checking  and  balancing 
another  set  of  agents  ?  Even  the  white  basis  proposes 
this  check  in  the  legislature.  Well,  what  does  the 
mixed  basis  do  but  carry  out  this  principle  of  checks 
and  restraints  one  step  further,  thereby  giving  greater 
security,  by  carrying  the  checks  into  both  houses  in- 
stead of  confining  them  to  one?  Is  it  not  one  set  of 
agents  watching  and  controlling  another  set  of  agents? 
And  who  put  them  in  that  position  ?  The  people  ;  they 
are  the  agents  of  the  people  ;  chosen  by  the  people. 
One  set  of  agents  are  selected  by  the  people  to  watch 
and  guard  the  interest  of  their  people  against  another 


460 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


set  who  are  guarding  and  watching  the  interests  of  their 
people.  That  is  the  whole  system.  Money  in  no  man- 
ner rules  the  people,  or  overbalances  the  people,  but  it 
is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  one  set  of  agents  differ- 
ently created  to  control  another  set  of  agents,  but  all 
and  every  description  of  these  agents  being  directly  an- 
swerable to  the  people  whom  they  represent. 

There  was  another  objection,  that  acquired  its  import- 
ance rather  from  the  manner  in  which  it  was  presented 
than  from  any  intrinsic  weight  in  the  objection  itself. 
It  was  said  that  this  scheme  favors  the  rich  man  and  op- 
presses the  poor  man.  This  distinction  ought  never  to 
be  talked  of,  I  think.  I  shall  endeavor  however  to  show 
that  this  mixed  basis  protects  the  poor  man  more  than 
the  rich  man.  What  protection  does  it  design  to  give? 
By  it  we  mean  to  protect  the  property  and  labor  of  the 
people  of  this  commonwealth  against  this  taxing  power 
of  your  government.  We  are  not  now  speaking  of  giv- 
ing the  people  the  right  to  select  their  agents  for  the 
administration  of  the  government,  but  of  restraining  this 
legislative  department,  which  acts  directly  on  the  prop- 
erty and  labor  of  the  people,  this  department  which 
puts  its  hands  into  the  pockets  of  the  people  and  feeds 
on  their  very  substance.  Now,  I  say  that  the  tax  on 
the  poor  man,  which  this  taxing  power  can  increase  or 
lessen  at  will  under  the  white  basis  system,  is  more  dif- 
ficult for  him  to  pay  than  the  hundreds  paid  by  the 
wealthy  man  ;  and  consequently  these  checks  and  re- 
straints, which  we  propose  to  place  on  this  legislative 
department,  in  order  to  prevent  an  abuse  of  the  taxing 
power,  will  enure  more  to  the  benefit  of  the  poor  than 
the  rich  man . 

Gentlemen  have  argued  this  question  as  if  we  designed 
alone  to  protect  property  in  the  hands  of  the  rich 
man.  This  is  not  the  object  of  the  system,  nor  does  it 
so  operate.  It  protects  the  property  and  the  labor  of 
the  poor  man  also,  and  this  scheme,  whilst  it  furnishes 
some  additional  protection  to  the  aggregate  wealth  in 
the  different  sections  of  the  State,  furnishes  no  power  to 
wealth  in  the  hands  of  individuals.  The  poor  man  has 
as  much  voice  in  the  selection  of  these  representatives 
as  the  man  who  owns  his  hundreds  of  thousands.  They 
cast  the  same  vote.  They  come  to  the  polls  side  by  side, 
and  one  exerts  not  a  particle  more  of  power  than  the 
other  does ;  nor  is  there  any  danger  in  giving  this  influ- 
ence to  property  in  a  republic  like  ours,  for  our  laws  of 
descents  and  distributions,  and  the  power  cf  aliention, 
prevents  the  accumulation  of  property,  and  consequently 
individual  wealth  acquires  no  power.  We  were  told 
by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  the 
other  day,  that  this  scheme  of  the  mixed  basis  was  im- 
ported from  South  Carolina.  This  was  intended  to  ex- 
cite prejudice  I  suppose.  I  confess  T  heard  the  remark 
with  a  good  deal  of  surprise,  that  this  principle  of  taxa- 
tion and  representation  was  imported  from  South  Caro- 
lina. Does  not  the  gentleman  know,  familiar  as  he  is 
with  the  history  of  this  government,  that  this  principle 
is  older  than  the  government  we  live  under?  Was  it 
not  this  principle  which  first  aroused  the  spirit  of  liberty 
in  the  American  colonies?  Did  it  not  bring  our  fore 
fathers  from  the  bosom  of  their  families  to  the  tented 
field,  there  to  endure,  for  seven  long  years  of  privatioas, 
peiils  and  sufferings  which  have  no  parallel  in  history  ? 
Did  it  not  finally  lead  them  to  the  achievement  of 
American  independence  ?  And  the  patriot  sages,  whose 
counsels  guided  us  through  that  eventful  struggle, 
when  then  came  t«  form  a  constitution  for  a  people 
who  had  so  nobly  won  their  freedom,  engrafted  this 
principle  upon  the  constitution  itself;  and  there  it 
stands  in  letters  so  plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read. 
Is  not  representation  and  taxation  in  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  proportioned  to  each  other,  and 
are  not  both  proportioned  to  federal  numbers  ?  And  I 
ask  gentlemen  to  look  into  the  debates  that  arose  upon 
that  subject  in  forming  that  constitution,  and  they 
will  find  that  the  federal  numbers  was  adopted,  not 
as  an  exponent  of  persons,  but  as  the  standard  and 


measure  of  the  wealth  of  the  country.  And  the  rep- 
resentation to  this  day  in  the  federal  Congress  is  a 
representation  not  upon  numbers  alone,  but  upon 
numbers  as  the  exponent  of  the  wealth  of  the  country. 

Any  gentleman  who  will  turn  back  to  those  debates 
will  perceive,  that  in  the  discussion  there,  representa- 
tion was  first  based  upon  wealth — I  use  the  very  term— 
and  population  ;  and  that  nine  out  of  the  eleven  states 
voted,  to  apportion  representation  upon  wealth  and  popu- 
lation. During  the  progress  of  the  debates,  however, 
representation  became  apportioned  to  direct  taxation, 
and  they  both  were  apportioned  to  federal  numbers 
upon  the  admitted  ground,  in  the  debate,  that  the  fede- 
ral numbers  were  the  measure  of  the  wealth  of  the 
country.  Now,  in  the  face  of  that  historical  fact,  gen- 
tlemen get  up  here  and  assert  that  the  principle  we 
contend  for  was  imported  from  South  Carolina  ;  and 
let  me  tell  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  who  opened 
the  debate  on  the  other  side,  and  talked  so  much  about 
George  Mason's  bill  of  rights,  that  that  gentleman  voted 
to  place  representation  upon  wealth  co  nomine.  Yes, 
the  very  George  Mason,  so  much  eulogized  by  the  gen- 
tleman, voted  this  eleven  years  after  he  had  written 
the  bill  of  rights.  That  is  this  great  man's  construc- 
tion of  his  own  meaning  of  this  word  majority  in  that 
instrument.  The  very  scheme  which  we  are  seeking 
to  carry  out  in  this  constitution,  in  form  and  principle, 
was  before  the  members  of  the  federal  congress,  and  if 
gentlemen  will  look  at  the  Madison  papers  they  will 
perceive  a  scheme  worked  out  by  Mr.  Brearly  from 
New  Jersey,  by  which  he  apportioned  representation 
in  the  sevsral  States  upon  population  and  taxation  as 
ascertained  by  the  last  report  to  congress.  And  the 
reason  why  this  plan  could  not  be  carried  out  in  the 
federal  constitution,  was  because  the  system  of  taxa- 
tion in  the  federal  government  is  an  indirect  one,  a  tax- 
ation of  imposts  and  duties.  But  they  took  the  precau- 
tion to  provide  that  if  ever  there  was  laid  a  system  of 
direct  taxation  in  the  Union,  that  representation  and 
taxation  should  be  apportioned  to  each  other  in  order  to 
prevent  the  abuse  of  that  power.  There  is  another  fea- 
ture in  this  federal  constitution  which  presents  identi- 
cally the  same  principle,  and  I  have  alluded  to  it  before. 
It  is  the  equal  representation  of  the  states  in  the  sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  ;  and  the  ground  on  which 
they  apportioned  that  representation,  was  that  there  was 
a  diversity  of  interests  between  the  grerter  and  the  les- 
ser states,  and  that,  therefore,  there  was  a  necessity  for 
the  protection  of  those  interests.  And  in  that  debate 
no  man  denied  that  the  only  adequate  protection  was 
protection  by  representation.  It  was  denied  that  any 
such  diversity  of  interest  existed,  but  the  mode  of  pro- 
tection was  never  controverted  at  all.  And  the  system 
of  legislative  restrictions  and  guarantees  is,  therefore,  a 
matter  of  modern  invention. 

I  have  already  detained  the  committee  longer  than  I 
had  intended,  and  I  shall,  therefore,  bring  my  remarks 
to  a  close.  In  what  1  have  submitted,  I  have  endeavored 
to  show  that  in  the  organization  of  the  legislative  de- 
partment, a  department  which  acts  directly  upon  the 
property  of  the  people,  we  should  not  so  base  repre- 
sentation as  to  place  it  under  the  exclusive  control  of 
any  one  of  the  objects  of  government,  to  the  neglect  of 
the  other  ;  that  whilst  on  the  one  hand  we  should  not  be- 
stow exclusive  favor  on  property,  we  should  not  on  the 
other  hand  give  exclusive  power  to  persons  only,  and 
withhold  protection  from  property  and  the  hard  earn- 
ings of  honest  industry,  which  furnish  so  much  gratifi- 
cation to  its  possessors,  and  so  many  blessings  to  so- 
ciety, but  should  endeavor  to  unite  these  objects  in  due 
proportion,  and  enlist  them  in  the  support  of  the  gov- 
ernment, which  we  should  render  the  equal  guardian  of 
them  all. 

Mr.  Meredith  having  concluded  his  remarks. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  NEESON,  the  committee  rose, 
And,  then,  on  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  un- 
til to-morrow  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


461 


THURSDAY,  March  6,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Early,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

THE  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENT  DEBT. 

Mr.  STUART,  of  Morgan.  The  other  day  I  offered 
a  resolution,  calling  upon  the  auditor  to  know  why  cer- 
tain information  in  relation  to  the  internal  improvement 
debt  of  the  State,  required  by  a  resolution  of  the  Con- 
vention adopted  some  time  ago,  was  not  forthcoming.  I 
called  this  morning  on  the  auditor,  and  I  found  that  he 
had  been  very  industriously  engaged  in  preparing  the 
necessary  information  for  the  Convention  ;  and  I  beg 
leave  to  say  in  justice  to  him,  that  the  labor  has  been  a 
very  onerous  and  troublesome  one.  It  would  have  been 
completed  at  an  earlier  day  but  for  circumstances  over 
which  the  auditor  has  no  control.  The  table  will  be  a 
most  comprehensive  one,  exhibiting  the  pecuniary  state 
of  the  internal  improvements  of  the  State  from  the 
commencement  down  to  the  first  of  March,  exclusive 
of  the  recent  appropriations  of  the  general  assembly. 
I  have  made  these  remarks  because  I  have  deemed  them 
to  be  due,  as  a  matter  of  justice,  to  the  auditor. 
THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

The  Convention  then  resumed  the  consideration  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  basis  and  apportion- 
ment of  representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  owe  an  expression  of  my  sincere 
gratitude  to  the  committee  for  having,  on  yesterday 
afternoon,  extended  to  me  the  extreme  courtesy  to 
which  1  was  so  poorly  entitled.  I  come  to-day  to  par- 
ticipate in  this  discussion  with  no  little  diffidence,  con- 
scious that  the  advocacy  I  shall  bestow  in  favor  of  the 
cause  I  have  espoused^  will  be  inadequate  to  the  great 
interest  my  constituents  have  in  the  rightful  determina- 
tion of  this  question  ;  and  conscious  that  the  advocate 
sinks  into  utter  insignificance  before  the  magnitude  of 
the  subject  now  under  consideration.  But  I  come  to 
the  discussion  of  the  question  in  the  spirit  of  a  man  who 
feels  a  conviction  that  he  is  right,  and  with  that  convic- 
tion, however  humble  he  may  know  his  ability  to  be, 
fears  not  defeat,  and  experiences  no  despair.  We  have 
now  arrived  at  the  stags  of  our  proceedings,  when  we 
are  called  upon  solemnly  to  settle  the  most  important 
branch  of  government,  the  legislative  department;  that 
which  really,  however  you  may  organize  it,  has  neces- 
sarily and  inevitably  the  preponderance  over  the  other 
departments.  We  are  called  upon  now  to  give  to  it  a 
substruction,  a  foundation  upon  which  it  shall  rest.  We 
call  this  foundation  the  basis  of  representation  ;  and  it 
is  to  this  basis  of  representation  that  I  shall  address  my- 
self exclusively,  and  if  I  shall  at  any  time  deviate  from 
the  true  question  at  issue,  it  will  be  rather  for  the  pur- 
pose of  elucidation,  than  lor  the  purpose  of  discussing 
collateral  questions.  The  form  and  structure  of  the 
legislative  department  will  impress  upon  the  government 
its  true  characteristic  features.  As  you  organize  this 
legislative  department,  so  will  our  government  be  either 
democratic  and  republican,  or  aristocratic  and  oligarchic, 
and  this  results  necessarily  from  the  division  of  the 
government  into  three  co-ordinate  departments.  The 
executive  department  cannot  -impress  its  characteristic 
upon  the  government,  because  its  peculiar  and  exclusive 
function  is  the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  The  judicial 
department  cannot  impress  a  characteristic  form  upon  the 
government,  because  its  proper  function  is  to  expound 
and  administer  the  laws.  It  is  therefore  to  the  legisla- 
tive department  we  must  look  to  determine  the  true 
characteristic  of  government. 

At  the  threshold  of  this  discussion,  we  are  met  by 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  who  main- 
tain that  the  right  of  the  majority  to  preponderate  in  a 
government,  is  an  abstract  and  impracticable  idea ;  and 
one  gentleman  has  characterized  it  as  an  arrant  abstrac- 


tion.    We  are  then  challenged  to  present  some  reasons 
why  a  majority  should  rule  in  this  republican  govern- 
ment, or  rather  why  a  minority  should  not  rule.  It 
must  be  conceded  that  some  power,  either  the  minority 
or  the  majority,  must  predominate  in  the  government, 
and  I  maintain  that  since  this  is  inevitable,  the  majority 
rather  than  the  minority  should  predominate,  not  only 
in  the  original  structure  of  government,  but  in  its  sub- 
sequent administration.    And  we  are  challenged  to  ad- 
duce reasons  for  the  support  of  this  doctrine  of  the  ma- 
jority.   I  will,  with  the  indulgence  of  this  committee, 
j  briefly  and  rapidly  as  possible,  adduce  certain  reasons 
which  to  my  mind  are  conclusive  in  favor  of  a  majority, 
j  What  is  government?    Is  it  not  a  civil  compact  between 
:  all  the  members  of  society  on  the  one  part,  and  each 
i  individual  of  society  on  the  other,  stipulating  that  the 
j  aggregate  of  society  shall  sustain  and  support  eachindi- 
j  vidual  in  the  enjoyment  and  exercise  of  his  rights,  and 
j  that  in  return  for  the  protection  afforded,  each  individ- 
I  ual  shall  yield  his  obedience  and  his  support  to  gov- 
ernment thus  constituted.    Now,  I  will  insist  that  it  is 
I  unnecessary,  in  order  to  understand  this  question  cor- 
rectly, in  order  to  arrive  at  a  right  determination  in 
our  judgment,  wholly  unnecessary  that  we  should  go 
back  to  the  fabulous  ages  of  antiquity,  or  speculate  on  a 
supposed  primeval  state,  for  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of 
ascertaining  when  man  existed  in  what  is  called  a  state 
j  of  nature.    I  believe  man  never  was  in  such  a  state ;  if 
!  he  was  in  what  I  understand  that  state  to  be,  he  was  in 
J  a  most  unnatural  condition.     God  has  impressed  upon 
I  man  a  certain  nature,  composed  of  various  faculties,  ca~ 
I  pacities,  and  wants,  and  this  nature  and  these  faculties 
j  cannot  possibly  be  developed  and  attain  their  proper 
j  fruition  except  in  a  state  of  society;  society  therefore, 
j  is  the  natural  state  of  man,  it  is  the  state  which  the 
j  great  Creator  designed  him  to  occupy  for  the  very  pur- 
I  pose  of  developing  these  faculties,  and  raising  him  to 
i  that  exalted  station  where  his  Author  wills  him  to  stand 
j  ennobled  and  dignified.    Then  whatever  may  be  neces-' 
I  aary  in  the  construction,  or  the  rightful  administration  of 
government,  as  conducive  to  that  high  destiny,  must  be 
naturally  right.     Yet  gentlemen  have  here  denied  the 
natural  right  of  majorities  to  govern.    Hence  I  maintain 
I  that  whatever  is  essential  for  society  to  possess,  wnat- 
j  ever  power  and  authority  is  necessary  for  government 
:  to  possess  and  enjoy,  these  powers  and  these  authorities 
j  are  derived  from  the  law  ol  nature,  and  not  merely  from 
j  the  compact.    They  are  pre-existent  rights,  recognized, 
|  it  is  true,  by  the  law  of  the  compact,  but  not  created  by 
it.    They  may  be  more  vague  and  undefined  in  the  na- 
tural law,  but  their  existence  is  nevertheless  certain; 
their  recognition  and  more  accurate  definition  may  be 
found  in  conventional  stipulations  and  compacts.  Well, 
|  government  is  thus  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
;  moting  the  happiness  of  society  and  of  mankind.  Now 
I  the  question  immediately  arises  in  the  structure  ef  gov- 
j  eminent,  which  form  of  government  is  best  adapted  to 
the  promotion  of  this  happiness?    Which  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  best  adapted  to  subserve  the  great  purposes 
for  which  society  is  instituted?    One  would  naturally 
declare  that  form  of  government  best  which  would  meet 
with  universal  approbation;  but  since  unanimity  is  un- 
attainable  from   the  infinite  diversity  of  individual 
opinions,  another  standard  must  be  adopted,  or  govern- 
ment be  abandoned.     It  is  certain  that  unanimity  can- 
not be  had,  and  it  is  vain  to  expect  it  in  the  decision  of 
this  question.    The  next  rule,  therefore,  is  to  ascertain 
the  majority,  as  the  nearest  attainable  approximation  to 
unanimity. 

This  would  be  a  very  natural,  if  not  the  instantaneous 
conclusion,  to  any  one  who  would  calmly  and  dispas- 
sionately consider  this  subject.  Government  is  estab- 
lished for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  our  mutual  wants, 
and  thus  effectually  promote  the  happiness  of  the  so- 
ciety over  whom  this  government  shall  prevail.  Now, 
the  question  is,  who  shall  determine  upon  the  adapta- 
tion of  this  government  to  promote  these  ends,  who 


462 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


shall  decide  upon  the  adaptation  or  mal-adaptation  of 
government  for  the  promotion  of  these  great  objects  of 
its  institution?  Certainly  the  persons  most  directlj  in- 
terested, the  majority.  But  there  are  other  reasons  for 
a  majority.  After  you  have  constructed  your  govern- 
ment, it  is  next  your  duty,  as  it  is  your  necessity,  to  ad- 
minister that  government.  And  what  do  you  mean  by 
the  administration  of  a  government?  Do  you  not  mean 
the  enforcement  of  that  government  and  the  compel- 
ling obedience  to  it?  You  require  that  every  member 
of  the  society  shall  render  obedience  to  that  govern- 
ment, shall  conform  to  its  mandates,  and  shall  obey  in- 
junctions. But  suppose  that  a  portion  of  this  society 
should  resist,  a  portion  should  become  contumacious, 
refractory  and  rebellious,  can  you  enforce  that  govern- 
ment? How  can  you  enforce  it?  By  calling  to  your  aid 
the  physical  power  of  the  majority.  You  cannot  do  it 
by  invoking  to  your  assistance  the  power  of  the  mino- 
rity because  it  is  or  may  be  inadequate.  The  adminis- 
tration of  the  government  essentially  requires  that  you 
should  have  the  greater  power  to  aid  and  support  it, 
and  that  power  is  confined  to  the  persons  representing 
or  constituting  the  majority  of  the  community.  It  thus 
appears  that  physical  necessity,  physical  superiority 
being  required  for  the  support  of  the  government  and 
its  administration,  it  can  be  found  alone  in  a  majority, 
and  the  propriety  of  the  majority  principle  is  thus  de- 
monstrated from  that  necessity.  The  necessity  proves 
the  right.  Is  this  an  extravagant  idea?  That  the  gov- 
ernment must  rest  upon  the  physical  power  of  the  peo- 
ple? Government  is  erected  upon  that  idea  exclusively. 
Befer  to  your  definition  of  government  and  what  is  it? 
It  is  the  stipulation  of  the  whole  people  to  support  and 
defend  every  individual  comprising  the  community,  in 
the  possession  and  exercise  of  his  rights.  Why  do  they 
thus  league  and  combine  together?  Is  it  not  for  the 
purpose  of  concentrating  the  power  necessary  and  ade- 
quate for  the  protection  of  those  rights?  Does  it  not 
arise  from  the  incompetency  of  a  smaller  number  to  do 
it? 

But  there  is  another  argument  to  sustain  this  idea. 
It  is  this,  that  in  this  country,  as  in  all  other  countries, 
but  particularly  in  this  republican  government,  we  have 
one  department  of  government  organized  exclusively 
upon  this  idea,  the  concentration  and  consolidation  of 
the  physical  power  of  the  majority;  that  is  the  execu- 
tive department.  What  is  the  executive  in  this  country 
but  the  representative  of  the  superior  power  of  the  com- 
munity? It  is  his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws  if  need  be,  and 
if  need  be,  to  embody  the  whole  power  of  the  nation  to 
their  enforcement.  You  may  descend  from  the  chief 
executive,  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  this  idea  that 
the  government  depends  upon  the  physical  majority,  or 
the  physical  power,  to  your  marshals  who  represent  physi- 
cal power,  and  exercise  physical  superiority,  to  your 
sheriffs,  and  indeed  to  every  subordinate  ministerial  offi- 
cer known  to  the  law.  It  does  not  follow  from  this  ar- 
gument that  physical  power  is  to  rule  by  violence  or 
physical  exertion.  On  the  contrary  it  is  a  peculiar  excel- 
lence of  a  republican  government  that  the  superiority 
of  physical  power  being  indicated  by  superiority  of 
wills,  or  the  superiority  of  opinions,  renders  resort  to 
physical  power  unnecessary.  When  you  ascertain  the 
majority  of  wills  or  of  opinions,  you  have  the  exact 
exponent  of  the  majority  of  physical  powers,  and  fac 
tious  violence  seeing  the  physical  superiority  thus  prac- 
tically evinced,  is  repressed.  The  superiority  of  wills 
thus  indicates  the  superiority  of  physical  power,  and 
hence  the  great  truth  in  republican  governments  that 
there  is  less  violence  to  be  feared,  and  less  practically 
exhibited  than  in  any  other  form  of  government,  be- 
cause in  that  government  the  superiority  of  physical 
power  is  evinced  by  the  superiority  of  voices  or  wills 
so  that  however  turbulent  or  factious  a  spirit  might 
exist,  however  remorseless  or  relentless  it  might  be,  that 
violence  and  resistance  is  seen  to  be  fraught  with  fatal 
consequences  to  that  faction  and  will  restrain  it  from 


any  tumultuary  manifestation.  But  the  right  of  the 
majority  to  rule  may  be  evinced  by  other  considerations, 
independent  of  these  which  I  have  already  submitted. 

Now  it  is  essential  in  all  governments  rightly  adminis- 
tered, that  there  should  be  the  greatest  attainable  amount 
of  virtue,  the  greatest  attainable  quantity  of  knowledge, 
and  the  greatest  attainable  amount  of  wisdom.  You 
need  the  greatest  amount  of  knowledge  to  ascertain  tke 
wants  of  the  people,  as  government  is  instituted  to  com- 
ply with  those  wants.  You  need  the  greatest  amount 
of  virtue  to  devise  proper  and  appropriate  means  to 
supply  those  wants,  the  peculiarly  apportionate  means 
as  distinguished  from  the  vicious  means.  You  need 
wisdom  for  comprehending  an  extended  view  of  all  these 
subjects,  and  a  combination  of  appropriate  means  to  the 
comprehensive  purposes  to  be  accomplished. 

There  is  another  consideration,  to  my  mind  worthy  of 
some  weight  in  the  discussion.  Every  government  must 
have  its  laws,  characterized  either  by  its  mildness  and 
moderation  or  rigor.  You  will  find,  in  one  country  the 
laws  rigorous,  in  another  lenient  and  mild.  In  a  coun- 
try where  the  execution  of  the  laws  depends  upon  the 
assent  and  approval  of  the  people,  where  the  sanction 
of  the  laws  depends  upon  the  people,  you  must  infuse 
into  your  laws  the  spirit  that  the  people  approve,  whether 
rigorous  or  mild,  if  you  expect  them  to  render  you  their 
sanction  of  these  laws.  The  faithful  execution  of  your 
laws  depends  upon  the  support  of  the  public  mind,  the 
conformance  of  the  popular  will  to  the  spirit  of  those 
laws.  Can  you  expect  the  people  to  come  forward  with 
alacrity  and  execute  those  laws,  if  they  are  so  repug- 
nant and  so  hostile  to  their  sense  of  propriety  that  they 
originally  would  not  have  enacted  them?  No.  It  is,  then, 
the  true  policy  of  government  to  infuse  into  its  laws,  of 
whatever  description  they  may  be,  the  spirit  which  is 
possessed  by  the  people  ;  and  this  can  be  done  in  no  other 
manner  than  that  of  allowing  the  majority  of  voices  to 
prevail  in  your  legislative  councils. 

But  this  right  of  the  majority  to  prevail  is  not  only 
evidenced  by  the  physical  necessity  which  I  have  already 
mentioned,  but  by  a  moral  necessity.  The  right  mani- 
festly exists  either  in  a  minority  or  a  majority.  It  must 
exist  in  some  number  short  of  the  total  number,  that  is 
obvious  ;  it  therefore  exists  either  in  the  minority  or  the 
majority.  Now,  if  it  does  not  exist  in  the  majority,  in 
what  minority  does  it  subsist  ?  What  number  shall  pre- 
vail if  the  majority  shall  not?  Shall  it  be  a  minority  ? 
But  what  relation  shall  that  minority  bear  to  the  total 
number  ?  If  you  can  suggest  any  number,  say  one-third, 
one-fourth,  or  one-fifth  of  the  total  number,  then  I 
ask  what  tribunal  shall  definitely  establish  this  number? 
Shall  the  number  itself  decide  it?  If  in  one-third,  why 
not  in  one-tenth ,  one-hundredth,  or  but  one  ?  If  this  right 
to  prevail  exists  in  the  minority,  I  desire  to  know  what 
proportion  that  minority  shall  bear  to  the  whole  num- 
ber, and  when  that  is  suggested,  I  wish  to  know  who 
shall  define  and  establish  it  as  a  rule.  There  is  no  person 
to  do  it.  Another  argument  in  support  of  this  majority 
may  be  deduced  from  the  total  absence  of  the  right  in 
the  minority.  The  total  absence  of  right  in  the  minority 
to  rule  is  an  argument  convincive  of  the  right  of  the 
majority,  since  the  right  exists  somewhere.  If  the  right 
exists  in  the  minority  whence  is  it  derived  ?  It  cannot  be 
derived  from  the  majority,  because  that  is  discarded  in 
the  very  supposition.  If  it  is  derived  irom  the  minority 
it  must  be  by  virtue  of  some  excellence  possessed  by  that 
minority  ;  but  according  to  the  argument  which  1  have 
already  employed,  this  minority  is  destitute  of  the  grand 
essentials  necessary  for  the  establishment  and  subse- 
quent administration  of  the  government.  They  are  des- 
titute of  the  physical  power  to  enforce  it,  they  are  des- 
titute of  the  proper  judgment  to  adapt  its  form  and  struc- 
ture to  the  ends  for  which  it  is  created.  They  possess, 
in  an  inferior  degree,  that  essential  virtue  to  which  I  have 
alluded.  They  possess  in  an  inferior  degree  that  essential 
knowledge  and  wisdom  to  which  I  have  alluded.  Now, 
with  a  minority  thus  defined,  and  undefined,  with  the 
minority  thus  characterized  as  destitute  of  the  great  es- 
sentials of  the  original  structure  and  subsequent  man- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


463 


agement  of  government,  but  which  pertain  to  and  inhere 
to  the  majority,  with  an  absence  of  these  essential  quali- 
ties, how  can  it  be  maintained  by  any  reasonable  man 
that  the  minority  is  superior  or  even  equal  in  rights  with 
the  majority  to  rule  ? 

Thus  far  1  have  argued  from  the  reasons  I  have  sub- 
mitted in  favor  of  the  right  of  a  majority  to  rule,  deriv- 
ing the  considerations  1  have  advanced  from  the  inter- 
nal or  domestic  nature  of  governments.  But  there  are 
other  considerations,  derived  from  external  or  interna- 
tional relations,  which  greatly  corroborate  and  fortify 
this  right  of  the  majority.  We  know  that  according  to 
the  law  of  nations,  from  time  immemorial,  government 
has  been  understood  to  be  the  exponent  of  the  views  of 
the  community  ;  that  the  act  of  every  government  binds 
and  is  obligatory  on  every  individual  under  that  govern- 
ment. In  the  contemplation  of  the  laws  of  nations  every 
individual,  however  humble,  is  a  party  to  the  acts  of  his 
government.  Now,  let  us  suppose  for  an  instant  that 
our  government  should  be  so  organized  and  constituted 
that  the  minority  shall  be  the  organ  of  the  government, 
with  reference  to  foreign  nations  ;  we  will  then  have 
this  state  of  things,  a  minority  in  power,  and  a  majority 
out  of  power.  This  minority  will  then  be  the  exponent 
and  soie  organ  of  the  government  in  regard  to  other 
nations,  as  well  as  in  regard  to  the  domestic  con- 
cerns. Suppose  the  government  so  constituted  should 
give  some  otience  or  umbrage  to  other  nations,  do  you 
not  see  that  we  might  be  involved  in  war,  with  the  avowed 
and  known  hostility  to  it  of  the  majority  of  the  people 
who  are  deprived  of  power.  And  thus  the  minority 
might  involve  the  whole  State  in  a  war,  including  of 
course  the  great  majority  when  that  majority  may  have 
been  hostile  to  the  very  act  which  involved  them  in  this 
war,  with  all  its  dreadful  consequences.  A  government 
thus  constituted  in  the  hands  of  a  minority,  might  not 
only  involve  us  in  direful  and  calamitous  wars  with  for- 
eign governments,  but  also  incur  civil  obligations  in  the 
form  of  treaties,  and  in  other  forms  common  between 
governments,  which  would  be  binding  oppressively  on 
the  majority  of  their  own  community  ;  and  this  would 
be  just  as  solemn  and  obligatory  upon  the  people  and  the 
majority  as  if  they  were  provisions  inserted  in  your  or- 
ganic law,  because  we  are  compelled  to  observe  the  ob- 
ligation of  treaties.  If  the  majority  should  undertake 
to  absolve  themselves  from  obligations  thus  imposed  by 
treaty,  they  would  necessarily  involve  themselves  in  a 
bloody  war,  because  a  violation  of  treaty  would  be  a  just 
cause  of  war.  Now,  I  believe  that  all  of  these  conside- 
rations which  I  have  drawn  from  the  domestic  and  for- 
eign relations,  may  exist  and  do  exist  with  multiplied 
force  in  a  federal  form  of  government.  1  assert  that  in 
a  federal  form  of  government,  all  these  arguments  which  I 
have  submitted  apply  with  redoubled  force.  If  the  power 
of  your  government  is  in  the  hands  of  a  minority  that 
minority  may  bind  you  neck  and  heels  in  your  federal 
relations,  that  is  if  their  acts  are  in  accordance  with  the 
form  and  structure  of  federal  government.  In  one  form 
of  government  the  legislative  power  of  the  State,  thus 
in  the  hands  of  a  minority,  may  do  almost  any  act,  but 
in  our  federal  government,  this  minority  cannot  do  every 
act,  though  they  may  do  some  seriously  detrimental  to 
the  majority  out  of  power  within  the  State.  I  shall  take 
occasion,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  my  remarks,  to  carry 
out  this  argument  derived  from  our  federal  relations. 
For  the  present  I  desire  to  proceed  with  some  other  ar- 
guments. 

I  have  endeavored  thus  far  to  submit  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  right  of  a  majority  to  rule.  These  argu- 
ments are  of  ubiquitary  excellence,  and  would  demon- 
strate that  in  all  countries  and  climes  they  should  receive 
the  sanction  and  approval  of  the  government  and  the 
people,  to  be  applied  in  a  practical  sense .  These  reasons, 
which  I  have  adduced,  have  been  practically  recognized 
in  our  American  form  of  government.  They  have  been 
emphatically  consecrated  as  the  American  doctrines  of 
government ;  and  this  assertion  is  evidenced  by  the  most 
solemn  records  of  our  history.  I  beg  leave  very  briefly 
to  refer  to  some  of  the  documentary  repositories  of  this 


great  doctrine.  Look  at  the  declaration  of  independence, 
and  we  find  it  there  asserted,  that  it  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  alter  and  reform  their  government  whenever, 
in  their  judgment,  it  becomes  defective  and  fails  to  ac- 
complish the  purposes  for  which  it  was  instituted.  1  beg 
leave  also  to  refer  to  the  bills  of  rights,  which  have  been 
prefixed  to,  or  incorporated  in  the  constitutions  of  our 
various  sister  States.  In  all  those  bills  of  rights  this 
doctrine  is  explicitly  announced,  that  power  is  derived 
from  the  people,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  people,  have 
the  right  to  predominate  in  government.  I  will  refer  to 
another  instructive  circumstance,  and  that  is,  that  there 
has  not  been,  from  the  foundation  of  this  republic 
to  the  present  hour,  a  single  constitution  ratified  upon 
the  western  hemisphere,  except  by  the  majority  of  the 
community  ;  such  community  being  defined  in  the  bill 
itself.  No  man  in  this  country  pretends  that  there  can 
be  any  validity  in  a  constitution,  or  that  it  is  in  anywise 
obligatory  upon  any  one,  except  it  derives  its  force  from 
the  ratification  of  the  majority  of  the  voters  of  a  com- 
munity. We  have,  in  the  federal  government  of  the 
United  States,  a  distinct  and  solemn  recognition  of  this 
doctrine,  placed  in  the  most  imposing  form  in  the  con- 
stitution ;  a  provision  which  guarantees  and  assures,  to 
every  member  of  this  confederacy  a  republican  form  of 
government.  This  republican  form  of  government  was 
held  in  such  high  estimation  by  the  patriots  assembled 
from  various  portions  of  this  confederacy  to  form  our 
federal  constitution  in  1787,  that  I  believe,  by  a  unani- 
mous vote,  they  incorporated  into  that  constitution  a 
guarantee  assuring  to  each  State  of  this  Union  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government.  And  now,  the  question  arises, 
what  is  that  republican  form  of  government?  We 
have  heard  republicanism  defined  in  a  most  astonishing 
manner  in  this  Convention,  during  the  progress  of  this 
discussion.  For  my  definition,  I  will  adopt  the  one  given 
by  Mr.  Madison,  who  has  justly  received  the  highest 
encomium  on  this  floor,  from  members  enlisted  both  for 
and  against  the  position  I  advocate.  It  will  be  found  in 
the  Federalist,  that  Mr.  Madison  defines  a  republic  to  be 
a  form  of  government  with  the  scheme  of  representation 
introduced.  I  refer  to  the  tenth  number  of  the  Feder- 
alist. 

"  A  republic,  by  which  I  mean  a  government  in 
which  the  scheme  of  representation  takes  place,  opens 
a  different  prospect,  and  promises  the  cure  for  which 
we  were  seeking.  Let  us  examine  the  points  in  which 
it  varies  from  pure  democracy,  and  we  shall  comprehend 
both  the  nature  of  the  cure,  and  the  efficacy  which  it 
must  derive  from  the  Union. 

"The  two  great  points  of  difference  between  a  demo- 
cracy and  a  republic,  are.  first,  the  delegation  of  the 
government,  in  the  latter,  to  a  small  number  of  citizens, 
elected  by  the  rest ;  secondly,  the  greater  number  of 
citizens,  and  greater  sphere  of  country,  over  which  the 
latter  may  be  extended." 

I  cite  Mr.  Madison  not  bee  use  I  think  there  can  ex- 
ist a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  true  definition  of  repub 
lican  government,  but  because  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  of  this  question  have  invoked  his  authority,  as  they 
supposed,  upon  some  collateral  points  raised  in  this  dis- 
cussion. The  gentleman  whom  I  had  the  honor  to  suc- 
ceed, and  who  occupied  the  floor  on  yesterday,  asserted 
as  I  believe,  with  the  utmost  sincerity,  that  he  loved  to 
cite  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison,  whenever  he  could. 
He  must  permit  me  to  assist  in  the  citation.  I  read  from 
Mr.  Madison's  views  in  the  Federalist,  in  order  to  give 
his  definition  of  a  republic.  In  No.  39,  page  392,  Mr. 
Madison  speaks  of  the  republic  with  especial  reference 
to  this  proper  definition.    He  says  : 

"  It  is  essential  to  such  a  government  that  it  be  derived 
from  the  great  body  of  the  society,  not  from  an  incon- 
siderable proportion,  or  a  favored  class  of  it;  otherwise 
a  handful  of  tyrannical  nobles,  exercising  their  oppres- 
sions by  a  delegation  of  their  powers,  might  aspire  to 
the  rank  of  republicans,  and  claim  for  their  government 
the  honorable  title  of  republic." 

I  may  with  propriety  cite  Mr.  Madison's  opinion  for 


464 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


the  benefit  of  the  gentleman  who  addressed  us  yester- 
day, in  order  to  show  that  in  Mr.  Madison's  opinion  a 
majority  of  the  community  had  the  power  to  govern; 
and  while  I  cite  that  passage  to  show  Mr.  Madison's 
opinion  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  it  will  also,  I  hope, 
enable  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Meredith,)  to 
perceive  x.he  dissimilarity  and  utter  absence  of  analogy 
between  the  structure  of  the  federal  government,  and 
the  structure  of  the  State  government.  His  argument,  it 
will  appear,  is  inconsistent  with  his  venerated  authority. 
It  was  Mr.  Madison's  opinion  that  the  structure  of 
the  State  government  was  very  unlike  the  structure  of 
the  federal  government,  believing  as  he  did  that  the 
general  government  was  rather  a  combination  of  nation- 
ality and  federation.  In  the  39th  No.  of  the  Federalist, 
page  100  and  101,  Mr.  Madison  in  discriminating  between 
the  forms  of  the  federal  and  the  State  government, 
says : 

"  "Were  the  people  regarded  in  this  transaction  as 
forming  one  nation,  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the 
whole  people  of  the  United  States  would  bind  the  mi- 
nority, in  the  same  manner  as  the  majority  in  each 
State  must  bind  the  minority. 

"  If  we  try  the  constitution  by  its  last  relation,  to  the 
authority  by  which  amendments  are  to  be  made,  we 
find  it  neither  wholly  national  nor  wholly  federal.  Were 
it  wholly  national  the  supreme  and  ultimate  authority 
would  reside  in  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  Union, 
and  this  authority  would  be  competent  at  all  times, 
like  that  of  a  majority  of  every  national  society,  to  al- 
ter or  abolish  its  established  government.  Were  it 
wholly  federal  on  the  other  hand,  the  concurrence  of 
each  state  in  the  Union  would  be  essential  to  every  al- 
teration that  would  be  binding  on  all.  The  mode  pro- 
vided by  the  plan  of  the  Convention  is  not  founded  on 
either  of  these  principles.  In  requiring  more  than  a 
majority,  and  particularly  in  computing  the  proportion 
by  states,  not  by  citizens,  it  departs  from  the  national 
and  advances  towards  the  federal  character.  In  render- 
ing the  concurrence  of  less  that  the  whole  number  of 
states  sufficient,  it  loses  again  the  federal  and  partakes 
of  the  national  character." 

I  have  thus  far  endeavored  very  briefly  and  imper- 
fectly, to  present  the  argument  in  favor  of  a  majority 
having  the  rule  in  government.  I  have  sought  to  show 
this  from  its  universal  propriety,  that  the  doctrine  was 
one  of  universal  application,  and  not  of  a  specific  or  lo- 
cal character,  and  to  demonstrate  that  it  has  been  spe- 
cifically recognized,  and  deliberately  consecrated  as  the 
American  doctrine  of  government.  In  support  of  my 
position,  I  have  referred  to  various  general  documents, 
containing,  as  I  conceive,  very  specific  recognitions  of 
this  truth.  I  will  now  advance  a  little  further  in  this 
particular  enumeration,  and  evdoavor  to  show  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  only  recognized,  but  embodied  in  the  con- 
stitutions adopted  for  the  government  of  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  states  of  this  Union.  They  all  rest  upon  this 
fundamental  truth,  that  the  majority  have  a  right  to 
rule,  and  that  to  secure  to  them  the  enjoyment  of  this 
right  in  a  representative  government,  they  have  a  righr, 
to  a  majority  of  the  representatives  in  proportion  to  the 
majority  of  voters.  That  is,  that  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority shall  prevail  in  that  department  of  government 
which  is  organized  for  the  purpose  of  representing  the 
will  of  the  community,  and  that  it  shall  be  so  constitu- 
ted as  to  give  solemn  utterance  to  that  will.  I  will 
take  the  twenty -nine  states  of  this  confederated  Union, 
after  excluding  California,  of  which  I  have  very  little 
knowledge,  and  Virginia,  whose  example  will  hereafter 
be  considered.  I  have  so  classified  the  several  states 
of  the  Union  as  to  show,  at  a  glance,  the  real  basis  upon 
which  their  governments  are  founded.  I  have  assumed, 
or  deduced  for  the  purpose  of  the  argument  which  I 
shall  now  advance,  that  twenty-four  out  of  the  twenty- 
nine  states  to  which  I  have  referred,  recoguize  and  sol- 
emnly establish  the  popular  basis  of  representation ;  but  I 
would  remark  that  that  basis  in  some  of  their  constitutions 


is  expressed  with  some  little  variety  of  language,  without 
there  being  any  difference  whatever  of  sense  or  sub- 
stance. The  basis  of  representations  in  the  most  popu- 
lar branch  of  the  legislature  in  these  states,  will  ba 
found  as  follows :  According  to  the  number  of  qualified 
voters,  three  states,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Louis- 
iana ;  according  to  the  number  of  free  white  inhabitants, 
five  States,  iiissouri,  Illinois,  Alabama,  Mississippi  and 
Iowa ;  according  to  the  number  of  free  white  male 
inhabitants,  four  states,  Ohio,  Missouri,  Arkansas  and 
Indiana;  according  to  the  number  of  the  free  popula- 
tion, excluding  negroes  and  Indians  not  taxed,  one  state, 
Texas  :  according  to  the  number  of  taxables,  four  states, 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont  and  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  according  to  the  number  of  inhabitants,  five 
states,  Maine,  (excluding  foreigners  not  naturalized,  and 
Indians  not  taxed,)  Rhode  Island,  New  York,  (excluding 
Indians  not  taxed,  soldiers,  &c.)  This  makes  a  total  of 
twenty-two  states,  to  which  others  should  be  added  as 
substantially  confining  to  the  same  basis,  to  wit:  Accor- 
ding to  counties  seven  to  each,  one  state,  Delaware ;  ac- 
cording to  towns  by  the  pre-existing  practice,  before  the 
adoption  of  their  present  constitution,  one  state,  Con- 
necticut. Thus  we  have  an  aggregage  of  twenty-four' 
States.  Now  there  are  five  states  whose  basis  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  popular  branch  is  somewhat  variant 
from  the  popular  basis.  There  are  four  states  whose 
basis  is  upon  federal  numbers,  viz:  North  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Florida  and  Maryland. 

According  to  a  mixed  basis  of  white  inhabitants  and 
taxation  raised  by  the  legislature  of  one  state,  South 
Carolina.  The  whole  number  of  states  I  have  thus 
enumerated  is  twenty-nine,  and  for  the  most  part  the 
basis  of  representation  in  the  senate  of  these  states 
conforms  to  the  basis  in  the  house  of  representatives,  or 
the  most  popular  branch.  I  have  thus  shown  by  this 
analysis  of  the  constitutions  of  the  several  states  of  the 
Union,  that  this  doctrine  of  a  popular  basis  of  represen- 
tation is  solemnly  ratified  as  the  American  doctrine  of 
representation.  I  believe  also,  that  I  can  appeal  to  the 
history  of  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia  to  show  not 
only  her  high  appreciation  of  this  basis,  but  to  demon- 
strate that  upon  every  appropriate  occasion  when  she 
has  been  called  upon  solemnly  to  declare  what  is  the 
basis  of  representation,  that  even  in  Virginia  this  basis 
has  been  sanctified.  I  believe  I  can  redeem  Virginia 
from  the  reproach  and  the  stigma  which  has  been 
thrown  upon  her  and  affixed  to  her,  by  charging  her  with 
a  love  and  devotion  to  this  abhorrent  mixed  basis  prin- 
ciple. I  will  endeavor  to  show,  from  the  history  of 
Virginia,  that  she  has  recognized,  and  so  far  as  the  oc- 
casion has  enabled  her  to  do  it,  has  consecrated  this 
popular  basis  herself.  In  doing  so  I  shall  have  recourse 
to  historical  information.  I  will  attempt  to  do  this,  and 
in  doing  it  I  shall  find  it  necessary  to  allude  to  the  bill 
of  rights  of  Virginia,  very  briefly,  and  when  I  say  briefly, 
I  intend  if  possible  to  conform  to  that  expression. 

Early  in  the  war  of  the  revolution,  when  the  tyranny 
of  Great  Britain  had  dissolved  the  government  which 
then  subsisted  in  Virginia  of  a  regal  character,  it  was 
found  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  the  terrible  conse- 
quences of  anarchy,  that  some  form  of  government  should 
be  instituted  for  the  people  of  Virginia.  A  form  of  gov- 
ernment was  adopted  in  haste,  I  say  without  proper  de- 
liberation, and  when  I  make  this  remark  I  know  the  re- 
sponsibility which  it  may  meet.  I  know  it  will  be  said 
that  they  deliberated,  that  they  arduously  discussed  the 
provisions  of  the  instrument  they  were  forming,  that 
they  fatigued  themselves  in  the  discussion,  nevertheless 
their  labor  was  performed  speedily  and  hastily  and  in  a 
manner  unsatisfactory  to  themselves.  But  although  they 
were  not  able,  from  the  pressure  of  circumstances  which 
surrounded  them,  to  adopt  a  form  of  government  which 
did  conform  to  their  ideas,  yet  they  did  declare  what  in 
their  opinion  were  the  true  principles  of  government, 
and  they  embodied  these  great  fundamental  principles 
in  the  bill  of  rights,  not  for  the  purpose  of  declaring 
what  were  the  rights  of  man  antecedent  or  anterior  to 
government,  but  for  the  purpose  of  declaring,  what  were 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


465 


the  eternal  rights  of  man  and  not  the  conventional  and 
post-conventional  rights.  The  introduction  to  this  bill 
of  rights  declares  very  emphatically  and  explicitly  what 
was  the  purpose  of  its  authors.  It  is  declared  to  be  "a 
declaration  of  rights  made  by  the  representatives  of  the 
good  people  of  Virginia  assembled  in  full  and  free  con- 
vention, which  rights  do  pertain  to  them  and  their  pos- 
terity as  the  basis  and  foundation  of  government,  unani- 
mously adopted  June  12th,  1772."^- Would  they  declare 
those  rights  to  pertain  to  their  posterity  in  a-  siate  of 
society,  and  which  constitute  the  very  foundation  of 
government,  to  be  those  and  those  only  which  existed 
anterior  to  the  institutions  of  society.  Certainly  not, 
for  the  very  first  section  declares  that  when  they  pro- 
mulgated this  bill  of  rights  they  contemplated  it  as  a 
guarantee,  as  a  solemn  recognition  of  rights  which 
should  subsist  in  society.  The  first  section  declares 
that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent 
and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which,  when  they 
«nter  into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot  by  any  com- 
pact deprive  or  divest  their  posterity  :  namely,  the  en- 
joyment of  life  and  liberty  with  the  means  of  acquiring 
and  possessing  property,  and  pursuing  and  obtaining 
happiness  and  safety 

The  second  section  declares,  "that  all  power  is  vested 
in,  and  consequently  derived  from  the  people  ;  that 
magistrates  are  their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at  all 
times  amenable  to  them."  The  third  section,  the  one 
upon  which  most  criticism  has  been  expended  in  this 
discussion,  is  as  follows  : 

"That  government  is  or  ought  to  be  instituted  for  the 
common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of  the  people, 
nation  or  community  ;  of  all  the  various  modes  and 
forms  of  government  that  is  best  which  is  capable  of 
producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety, 
and  is  most  efFuctually  secured  against  the  danger  of 
mal-administration  ;  and  that  when  any  government 
shall  be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these  purposes, 
a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubitable,  in- 
alienable and  indefeasible  right  to  alter,  refoim  or  abol- 
ish it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive 
to  the  public  weal." 

Upon  the  right  construction  of  that  section  turns 
much  of  the  arguments  already  submitted  to  this  con- 
vention. A  majority  of  the  community  in  the  year 
1776,  when  this  declaration  of  rights  was  written  and 
proinulged,  was  understood  by  no  one  to  signify  a  ma 
jority  of  the  proprietary  rights  of  citizens.  A  majority 
of  the  community  is  now  interpreted  to  import  not 
majority  of  the  community  of  citizens  but  a  majority  of 
proprietary  rights.  If  language  can  be  explicit — if  lan- 
guage can  be  unambiguous,  it  is  this  language  of  the 
third  section  of  the  bill  of  rights — and  its  clearness  con- 
sists in  asserting  that  a  majority  of  the  community,  a  ma- 
jority  of  the  citizens,  have  the  right  to  alter  and  reform 
a  government  whenever  it  is  deemed  best.  But  I  am 
told  here  that  a  contemporaneous  exposition  of  this 
phrase  gives  to  it  another  signification,  one  more  consist 
enl  with  the  views  of  gentlemen  who  favored  the  mixed 
basis.  What  are  the  evidences  of  these  contemporane- 
ous expositions  ?  They  are  to  be  found,  I  am  told,  in 
that  frame-work  of  government,  in  that  constitution 
which  the  same  body  of  men  established  in  1776.  That 
I  understand  to  be  the  strong  evidences  in  favor  of  the 
interpretation  placed  upon  this  section  by  those  men 
themselves.  Let  us  consider  the  point.  They  certainly 
would  not  have  conceived  an  absurdity,  but  let  us  see  if 
they  have  not.  "A  majority  of  the  community,"'  it  is 
called,  "have  the  right  to  alter  and  reform,"  but  it  is 
said  on  the  other  side  that  a  majority  of  the  community 
may  exist  with  the  minority  of  the  people  and  is  found 
in  the  majority  of  interests,  another  name  for  superior 
wealth.  Would  it  not  follow  from  that,  that  a  minority 
of  the  community  or  a  minority  of  the  pdople  have  the 
right  to  alter  and  abolish.  If  they  have,  how  then 
would  you  read  thi3  clause  ?  Why,  that  "  a  minority  of 
this  community  have  a  right  to  alter  and  abolish,"  and. 
therefore,  the  majority  of  the  community  have  not  the 
44 


right  to  alter  and  abolish.  Gentlemen  who  maintain 
the  propriety  of  the  mixed  basis  in  the  Convention  de- 
clare their  great  veneration  for  this  bill  of  rights,  that 
they  approach  it  as  if  it  were  almost  sacred,  perhaps 
quite  so,  certainly  as  very  precious;  that  they  believe  it 
contains  fundamental  truths,  and  that  they  subscribe  to 
those  truths  with  the  utmost  cordiality.  They  go  a  step 
further  and  they  maintain  that  this  mixed  basis  is  not 
only  consistent  with  this  declaration  of  rights  but  con- 
sistent with  all  the  other  reforms  which  eastern  gentle- 
men are  understood  to  favor.  I  take  it  that  the  gentle- 
men who  believe  in  the  rectitude  of  the  principles  enun- 
ciated in  the  bill  of  rights,  will  not,  when  they  come  to 
carry  out  certain  great  reforms,  admit  that  those  reforms 
are  incompatible  and  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of 
the  bill  of  rights ;  yet  need  I  say  that  they  will  be  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of  1776.  And 
if  inconsistent  with  each  other,  how  can  they  both  be 
consistent  with  the  common  standard.  Your  own  argu- 
ment asserts,  by  the  radical  changes  you  advocate,  that 
the  constitution  of  '76  was  fundamentally  wrong,  and  if 
fundamentally  wrong  it  cannot  be  consistent  with  the 
bill  of  rights,  as  to  which  your  reforms  are  consistent. 
Canit?  It  seems  to  me  not.  The  constitution  of  1776 
was,  therefore,  not  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the 
bill  of  rights.  But  I  find  in  that  old  constitution  of  '76, 
which  is  said  to  give  an  interpretation  that  is  inconsist- 
ent wiih  the  basis  of  popular  representation,  inherent 
and  unmistakeable  evidence  that  the  framers  of  that 
constitution  had  never  in  their  contemplation  any  such 
doctrine  as  that  of  a  mixed  or  known  as  such  basis.  That 
constitution  provided  that  the  legislature  should,  when- 
ever the  exigency  required  it,  form  new  counties. 

A  MEMBER.  There  was  no  constitutional  provision 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  N^EESOK  But  the  legislature  did  form  new 
counties,  and  whenever  they  formed  new  counties  they 
gave  to  each  county  two  delegates,  and  they  did  it,  as  I 
understand,  in  consistency  with  the  constitution  of  1776. 
No  man  ever  pretended  to  deny  the  constitutionality  of 
such  an  act.  You  know,  from  the  state  of  the  country, 
and  the  condition  of  things  which  has  existed  from  1776 
down  to  this  time,  that  it  has  be^n  absolutely  necessary, 
in  the  western  country,  that  counties  should  be  formed, 
having  considerable  population,  although  making  but 
very  insignificant  contributions  to  the  public  treasury. 
And  yet  these  very  counties,  under  that  old  constitution, 
were  allowed,  by  law,  a  representation  in  the  legislature 
equal  to  the  most  populous  counties — equal  to  those 
counties  most  ample  in  territory  and  affluent  in  their 
circumstances,  and  the  largest  contributors  to  the  public 
treasury.  How  can  those  things  be  reconciled  with  the 
principle  now  advocated,  and  which  is  said  to  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  principle  of  the  constitution  of  1776, 
which  constitution,  it  is  said,  recognized  the  propriety 
of  a  mixed  basis  ? 

But  'tis  argued,  by  way  of  commenting  upon  the  third 
section,  that  whatever  be  this  majority  of  the  communi- 
ty which  had  the  right  to  alter  and  reform  a  government 
whenever  that  government  ceases  to  be  promotive  of 
the  interests,  they  never  can  exercise  this  right  until  the 
contingency  specified  in  that  election  for  its  exercise 
shall  arise.  That  I  understood  to  be  the  position  here. 
Well,  agreeing  that  it  is  the  correct  position,  and  that  a 
majority  of  the  community  cannot  exercise  that  right 
until  the  happening  of  the  contingency  specified  here, 
what  follows  ?  Does  it  follow  that  the  minority  of  the 
government  shall  rise  up  and  say  that  this  contingency 
has  not  arrived  when  the  majority  believe  that  it  has 
arrived?  Why,  in  what  a  dilemma — in  what  a  ridicu- 
lous position  the  framers  of  this  bill  of  rights  would  be 
placed  by  such  a  doctrine  ?  The  majority  have  a  certain 
right,  and  yet  the  exercise  of  that  right  is  dependant 
upon  the  caprice  of  a  minority.  Why,  it  would  prove 
it  to  be  no  right  at  all.  The  right  to  alter  and  reform 
belongs  to  the  majority  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  that 
majority,  the  occasion  arises  to  justify  its  exercise.  But 


4C6 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION* 


it  is  said,  a  contemporaneous  exposition  denies  the  con- 
struction, but  no  proof  accompanies  any  of  these  asser- 
tions. I  will  refer  gentlemen  to  Monroe,  as  contempo- 
raneous with  Mr.  Mason  and  others,  who  formed  the 
bill  of  rights.  Monroe  was  one  of  the  bright  contempo- 
raries of  the  illustrious  authors  of  this  bill  of  rights,  and 
his  opinion  was,  that  the  popular  basis  of  representation 
is  consistent  with,  and  is  founded  upon,  that  bill  of 
rights.  I  have  asserted  that  the  history  of  Virginia 
would  demonstrate  the  exalted  estimate  she  has  pkiced 
heretofore  on  this  popular  basis  of  representation.  I 
have  now  passed  in  review  that  bill  of  rights,  one  of  the 
most  solemn  instruments  ever  proclaimed  in  this  State, 
in  whicjh  that  doctrine  is  explicitly  declared;  and  would 
it  not  be  very  remarkable  to  believe,  while  Virginia  suf- 
fered this  venerated  bill  of  rights  to  remain  prefixed  to 
her  constitution,  and  most  cherished  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people,  that  she  should  apostatize  from  the  faith  therein 
expressed  ?  It  would  be  strange,  passing  strange.  Vir- 
ginia has  never  renounced  that  faith.  The  constitution 
of  1776  became  generally  and  justly  odious.  It  produced 
universal  dissatisfaction  throughout  the  commonwealth, 
and  the  people  demand  reform. 

Accordingly,  in  the  year  1816,  when  the  house  of  dele- 
gates consisted  of  202  members,  chiefly  from  the  east, 
a  bill  was  introduced  into  that  body  for  calling  a  con- 
vention expressly  to  equalize  representation  upon  the 
basis  of  the  white  population,  or  popular  basis,  and  that 
bill  passed  the  house  by  a  large  majority.  It  passed  that 
house  thus  constituted,  after  a  discussion  involving  all 
the  principles  of  government  now  involved  in  this  dis- 
cussion. During  that  discussion  in  1816,  a  proposition 
was  submitted  as  amendatory  to  the  one  I  have  named, 
providing  for  representation  upon  slaves — that  species 
of  property  now  thought  to  be  so  peculiarly  entitled  to 
representation.  And  the  same  body  of  202  members 
absolutely  condemned  and  repudiated  that  proposition. 
There  could  be  found  in  that  large  body  but  26  votes  in 
its  favor,  a  signal  proof  of  the  appreciation  of  sound 
principles  at  that  day. 

In  the  same  year,  (1816,)  an  act  was  passed  by  the 
legislature  establishing  representation  in  the  senate,  on 
the  basis  of  the  white  population;  on  the  census  of  1810 
the  West  then  having  nearly  her  full  representations  or, 
that  basis  in  the  house  of  delegates.  Now  these  were 
recognitions,  and  very  distinct  recognitions,  of  the  rec- 
titude of  this  principle  or  basis  of  representation,  solemnly 
made  after  all  the  discussion  to  which  I  have  alluded. 

Again,  in  the  year  1828  or  1829,  the  bill  for  calling  a 
convention  was  proposed  in  the  legislature  upon  the 
coogressional  districts,  by  means  of  which,  not  only  the 
white  population,  but  three-fifths  of  the  slave  popula- 
tions, would  have  been  presented  in  the  convention.  We 
are  informed  that  this  proposition  was  sustained  by 
brilliant  and  able  argument  in  right  of  the  slave  repre- 
sentation. But  after  protracted  discussion,  it  was  aban- 
doned as  untenable,  and  then  the  bill  was  defended  on 
the  alleged  ground  that  it  was  substantially  the  mixed 
basis  of  population  and  taxation  combined.  On  either 
ground,  however,  it  was  a  deviation  from  true  principle, 
irreconcilable  with  republican  ideas  then  prevailing,  aud 
was,  therefore,  rejected  and  condemned.  Eventually 
the  legislature,  having  repudiated  the  mixed  basis,  and 
tne  slave  b-isi%  settled  upon  the  org  nization  of  a  con- 
vention in  which  representation  should  correspond  with 
that  in  the  senate  of  the  State,  namely  :  the  white  popu 
lation  of  the  year  1810.  This  gave  the  West  36  deie 
gates  in  that  convention  ;  whereas,  by  the  white  popu- 
lation of  1820,  she  was  entitled  to  40  delegates. 

Mr.  CAMDEN.  I  will  state  to  the  gentleman  that 
the  bill  to  organize  the  last  convention  passed  the  house 
of  delegates  upon  the  white  basis,  according  to  the  cen- 
sus of  1820,  but  was  amended  in  the  senate  by  adopting 
the  census  of  1810,    I  was  then  a  member  of  that  bodj\ 

Mr.  NEESON.  It  then  received  the  ratification  of 
the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature  and  faiied  to  be 
adopted  by  reason  of  the  modification  of  the  senate.  1 


will  pause  here  merely  to  explain  the  distinction  which 
really  does  exist  between  the  white  and  suffrage  basis, 
for  we  have  been  charged  in  this  debate  not  only  with 
inconsistency  in  abandoning  the  white  basis,  but  with 
improper  motives  in  doing  so.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuipeper,  (Mr.  Barbour,)  asserted  that  in  former  times 
the  western  portion  of  the  state  assumed  the  white  basis 
as  the  true  one,  but  that  at  the  present  time,  1851,  the 
delegation  from  the  West  assumed  the  suffrage  basis  as 
the  true  basis — arguing  in  the  first  place  that  it  was  a 
departure  from  our  original  position,  and  in  the  second 
place  thatitwas  a  departure  influenced  by  motives  of  sec- 
tional aggrandizement.  If  the  gentleman  will  take  the 
trouble  to  refer  to  certain  documents  which  I  can  put 
into  his  hands,  he  will  find,  that  while  Western  Virginia 
had  in  the  Convention  of  1829  but  thirty-six  delegates, 
she  was  entitled  according  to  the  white  basis,  to  forty 
delegates,  yet  at  the  same  time  according  to  the  suffrage 
basis  Western  Virginia,  having  thirty-six  delegates,  had 
her  full  share,  so  that  at  the  time  there  was  a  difference 
between  the  white  basis  and  the  suffrage  basis,  and  you 
can  see,  that  the  difference  was  in  favor  of  Western  Vir- 
ginia. But  the  gentleman,  in  order  to  show  that  we 
were  actuated  by  improper  motives,  gave  the  reason 
which  induced  him  to  believe  that  the  suffrage  basis 
gave  Western  Virginia  a  greater  representation  than  the 
white  basis.  Now,  if  we  suppose  for  a  moment  that 
there  be  a  uniform  qualification  of  suffrage  and  a  homo- 
geneous free  population  throughout  the  State,  any  given 
number  of  citizens  or  white  population  will  have  the 
same  relative  number  of  qualified  voters.  Is  it  not  a 
matter  of  indifference  which  basis  you  adopt  when  you 
are  in  pursuit  of  an  advantage,  if  that  be  your  purpose  ? 
Suppose  the  ratio  between  the  number  of  qualified 
voters  and  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  to  be  one  to 
eight,  which  is  now  nearly  the  case,  if  you  adopt  the 
white  basis  and  say  that  8,000  free  white  persons  shall 
send  a  delegate,  is  it  not  exactly  the  same,  to  say  when 
you  adopt  the  suffrage  basis  1000  voters  shall  send  a 
delegate,  provided,  as  I  have  surmised,  that  the  relation 
between  the  voters  and  the  white  population  is  the  same 
throughout  the  State;  and  such  would  be  the  relation  if 
you  adopt  a  uniform  qualification  of  suffrage  through- 
out the  State.  The  gentleman  will  perceive,  therefore 
that  he  is  mistaken  and  that  this  basis  gives  us  no  ad- 
vantage. 

But  I  will  go  a  step  further  and  prove  to  him,  and  I 
think  I  can  prove  it  to  his  satisfaction,  at  any  rate  I 
trust  I  can  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  committee,  that 
Western  Virginia  will  absolutely  lose  by  this  suffrage 
basis  what  we  might  gain  by  the  white  basis.  The  white 
population  in  Eastern  Virginia  is  nearly  stationary  and 
making  but  little  progress.  Your  people  are  all  fixed 
and  do  not  change  their  location,  while  in  Western  Vir- 
ginia population  is  changing  and  increasing  both  from 
natural  causes  and  by.  reason  of  immigration.  Just  in 
proportion  as  we  increase  by  immigration  or  by  acces* 
sion  from  foreign  countries  or  other  States,  in  that  very 
proportion  do  we  lose  upon  the  suffrage  basis,  and  for 
this  reason  :  According  to  the  report  of  the  committee5 
on  the  subject,  and  according  to  the  rule  which  will  be 
adopted  whether  we  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee 
or  not,  all  foreigners  are  excluded  from  the  enumera- 
tion, under  the  suffrage  basis,  although  they  would 
swell  the  white  population  they  would  not  be  voters, 
And  ail  citizens  of  the  United  States  belonging  to  the 
other  States,  coming  here,  must  have  a  residence 
of  two  years,  according  to  the  report,  before  they  can 
vote.  We  would  lose  them  of  course  by  the  suffrage 
basis,  because  those  two  classes  to  which  I  have  alluded 
would  not  be  qualified  voters,  whereas  we  would  gaiu 
upon  the  white,  population  basis,  because  that  would  be 
upon  the  entire  white  population,  jf  gentlemen  wiil 
reflect  on  these  two  obvious  differences  existing  in  the 
two  sections  of  country,  the^  will  see  how  ungenerous 
{  and  how  unjust  it  was  in  the  gentleman  from  Cuipeper 
I  to  charge  that  we  had  not  only  changed  our  ground* 
but  in  so  doing  had  been  actuated  by  the  dictates  of 
1  selfishness. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


46? 


I  come  back  now  to  the  point  where  I  should  perhaps 
hare  remained  instead  of  indulging  in  this  digression  to 
discriminate  between  the  white  and  suffrage  basis.  I 
have  endeavored  to  show  that  in  177 6,  in  the  bill  of 
rights,  the  popular  basis  was  established  in  Virginia, 
aud  was  again  affirmed  by  the  solemn  declaration  of 
the  legislature,  of  1816,  and  by  the  reiterated  decla- 
ration of  the  legislature  of  1828.  I  now  come  down 
to  the  Convention  of  '29,  and  in  the  first  place  I  will 
show  that  this  mixed  basis  was  solemnly  repudiated  by 
that  Convention.  Yes,  mixed  basis  or  something  similar, 
if  not  exactly  identical  with  it,  for  gentlemen  are  mis- 
taken in  saying  that  this  same  basis  was  up  before. 
This  basis  was  proposed  in  1829,  debated  in  the  Conven- 
tion, and,  by  a  vote  of  forty-seven  for  it  to  forty-nine 
against  it,  was  repudiated.  There  was  another  basis 
proposed  in  the  Convention  qf  1829,  and  that  was  your 
slave  basis,  commonly  called  the  federal  number,  com- 
posed of  the  white  population  of  the  State  and  three- 
fifths  of  the  slave  population,  and  it  was  condemned 
and  rejected  by  the  same  vote  of  forty-seven  to  forty- 
nine — a  full  vote. 

I  trust  this  exhibition  of  facts  will  show  that  Virginia 
has  never  departed  from  the  true  faith  of  a  popular 
basis,  and  that  she  has  never  suffered  such  a  heresy  to 
be  interpolated  into  her  creed.  But  what  did  that  Con- 
vention of  1829-30  ultimately  establish  as  the  basis  of 
representation  ?  It  appears  to  me,  with  all  due  respect 
to  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  in  this  discussion, 
that  the  minds  of  debators  heretofore  have  labored 
under  a  misconception  in  regard  to  that  principle  of 
representation.  Some  have  assumed  that  it  was  a  rep- 
resentation established  without  regard  to  any  principle 
on  the  subject,  and  some  have  said  it  was  founded  on  a 
mixed  basis,  essentially  like  the  basis  now  proposed  by 
eastern  gentlemen.  The  truth  is,  the  Convention  of 
1829-  30  incorporated  into  the  existing  constitution  of 
the  State,  the  white  population  of  Virginia,  as  the  basis 
of  representation,  antedating  it  ten  years.  Yes,  it  not 
only  repudiated  the  mixed  and  the  black  basis,  but  it 
ratified  the  white  basis.  Their  apportionment  of  rep- 
resentation corresponds  with  that  basis  as  it  existed  in 
the  year  1820,  as  figures  will  easily  prove.  I  will  read 
from  very  high  authority  to  establish  the  fact.  I  read 
from  the  remarks  of  the  illustrious  late  chief  justice  of 
the  United  States,  Marshall,  as  a  member  of  that  body, 
delivered  just  three  days  before  the  Convention  adjourn- 
ed. "  The  apportionment  at  present  agreed  on  was  the 
white  basis  as  it  stood  in  1820."  [Debates  of  the  Vir- 
ginia Convention,  '29-30,  page  851.] 

The  Convention  of  1829-30  ratified  this  white  basis 
by  antedating  the  population  ten  years,  and  the  great 
and  crying  injustice  of  the  act  was,  that  it  defined  the 
limits  within  which  the  white  population  was  found,  and 
rendered  difficult  and  practically  impossible,  a  re-ap- 
portionment corresponding  with  it.  I  have  now,  I  think, 
redeemed  the  pledge  that  I  would  vindicate  Virginia 
from  the  aspersion,  that  she  had  apostatized  from  the 
true  faith,  and  that  she  had  ever  adopted  any  other  than 
that  of  the  popular  basis  of  representation.  Suppose 
this  Convention  were  to  be  as  liberal  in  the  year  1851 
as  was  the  Convention  in  the  year  1830.  Suppose  you 
were  to  take  the  same  basis  which  they  took,  how  would 
the  matter  stand  ?  How  would  you  then  organize  the 
legislative  department  of  the  government  ?  I  have  made 
a  calculation  to  show  the  result  which  would  follow  from 
adopting  the  basis  ratified  in  1829-30 — that  is  to  adopt 
the  white  population  as  the  basis,  antedating  that  popu- 
lation ten  years.  Let  us  look  at  the  population  of  1840, 
and  see  the  relative  force  of  representation  East  and 
"West  upon  the  basis,  which  is  identically  the  basis  of  the 
present  constitution.  I  take  the  population  of  '40  to 
arrive  at  this  result,  and  if  your  house  of  delegates  con- 
sists of  150  and  your  senate  of  50  members  upon  this 
basis,  the  first  district,  the  Tidewater,  would  have  34 
delegates;  and  the  second  district,  Piedmont,  would  have 
forty  delegates — making  in  the  East  an  aggregate  of  74 


delegates ;  the  third  or  Valley  district  would  have  28 
delegates,  and  the  fourth  or  trans- Alleghany  district 
would  have  48  delegates,  making  an  aggregate  in  the 
West  of  76  delegates,  giving  a  western  majority  in  the 
house  of  delegates  of  two  members.  In  the  senate 
there  would  be  an  equal  representation  of  25  senators 
from  the  East  and  25  from  the  West.  That  would  be  the 
basis  of  representation  in  our  new  constitution  if  you  had 
even  the  liberality  of  the  illiberal  Convention  of  1829 
and  1830. 

At  this  point  I  find  it  necessary  to  pause  for  a  mo- 
ment in  the  contemplation  of  the  existing  body  of  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  be  a  member.  The  Convention  of 
'29- '30  having  been  disposed  of,  let  me  come  to  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Convention  ©f  '50-51.  This  body  is 
organized  upon  anti-republican  principles.  It  is  orga- 
nized with  a  deliberate  pre-conceived  purpose  of  wrong- 
ing, iniquitously  wronging  Western  Virginia.  Gentle- 
men from  the  East  have  evinced  an  extreme  sensibility 
on  the  subject,  and  have  entered  into  an  elaborate  vin- 
dication of  the  manner  in  which  this  Convention  has 
been  called  and  is  now  organized.  How  was  this  Con- 
vention organized  ?    How  did  it  originate  ? 

For  many  years  indeed,  from  the  year  '40,  if  not  ear- 
lier, Western  Virginia  became  clamorous  for  reform. 
She  demanded  her  just  rights  in  the  representative  de- 
partment of  government,  and  she  demanded  all  the 
other  great  and  salutary  reforms  which  she  sought  in 
common  with  Eastern  Virginia.  Her  demands  were  not 
regarded,  her  petitions  were  spurned,  and  she  fatigued 
and  exhausted  herself  in  pursuit  of  these  reforms ;  and 
as  the  year  '50  approached,  the  period  when  the  census 
was  to  be  taken  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  census  would  exhibit  fully  the  strength  in 
population  and  other  resources  of  Western  Virginia,  her 
people  became  satisfied  that  it  was  the  wisest  policy  to 
forbear  a  demand  for  a  Convention  to  alter  and  reform 
the  constitution  until  that  census,  exhibiting  in  their  full 
force  and  truth  the  real  condition  of  Western  Virginia. 
Eastern  Virginia  became  satisfied  that  Western  Virginia 
did  not  want  a  Convention,  and  in  the  legislature  which 
sat  here  some  twelve  months  ago,  eastern  men,  conscious 
of  this  state  of  things,  introduced  a  proposition  in  the 
house  of  delegates  to  call  a  Convention,  anticipating 
the  advantage,  not  the  advantage  but  the  right,  that  the 
West  would  acquire  by  the  census  of  '50,  and  perhaps 
the  advantage  which  Western  Virginia  would  gain  by  an 
earlier  adjustment  of  this  question.  A  bill  was  reported 
providing-  for  the  call  of  this  Convention.  It  provided 
also,  that  the  people  at  the  polls  should  decide  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  Convention  should  be  organized  on  the 
mixed  or  white  basis,  whether  the  people  of  their  own 
free  will  and  unrestrained  judgment  should  adopt  the 
one  or  the  other.  To  that  tribunal  ultimately  all  such 
questions  are  referable,  and  the  mode  of  taking  their 
opinion  of  the  question  was  free  from  any  rational  ob- 
jection. We  could  then  perceive  whether  there  was  a 
majority  of  the  people  for  or  against  either  of  these  mea- 
sures, absolutely  and  not  conjecturally,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  now  charges,  when  we  assert  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  undoubtedly  prefer  the  popular  ba- 
sis. That  was  as  fair  a  proposition  as  was  ever  submit- 
ted to  reasonable  and  intelligent  men,  and  yet  eastern 
gentlemen  condemn  it.  They  denied  to  the  sovereign 
people  the  right  to  be  heard  on  the  question.  They  had 
the  power  and  inclination  to  do  so,  but  whether  there 
was  principle  in  their  action  I  will  submit  to  their  own 
consciences.  Then  came  up  the  mixed  basis  system  of 
representation,  which  was  incorporated  in  the  bill,  call- 
ing the  Convention ;  the  western  delegates  representing 
a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  with  almost 
entire  unanimity  remonstrating  and  denouncing  it  in  the 
most  unqualified  manner.  Nevertheless,  in  the  face  of 
this  array  of  public  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  West, 
their  rebukes  and  expostulations,  eastern  gentlemen 
forced  the  bill  upon  them.  And  what  was  their  argument 
in  that  legislature  ?    It  was  that  now  repeated  by  the 


408 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


gentleman  from  Fauquier,  that  it  was  not  appropriate 
for  the  legislature,  the  governmental  majority,  to  decide 
the  question  of  the  basis  of  representation,  that  question 
belonging  rather  to  the  Convention  than  to  the  legisla- 
ture. It  was  so  forced  upon  the  West,  and  the  people  of 
Eastern  Virginia  voted  with  remarkable  unanimity  for 
this  Convention.  Why  did  they  thus  vote  ?  In  com- 
pliance, as  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  said,  with  the 
general  desire  of  the  commonwealth.  Yes,  Eastern  Vir- 
ginia voted  for  the  calling  of  this  Convention,  says  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  in  mere  compliance  with  this 
general  wish  of  the  commonwealth  for  this  Convention, 
thus  organized.  I  think,  however,  that  many  eastern 
gentlemen  voted  for  the  Convention  from  very  different 
motives.  A  gentleman  with  whom  I  have  had  conver- 
sation upon  the  subject  stated  to  me  his  position,  which 
he  said  was  the  position  of  many  others,  who  had  voted 
for  the  call  of  the  Convention  in  order  to  prevent  the 
possibility  of  a  transfer  from  Eastern  to  Western  Virginia 
of  the  political  preponderance  of  the  State.  I  dare  say 
that  his  views,  if  the  truth  were  known,  would  be  found 
to  be  the  exponent  of  the  sentiments  of  nine-tenths  of 
the  people  in  Eastern  Virginia  upon  the  subject.  Some 
of  the  people  of  Western  Virginia,  believing  that  the  ar- 
gument made  in  the  legislature  might  have  been  sincere, 
that  the  legislature  was  not  the  proper  body  to  decide 
the  basis  question,  and  that  when  this  Convention  as- 
sembled of  grave  and  able  gentlemen,  of  just  and  gener- 
ous gentleman,  representing  a  great  and  magnanimous 
constituency,  that  the  East  would  hear  their  claims,  and 
respect  their  demands,  and  concede  their  nnquestionable 
rights,  voted  for  the  Convention.  But  from  the  indica- 
tions already  manifested  on  this  floor,  so  far  as  the  ulti- 
mate decision  of  Eastern  Virginia  is  concerned,  I  think 
they  have  been  egregiously  deceived.  How  is  this  Con- 
vention now  organized  ?  Is  it  organized  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  give  effect  and  force  to  the  public  will  of  this 
State?  Is  it  organized  in  such  a  manner  as  to  express 
fairly  the  judgment  of  the  qualified  voters  of  this  State, 
the  very  body  to  which  gentlemen  themselves  must  ulti- 
mately leave  the  ratification  of  their  work  ?  No  !  It  is 
very  far  from  it.  You  have  stifled  their  voices  in  this 
hall,  but  I  trust  you  cannot  do  it  longer.  How  is  this 
Convention  organized  ?  The  Tidewater  district  is  much 
inferior  to  the  trans- Alleghany  district  in  white  popula- 
tion. The  trans- Alleghany  district,  that  much  derided 
but  glorious  district  from  which  I  come,  has  a  white 
population  exceeding  that  of  Tidewater  district  by  nearly 
134,000;  yet  strange  to  say,  Tidewater  district  has 
thirty-eight  delegates  upon  this  floor,  and  trans-Alle- 
ghany  but  thirty-five.  But  you  pay  more  taxes,  do  you  ? 
You  have  more  slaves,  have  you  ?  Yes,  you  have  more 
slaves,  and  your  slaves  are  computed  at  a  higher  esti- 
mate than  my  white  constituents.  What  is  the  popula- 
tion of  Tidewater  district  ?  You  have  187,655  white 
population,  and  178,681  slaves,  making  a  total  of  366,336, 
not  computing  your  slaves  according  to  federal  num- 
bers, not  applying  this  three-fifths  rule  to  the  slave 
population,  but  taking  the  aggregate  of  your  population, 
great  and  small,  white  and  black.  Now,  the  trans-Alle- 
ghany  district  has  331,586  white  inhabitants,  being  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  138,000  nearly  over  the  num- 
ber in  your  district ;  and  then  it  has  24,446  slaves,  ma- 
king an  aggregate  population  of  356,022.  The  two  dis- 
tricts have  a  grand  total  in  population  of  623,358.  To- 
gether they  are  entitled  to  73  delegates  in  this  body. 
Make  the  delegates  the  division  of  the  population,  and 
you  will  ascertain  the  ratio.  According  to  that  ratio, 
Tidewater  is  entitled  to  thirty-seven  delegates,  and  not 
thirty-eight,  counting  every  negro  you  have,  and  trans- 
Alleghany  would  be  entitled  to  thirty-six,  one  more 
than  she  has  now.  Thus,  by  putting  your  negroes  on  a 
par  with  my  constituents  you  get  thirty-seven  delegates; 
but  it  does  not  satisfy  you  to  put  them  upon  an  equality, 
and  you  must  needs  claim  38  delegates  here.  This  is 
your  boasted  equality  in  the  organization  of  this  Conven- 
tion, for  which  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  after  a 


prodigious  effort,  found  it  in  his  heart  to  offer  some 
slight  apology  ! 

It  is  thus  I  came  into  this  Convention,  representing  a 
people  thus  degraded,  debased,  and  viilified,  for  I  do 
regard  it  as  a  viliification,  aye,  debased  below  your 
slaves,  not  three-fourths  of  them,  but  the  whole  of  them. 
It  is  bme  mockery  to  talk  to  me  about  a  fair  represen- 
tation in  this  Convention.  It  is  insulting  to  tell  us  we 
have  a  fair  and  equal  representation  on  this  floor,  and 
to  tell  me  that  the  people  ratified  this  principle  when 
the j  voted  for  this  Convention.  I  had  the  glorious  op- 
portunity of  a  participation  i?i  our  election  on  the  fourth 
Thursday  of  April,  1850,  in  a  county  in  trans- Alleghany, 
which  knew  her  rights,  which  desired  a  great  maay  re- 
forms in  common  with  the  rest  of  trans- Alleghany,  but 
which  abhorred  and  detested  this  principle  so  much 
that  not  a  single  solitary  vote  in  this  county  was  recorded 
in  favor  of  the  Convention  bill.  And  let  me  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  where  such  a  spirit  prevails, 
and  under  such  circumstances,  at  a  time  when  the  West 
is  looking  to  the  magnanimity  of  Eastern  Virginia  for 
some  satisfactory  award  to  her  of  her  rights  here,  how 
can  he  expect  to  force  a  constitution  containing  such  a 
principle,  upon  such  a  people  ?  Let  him  not  flatter  him- 
self that  he  will  do  it.  However  iniquitous  this  thing, 
however  revolting  to  our  sense  of  right,  lam,  neverthe- 
less, here  under  the  great  disparity,  suffering  this  great 
inequality  as  part  and  parcel  in  my  representative  ca- 
pacity in  the  body  which  is  now  to  determine  this  ques- 
tion of  representation.  It  is  this  question  which  you 
now  have  under  consideration. 

We  are  now  to  construct  that  part  of  the  government 
whose  sole  object  is  to  express  the  will  of  the  people ;. 
that  department  which  is  so  organized  as  to  give  au- 
thentic, solemn  form  to  the  will  of  the  people,  And  how 
are  we  to  do  it  ?  I  am  for  so  arranging  the  matter  as 
that  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  the  State  shall  have  a 
majority  of  the  representatives  in  the  legislature,  as 
that  a  minority  of  the  voters  of  the  State  shall  have  a 
minority  of  the  representatives.  The  most  inflexible 
opponents  of  this  principle  are  compelled  to  resort  to 
these  very  qualified  voters  to  sanction  their  own  basis, 
and  all  our  labors,  well  assured  that  without  such  con- 
firmation the  constitution  would  be  utterly  destitute  of 
validity.  The  suffrage  basis  should  be  emphatically 
the  basis  in  Virginia.  It  has  been  vindicated  long 
since — perhaps  for  the  first  time,  by  her  apostle  of 
liberty.  In  1783,  Jefferson  commended  it  for  adoption 
into  the  constitution  in  this  perspicuous  language:  "  The 
number  of  delegates  which  each  county  may  send  shall 
be  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  its  qualified  electors." 

I  am  not,  as  has  been  erroneously  imputed  to  us,  desi- 
rous, nor  willing  to  stifle  the  voice  of  the  minority  by 
a  general  ticket  election.  The  principle  of  the  suffrage 
basis  is,  at  an  equal  the  number  of  voters  shall  have 
an  equal  number  of  representatives,  and  not  a  majority 
shall  stifle  the  voice  of  the  minority.  It  admits  no  such 
charge. 

We  have  before  us  for  consideration  three  several  pro- 
positions purporting  to  determine  this  question  of  the 
basis  of  representation,  and  the  mode  of  apportionment. 
Proposition  A  is  the  proposition  which  contains  the  doc- 
trine of  Eastern  Virginia,  as  understood  in  this  house, 
and  it  embodies  the  mixed  basis  with  an  apportionment 
of  representation  worked  out  according  to  the  principle. 
Proposition  B  is  the  measure  proposed  by  the  friends 
of  the  suffrage  basis,  and  the  principle  of  that  proposi- 
tion is  that  voters  shall  be  the  basis  of  representation, 
not  the  white  population  of  the  State,  not  the  mixed 
population,  but  that  the  body,  whom  we  shall  admit  to 
be  the  political  body,  shall  be  the  basis  and  foundation 
of  representation;  so  that  suffrage,  being  equal  through- 
out the  State,  any  equal  number  of  voters,  whosoever 
they  may  be,  shall  be  entitled  to  an  equal  number  of 
representatives  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  This  is  the 
suffrage  basis  of  representation,  and  accompanied  with 
that  proposition  is  a  detailed  apportionment  of  repre- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


469 


*  en t  at  ion  which  is,  or  which  is  intended  to  be,  in  accord- 
ance with  that  principle.  The  third  plan  is  contained 
in  the  proposition  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, (Mr.  Scott,)  understood  to  be  the  isolated  annun 
ciation  of  the  principle  of  the  mixed  basis,  for  the  pur- 
pose, as  that  gentleman  said,  of  disembarrassing  it  of 
the  details — cumbrous  and  objectionable,  and  very  er- 
roneous, probably — annexed  to  provision  A.  This  pro- 
position of  the  mixed  basis  proposes  to  found  repre- 
sentation in  the  legislature  upon  two  elements — two 
foundations,  or  two  columns.  First,  the  whole  number 
of  the  white  population  shall  be  ascertained,  and  you 
will  then  give  one-half  of  the  representation  in  the  legis- 
lature to  the  white  population,  so  that  if  your  house  of 
delegates  amounted  to  150  members,  75  would  repre 
sent  the  white  population  of  the  State,  distributed 
throughout  the  commonwealth,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  the  white  population  in  the  several  districts. 
The  other  element  of  which  this  basis  is  composed,  is 
that  of  taxation.  By  it  you  allow  to  taxation  one-half 
of  the  representation  in  the  legislature,  so  that  you 
would  apportion  75  delegates  throughout  the  State  to 
represent  taxation  in  proportion  as  the  several  districts 
have  contributed  that  element  into  the  common  treas- 
ury 


eminent  to  the  white  population  ?  Tes,  that  wealth  is 
to  be  represented  in  this  State  \  Ha  matter  what  the 
amount  of  tax,  your  principle  does  not  apply  to  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  tax,  but  to  the  existence  of  the  tax.  So 
long  as  taxes  are  derived  by  impositions,  however  tri- 
fling, the  taxation  of  the  State  must  be  entitled  to  an 
equal  representation  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  State. 

After  what  I  have  said,  am  I  not  warranted,  and  am  I 
not  in  fact,  constrained  to  denounce  this  mixed  basis  as 
utterly  at  war  with  the  true  principles  of  government, 
with  the  American  doctrine  of  government,  and  with 
the  consecrated  and  repeated  sentiment  of  Virginia 
herself  on  this  question  of  representation  ?  Then  upon 
what  does  it  rest  ?  The  argument  cannot  sustain  it. 
There  is  not  an  example  in  the  Union— there  is  not  an 
example  on  the  western  hemisphere— there  is  not  an 
example  in  the  habitable  world  which  sustains  this  mix- 
ed basis.  This  is  a  bold  declaration,  but  I  do  not  make 
it  unadvisedly.  There  is  not  an  example  to  support  it 
to  be  found  anywhere.  You  need  not  tell  me  that 
South  Carolina  is  an  example ;  and  I  will  come  to  her  case 
directly.  Even  South  Carolina,  who  is  rather  odious,  I 
believe,  with  gentlemen  who 


propose  to  adopt  her  doc- 
trines, has  not  adopted  it.    She  went  no  further  than  to 
The  first  thing  that  strikes  me  m  contemplating  adopt  it  in  one  of  the  houses  of  her  legislature.    She  did 
this  subject,  is  this— that  relatively  the  money  basis  not  seek  t0  adopt  ifc  m  both  branches, 


equals  the  white  population,  however  much  intrinsical 
ly  they  may  differ.  By  way  of  illustration,  suppose 
white  population  is  represented  by  one  column,  and  tax- 
ation by  another  column,  standing  side  by*side.  If  your 
population  amounted  to  800,000  white  inhabitants,  and 
your  annual  taxes  to  800,000  dollars,  they  would  be  rel- 
atively the  same  size,  and  it  may  be  supposed  would 
reach  the  same  attitude  exactly.  But  if  your  mixed 
basis  column  should  decline  fifty  per  cent.,  so  that  your 
taxes  contributed  into  the  treasury  in  the  aggregate 
amounted  to  only  400,000  dollars,  your  column  then 
would  be  reduced  to  precisely  one-half  of  the  original 


dimensions;  yet  it  would  be  relatively  of  the  same  mag 
nit  ude  as  the  popular  basis.  Then  in  the  latter  case  a 
white  man  would  be  valued  at  fifty  cents.  But  suppose 
your  element  of  taxation  continues  to  diminish,  and 
your  taxation  should  get  down  to  $200,000,  it  is  then 
one  quarter  of  its  original  dimensions,  yet  relatively  it  is 
precisely  of  the  same  dimensions  as  the  population.  The 
white  man  then  would  be  valued  at  say  twenty-five  cents. 
And  if  it  should  ever  happen  that  the  taxes  contributed 
into  the  common  treasury  should  be  reduced  to  8100,000, 
as  it  might  be,  as  I  can  easily  demonstrate,  then  your  tax- 
ation column  would  be  one-eighth  of  the  original  dimen- 
sions and  yet  relatively  equal  to  your  population  column. 
Then  the  white  man  would  be  valued  at  twelve  and  a 
half  cents.  Might  it  not  happen  that  in  the  course  of  events 
our  taxes  would  be  reduced  to  8100,000  !  Suppose  that 
in  a  few  years  the  reasonable — yes,  even  the  reasonable 
expectations  of  the  friends  of  internal  improvement 
should  be  realized  in  the  completion  of  all  these  great 
works  of  internal  improvement.  It  is  expected  they 
certainly  will  contribute  largely  to  the  public  treasury, 
and  be  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  State.  They  are  not  lo- 
cal objects;  they  extend  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the 
other,  and  you  cannot,  therefore,  localize  or  sectional- 
ize  the  sources  from  whence  these  revenues  will  be  de- 
rived. If  I  say  the  revenue  derived  from  these  works 
of  internal  improvement,  as  has  been  the  case  in  several 
of  the  states  of  the  Union,  becomes  so  large  as  to  obviate 
the  necessity  of  a  great  degree  of  taxation,  is  it  not 
very  probable  that  at  n©  very  distant  future  the  direct 
tax  of  Virginia  will  not  equal  8100,000  ?  When  that  day 
arrives,  the  population  of  Virginia  will  certainly  be  more 
than  800,000  white  population,  and  then  the  white  men  of 
the  State  will  not  be  valued  at  twelve  and  a  half  cents 
a  head.  I  have  endeavored,  by  this  method,  to  illus- 
trate the  principle  and  show  its  operation,  and  now  I 
submit  to  every  candid  man  in  this  house — I  submit  it 
to  an  intelligent  world — whether  stripped  of  all  its  or- 
naments, disguises,  and  pretexts,  the  argument  is  not 
solely  and  purely  that  wealth  shal)  be  equal  in  this  gov- 


.  and  its  adoption 

in  that  house  never  received  the  ratification  of  the  peo- 
ple of  South  Carolina.  The  people  of  South  Carolina 
were  never  called  upon — were  never  suffered  to  pass 
their  judgment  upon  this  principle.  It  was  adopted  by 
the  legislature  itself.  After  what  we  have  seen  the  leg- 
islature of  Virginia  do,  in  calling  this  Convention,  and 
infusing  into  this  Convention  bill  this  odious  mixed  basis 
principle,  how  much  respect  are  men  to  yield  to  the 
voice  of  the  legislature,  as  a  proof  of  public  sentiment  and 
public  judgment.  I  will  not  yield  to  it  one  stiver's  influ- 
ence. It  is  true,  in  the  various  states  of  the  Union, 
1 1  there  may  be  some  few  examples  found  not  to  support  the 


proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  but  which 
show  some  variation  from  the  popular  basis  in  those 
States,  and  I  allude  to  this  point  for  a  two-fold  purpose. 
In  the  first  place  I  refer  to  it  because  I  consider  it  to 
be  the  only  pretext — if  I  may  use  that  expression — that 
gentlemen  can  employ  to  justify  this  departure  from  the 
popular  basis.  But  if  they  will  cite  the  example  of  the 
states  in  extenuation  of  the  doctrine,  they  shall  take 
with  them,  if  I  can  send  it  with  them,  the  other  princi- 
ples contained  in  these  constitutions.  I  will  show  that 
that  doctrine  which  departs  from  the  true  principles 
of  representation  is  founded,  not  on  solicitude  for  the  se- 
curity of  property,  not  the  correct  principles  of  govern- 
ment, but  it  springs  from  heresies  of  opinion  and  princi- 
ple. And  I  will  send  abroad  the  spirit  which  pervades 
the  constitution  in  which  these  doctrines  are  founded. 
Let  us  see  what  doctrines  are  found  in  those  other  con- 
stitutions which  have  discarded  the  true  basis  of  rep 
resentation.  I  think  that  the  spirit  which  pervades 
them  is  manifested  by  the  provisions  to  which  I  shall 
refer,  and  it  satisfies  my  mind  at  least  that  they  are  ex- 
amples utterly  unworthy  of  our  imitation. 

Here  is  the  first  one — that  of  Maryland.  She  has 
based  her  representation  upon  federal  numbers,  at  least 
I  take  that  to  be  the  basis  of  her  representation,  al- 
though it  is  exceeding  difficult  to  tell  what  her  consti- 
tution is  from  the  manifold  legislative  amendments 
which  have  been  introduced  into  it.  It  is  a  constitution 
that  has  never  received  the  ratificatian  of  the  people  of 
Maryland.  The  legislature  there  amends  the  constitu- 
tion. The  slave  population  of  Maryland  in  1850  was 
but  90,000,  two-fifths  of  that  amount  gives  the  federal 
number,  which  is  but  54,000.  "Well,  here  is  Florida ;  she 
has  based  her  representation  in  both  branches  of  the 
legislature  upon  federal  numbers,  and  the  federal  num- 
ber of  her  slaves  is  but  13,200.  Then  we  come  to  South 
Carolina  ;  there  they  have  the  basis  of  representation 
in  the  house  similar  to  the  basis  principle  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier,  the  basis  compounded  of  all  the 


470 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


white  population  and  all  the  taxes  raised  by  the  legis- 
lature ;  and  the  senate  is  based  upon  an  arbitrary  ap- 
portionment of  representation  according  to  districts. 
How  nearly  that  approximates  to,  or  departs  from  the 
true  basis,  I  have  no  means  of  determining — evidently 
it  is  an  arbitrary  basis.    What  other  provisions  do  we 
find  in  the  constitution  of  South  Carolina  ?    We  find 
the  governor  there  is  elected  by  the  legislature  ;  the 
people  never  have  had  an  opportunity  of  electing  their 
governor.    We  find  that  the  electors  of  President  and 
Vice-President  are  also  elected  by  the  legislature,  and 
the  people  have  nothing  to  do  with  that  election.  We 
find  there  the  most  singular  qualifications  for  office ; 
the  governor  must  have  a  settled  estate  to  the  value  of 
£15,000  sterling,  clear  of  debt.     A  state  senator  must 
have  a  freehold  estate  to  the  value  of  £300  sterling, 
clear  of  debt.    A  representative  must  have  a  freehold 
estate  to  the  value  of  £150  sterling,  clear  of  debt,  or 
ten  negroes  and  500  acres  of  freehold  land.    When  you 
see  the  qualification  of  these  representatives  and  the 
other  provisions  which  pervade  their  constitution,  you 
need  be  at  no  loss  for  reasons  for  the  insertion  of  this 
odious  principle  of  the  mixed  basis  in  the  constitution 
of  South  Carolina.    Here  is  North  Carolina.    Her  sen- 
ate is  apportioned  upon  taxation  exclusively;  her  house 
of  commons,  as  it  is  called,  in  imitation  of  the  popular 
branch  of  the  government  in  Great  Britain,  is  based 
upon  federal  numbers,  and  she  has  some  singular  qualifi- 
cations prescribed  for  her  officers.    A  senator  shall  not 
have  less  than  300  acres  in  fee,  and  I  suppose  if  that 
doctrine  prevailed  in  Virginia,  some  of  the  counties 
would  not  have  a  man  to  send,  and  possibly  some  of  the 
eastern  counties.    A  member  of  the  house  of  commons 
shall  not  have  less  than  100  acres  of  land  in  fee  ;  and 
voters  for  the  senate  must  have  50  acres  of  freehold, 
though  it  is  otherwise  with  the  house  of  commons. 
North  Carolina  is  somewhat  like  Virginia  in  having  a 
council  of  state  which  are  elected  by  the  legislature, 
but  I  hope  the  people  here  will  repudiate  that.  The 
treasurer  and  secretary  of  state  is  elected  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  justices  are  commissioned  by  the  governor 
for  life.    This  is  a  good  deal  like  Virginia,  but  we  will 
repudiate  that  too.    Now  we  come  to  the  state  of  Geor- 
gia, the  last  one,  and  her  basis  was  fixed  in  1198.  In 
the  senate,  representation  is  by  counties,  one  represen- 
tee to  each  county,  and  in  the  house  on  federal  num- 
bers very  nearly,  all  of  the  free  white  population  and 
and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  being  the  basis,  which  is 
slightly  different  from  the  federal  basis.    When  that 
basis  was  adopted  in  Georgia,  we  find  connected  with 
that  doctrine  this  other  principle  in  disregard  of  itself 
and  inconsistent  with  itself,  which  authorizes  no  more 
than  four  delegates  to  any  county,  allows  one  to  each 
county  in  the  senate,  without  regard  to  population,  or 
the  prevalence  of  those  elements  upon  which  represen- 
tation is  based.    We  find  that  in  addition  to  this  pecu- 
liar basis  that  they  have  also  some  singular  qualifica- 
tions for  officers.     The  governor  must  have  500  acres 
of  land,  and  $4000  worth  of  other  property  ;  a  senator 
must  have  a  freehold  of  the  value  of  $500,  or  taxable 
property  worth  $1000  over  all  his  debts  ;  a  member  of 
the  house  must  have  a  freehold  of  $250  in  value  or 
$500  worth  of  other  taxable  property  above  all  his 
debts  .     By  that  constitution,  legislative  power  elected 
the  governor,  but  they  have  since  adopted  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  governor  is  eligible  by  the  people  ;  clerks 
hold  offices  for  life,  and  justices  of  the  peace  are  commis- 
sioned for  life.  These  facts  I  have  adduced  are  designed  to 
show  the  spirit  which  prevailed  when  these  bases,  at  vari- 
ance with  the  popular  basis,  were  adopted.    They  are  de- 
signed to  show  the  spirit  which  then  prevailed,  and  they 
should  deter  us  from  adopting  them,  and  should  con- 
vince us  that  these  variations  from  the  true  basis  are 
unworthy  of  imitation.    Am  I  not  right  then  in  de- 
claring that  this  mixed  basis  is  at  war  with  all  true 
principles  and  that  it  is  unsupported  by  a  single  isola- 
ted precedent. 


I  propose  now  to  consider  the  practical  operation  of 
the  principle  in  general  aspects.  And  first,  sectionally, 
as  between  the  East  and  the  West.  I  propose  to  refer 
to  its  operation  in  regard  to  Eastern  Virginia  itself,  and 
also  to  consider  its  operation  in  another  respect  to 
which  I  shall  specially  invite  attention  when  I  reach 
that  point.  Now,  when  I  speak  of  the  practical  opera- 
tion of  this  doctrine  of  the  mixed  basis,  I  ascertain  iU 
practical  operation  by  referring  to  the  details  accom- 
panying that  principle,  taking  it  for  granted  that  gen- 
tlemen professing  to  entertain  certain  principles  of  gov- 
ernment or  of  representation,  as  having  avowed  that 
they  have  practically  applied  this  thing,  that  they  have 
done  it  in  conformity  with  their  principles.  I  think  I 
may  safely  refer  to  the  details  to  show  the  practical  op- 
eration of  the  principle.  And  first  in  regard  to  this 
sectional  inequality  which  this  mixed  basis  will  pro- 
duce. In  a  house  of  delegates  consisting  of  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  members,  there  is  assigned  to  Eastern 
Virginia  eighty-two  delegates,  giving  the  East  a  ma- 
jority of  fourteen.  What  is  the  effect  of  this  ?  Wes- 
tern Virginia  has  a  majority  of  93,659  of  the  white 
population  of  this  State,  and  if  Western  Virginia  had 
an  exact  equality  of  delegates  in  the  house  with  East- 
ern Virginia,  you  would  yet  disfranchise  these  94,000 
whites  in  the  East,  giving  to  the  East  and  West  the 
same  number  of  delegates.  But  the  inequality  goes  be- 
yond that.  It  gives  to  the  East  fourteen  majority,  and 
if  you  take  the  ratio,  you  will  tind  that  these  fourteen 
delegates  misrepresent  or  exclude  68,460  of  the  freemen 
of  Western  Virginia,  thus  excluding  at  one  swoop  from 
any  representation  in  the  halls  of  legislation  162,119 
Western  Virginia  freeman. 

Again — in  a  senate  consisting  of  fifty-one  members, 
with  a  district  apportionment  in  conformity  with  the 
same  principles,  by  the  same  mode  of  calculation  you 
will  ascertain  that  in  that  senate  Western  Virginia  is 
disfranchised  to  the  extent  of  165,264  freemen!  This 
is  net  accidental.  This  is  not  the  result  of  an  unavoid- 
able difficulty.  'Tis  not  the  consequence  of  an  inexo- 
rable necessity, but  it  is  a  deliberate  and  premeditated 
disfranchisement  of  162,000  men,  in  one  house,  and  165- 
000  men  in  another,  because  they  are  Western  Virginians, 
and  because  they  do  not  pay  as  much  tax  as  you  do ;  or 
because  they  have  not  so  many  slaves  as  you — for  it  is 
one  or  the  other,  choose  which  you  will.  The  gentle- 
man from  Culpeper,  in  the  very  interesting  and  able 
argument  which  he  submitted  to  this  Convention  a  few 
days  since,  endeavored  to  weaken  our  principle  of  a 
suffrage  basis  by  demonstrating,  as  he  supposed  he  did, 
that  instead  of  giving  a  majority  the  ascendency  in  the 
legislature,  it  would  give  it  to  the  minority.  It  was 
rather  an  imposing  presentation  of  facts,  but  upon 
those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  real  condition  of 
the  thing  it  had  no  effect.  In  the  first  place,  the  gentle- 
man could  not  find  any  means  whereby  to  localize  this 
inequality.  He  could  not  find  that  it  disfranchised, 
either  in  the  East  or  in  the  West,  a  large  number  of  citi- 
zens ;  the  wrong,  if  any  existed,  was  diffused  through- 
out the  State  without  reference  to  districts.  It  would 
have  been  some  palliation,  admitting  that  he  was  correct 
at  the  start,  but  the  gentleman,  however,  labored  under 
a  misapprehension,  If  he  will  refer  to  the  tables  again, 
for  a  different  purpose  than  that  for  which  he  before 
sought  them,  namely,  to  discover  \vrong  for  the  sake  of 
exposing  it,  and  uot  to  correct  it,  he  will  find  that  the 
inequality  discoverable  in  the  senatorial  apportionment 
is  about  equal  to  that  discovered  in  regard  to  the  rep- 
resentation in  the  house  of  delegates;  and  if  he  goes  a 
little  further,  he  will  find  that  one  is  a  compensation 
or  equivalent  for  the  other.  For  instance,  three  dele- 
gates represent  a  constituency  not  exactly  entitled  to 
three  delegates  there,  but  when  you  come  to  the  senate, 
on  apportioning  a  senator  to  the  counties  sending  these 
three  delegates,  you  require  from  them  an  excess.  Thus 
one  inequality  compensates  another.  Hence,  the  gentle- 
man could  not  find  a  section  or  location  wherein  to  fix 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


471 


this  wrong  of  which  he  complained.  One  is  a  compen- 
sation of  the  other.  I  have  resorted  to  white  popula- 
tion thus  far  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  this  flagitious 
wrong  proposed  to  be  inflicted  upon  Western  Virginia 
in  the  adoption  of  this  mixed  basis.  I  will  now  revert 
to  the  vote  given  in  the  presidential  contest  of  1848.  I 
will  premise  that  the  vote  of  1848  was  a  remarkably 
small  vote,  being  some  one  or  two  thousand  less  according 
to  my  calculation,  making  no  pretension  to  accuracy — 
than  was  cast  in  the  presidential  contest  of  '44,  which 
we  all  remember  was  much  more  animated.  But  I  will 
resort  to  the  general  vote  of  '48,  because  there  was  no 
peculiar  excitement  at  that  time  more  operative  in  one 
section  of  the  State  than  it  was  in  the  other.  Well,  ac- 
cording to  the  presidential  vote  of  1848,  the  eighty -two 
delegates  which  should  be  assigned  to  Eastern  Virginia 
would  each  represent  an  average  number  of  550  votes, 
whereas,  in  Western  Virginia  each  delegate  would  rep- 
resent an  average  number  of  690  votes — making  a  differ- 
ence between  the  the  East  and  the  West  of  140  votes. 
Thus  you  require  that  in  Western  Virginia  there  shall  be 
140  votes  more  to  elect  one  delegate  than  is  required  in 
Eastern  Virginia — about  twenty -live  per  cent.  more. 
Mr.  RIVES.  What  was  the  vote  of  eastern  Virginia  alone? 

Mr.  NEESGN".  The  vote  cast  in  the  presidential 
contest  of  1848,  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  the  gentleman 
desires  to  have  given  him.  I  will  give  the  whole  vote; 
45,101  were  cast  in  Eastern  Virginia,  and  46,917  votes 
were  cast  in  Western  Virginia. 

Thus  it  is  you  discriminate  between  the  votes  of 
Eastern  and  Western  Virginia.  The  disfranchisement 
of  voters  in  the  West  by  the  operation  of  this  rule  would 
be  at  least  17,220  ;  and  it  can  be  ascertained  by  the 
same  process  by  which  I  ascertained  the  whole  number 
of  white  persons  disfranchised.  But  I  will  go  on  now 
to  specify  instances  in  which  this  disparity  is  shown 
more  clearly.  I  take  a  few  western  counties,  which, 
according  to  the  present  apportionment,  (exhibited in  the 
mixed  basis,  proposition  A,)  are  entitled  to  ten  delegates 
in  the  legislature,  and  I  compared  them  with  ten  east- 
ern counties  entitled  to  the  same  number  of  delegates. 
The  white  population  of  the  ten  western  counties  is 
98,362,  and  that  of  the  ten  eastern  counties  is  43,600 ; 
so  that  the  population  requisite  to  send  ten  delegates 
from  the  western  counties  is  more  than  double  that  re- 
quired in  the  East  to  send  the  same  number  of  delegates. 

Here  are  the  counties  with  the  white  population  con- 
tained : 

Western  counties.  White  population. 

Tazewell   8,806 

Marion  10,474 

Giles  and  Mercer   9,877 

Grayson  and  Carroll  11.871 

Wirt  and  Ritchie   1205 

Tyler  and  Wetzel   9,736 

Barbour  '.   9,682 

Lee   9,443 

Lewis   9,529 

Preston  11,659 


97  362 

Eastern  counties.  White  population 

Princess  Anne   4,285 

Rappahannock   5,664 

Cuipeper   5,096 

Cumberland   3.166 

Dinwiddie   4,277 

Essex   3>072 

Fluvanna   4>541 

Henrico   8,093 

King  George  2,802 

Northampton   3,104 

43,600 

I  will  refer  to  this  after  a  while  for  another  purpose, 
for  I  have  prepared  it  to  use  in  a  double  aspect. 

According  to  this  mixed  basis  apportionment,  one  sena^ 


tor  is  to  be  sent  from  Halifax  county,  containing  10,900 
white  inhabitants,  and  paying  89,108  of  tax.  In  the 
western  part  of  the  State  one  senator  is  assigned  to  the 
counties  of  Marion,  Monongalia  and  Taylor,  and  they 
contain  an  aggregate  white  population  of  27,683.  And 
in  those  western  counties  which  I  have  the  honor  to  rep- 
resent on  this  floor,  we  have  an  excess  of  white  popula- 
tion over  the  county  of  Halifax  of  16,783,  and  Halifax 
is  to  compensate  for  this  by  paying  an  excess  of  taxes 
over  ours  of  $1,362,  thus  rating  my  constituents  at  less 
than  eight  cents  and  two  mills  a  head.  That  is  the  rate 
at  which  my  constituents  are  valued  by  the  apportion- 
ment. And  is  it  not  to  be  expected  that  I  will  condemn 
this  outrage,  and  that  I  should  give  distinct  premonition 
that  my  people  never  will  approve  and  sanction  it  ? 
This  district  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  and 
which  is  now  constituted,  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  a  sen  ■ 
atorial  district,  according  to  this  mixed  basis  plan,  is 
not  a  poverty  smitten  district.  She  pays  largely  into 
the  treasury  every  year,  and  the  average  value  of  her 
lands  is  almost  equal  to  the  average  value  of  lands  in 
eastern  Virginia.  She  has  a  hardy,  enterprising,  intel- 
ligent and  thrifty  population,  and  are  they  to  be  de- 
graded to  the  value  per  capita  of  eight  cents  ?  Would  I 
not  be  recreant  to  every  duty  which  I  owe  to  the  peo- 
ple who  have  assigned  to  me  the  representation  of  their 
interests  on  this  floor,  were  I  to  suffer  this  thing  to  pass 
undenounced?  I  have  selected  this  instance  not  because 
it  is  a  solitary  example  without  parallel,  but  for  a  con- 
trary purpose,  and  because  no  man  can  charge  my  peo- 
ple with  being  paupers,  and  dependent  upon  the  public 
treasury,  or  assert  that  we  do  not  contribute  fairly  to 
the  treasury,  or  that  there  is  a  human  being  among 
them  indifferent,  to  say  nothing  of  being  hostile,  to  the 
great  interests  of  Virginia,  even  to  her  peculiar  interest. 
Why  even  the  Patrick  district,  with  a  population  of 
20,000  and  upwards,  sends  one  senator,  when  indeed 
she  is  not  entitled  to  it,  even  according  to  the  mixed 
basis.  The  senator  is  given  to  her  as  a  kind  of  boon. 
She  is  to  receive  it  as  their  generous,  gift,  and  does  not 
derive  this  senator  by  virtue  of  her  right.  She  has 
24,000  population,  and  Halifax  10,000,  yet  Halifax  is  en- 
titled to  the  same  weight  in  the  legislature  of  Virginia, 
and  exercises  the  same  influence  upon  the  councils  of 
the  State,  as  24,000  from  the  Patrick  district.  Is  it  as- 
tonishing that  the  voice  of  Patrick  is  heard  coming  up 
to  this  body  in  denunciation  of  this  principle  ?  Here  is 
the  tangible  evidence  of  your  purpose  to  degrade  her. 
While  you  are  endeavoring  to  allure  her  into  your  sup- 
port, you  seek  to  impose  upon  her  self-degradation.  But 
I  will  pursue  this  subject  no  further  with  respect  to  the 
details  of  particular  districts. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  inequality  in  which  I 
choose  to  consider  this  subject  of  representation,  occa- 
sioned by  this  mixed  basis.  The  gentleman  from  the 
county  of  Cuipeper  is  one,  the  gentleman  from  Gooch- 
land is  another,  and  the  gentleman  from  Spotsylvania 
is  another,  of  many  gentlemen  who  have  already  intro- 
duced to  some  extent,  to  which  I  am  now  about  to  refer. 
They  occupy  a  position  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  jus- 
tify me  in  singling  them  out  when  1  address  myself  to 
this  part  of  the  subject.  There  are  two  great  parties 
in  this  commonwealth,  the  whig  and  the  democratic 
party.  The  power  of  the  whig  party  lies  in  Eastern 
Viiginia,  and  the  power  of  the  democratic  party  lies  in 
Western  Virginia.  is  it  not  obvious  that  in  proportion 
as  you  depress  Western  Virginia,  in  that  proportion  you 
abate  the  influence  of  the  democratic  party  ?  On  the 
other  hand,  in  Eastern  Virginia,  where  you  find  the  great 
body  of  the  whig  party,  is  it  not  obvious  that,  in  pro- 
portion as  you  exalt  that  party,  in  that  proportion  you 
o-ive  it  an  ascendancy,  and  prostrate  the  democratic 
party  ?  I  need  not  say  to  which  of  these  parties  I  be- 
long ;  my  people  understand  very  well  what  my  senti- 
ments are.  Is  it  not  certain  from  this  state  of  the  case 
that,  when,  from  any  cause,  you  give  a  greater  political 
influence  to  Eastern  Virginia  you  elevate  the  predomi- 


472 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


nant  party  in  that  section,  and  is  it  not  equally  certain 
that  when  you  depress  Western  Virginia  politically,  you 
depress  the  predominant  party  there,  as  compared  with 
the  predominant  party  in  the  East  ?  You  find  that 
while  the  whig  party  prevails  in  the  East,  the  demo- 
cratic party  prevails  in  the  West,  and  in  every  hour  of 
trial  the  democratic  party  finds  it  necessary  to  lean 
upon  the  West  for  support.  Now  while  the  whig  party 
prevails  in  the  East,  and  the  democratic  party  in  the 
West,  the  great  excess  of  property  and  wealth  is  found 
in  the  East,  the  lesser  amount  of  these  articles  being 
found  in  the  West.  Now  by  attaching  political  influence 
to  wealth  in  Eastern  Virginia,  do  you  not  at  the  same 
time,  necessarily  and  inevitably  exalt  the  party  that 
prevails  there  ?  It  would  seem  that  a  mere  glance  of 
this  thing  ought  to  convince  any  man  of  the  fact  I  have 
stated.  But  if  not  satisfied,  with  a  glance,  with  these 
general  reasons  I  have  suggested,  gentlemen  can  very 
readily  try  my  conclusion  .for  themselves,  if  they  will 
employ  a  little  labor  in  investigating  the  details  of  the 
apportionment  under  your  mixed  basis  representation. 
I  have  gone  through  it  with. not  a  little  labor.  I  have 
examined  the  apportionment  of  every  county  in  the 
commonwealth  as  arranged  in  proposition  A.  I  have 
compared  the  votes  of  these  counties  with  regard  to 
their  party  bearing,  taking  the  Presidential  vote  of  '48 
as  a  criterion,  and  I  find  that  although  some  labor  has 
been  expended  in  endeavoring  to  give  to  this  dominant 
party  some  ascendancy,  by  various  indications  which 
will  be  found  by  any  gentleman  who  pursues  the  same 
course  of  inquiry  which  I  have  pursued,  yet  it  is  evi- 
dent that,  notwithstanding  this  fact,  you  have  in  the 
house  of  delegates,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
members,  seventy -five  whigs  to  seventy-five  democrats. 
This  is  an  equality,  but  how  do  you  arrive  at  that 
equality  ?  I  need  not  multiply  instances,  which  are 
abundant,  but  confine  my  illustration  to  one  county, 
that  of  Campbell.  It  is  divided,  or  rather  Lynchburg 
is  eviscerated  from  Campbell,  and  one  delegate  assigned 
to  Campbell,  and  one  to  Lynchburg.  By  that  process 
one  democratic  delegate  is  gained ;  whereas,  by  suffering 
the  whole  county  to  send  the  delegates  to  which  it  is 
entitled,  it  would  send  two  whig  delegates.  That  would 
give  the  whigs  seventy- six  delegates  in  the  house  of  de- 
legates, and  the  democrats  seveuty-four.  An  impartial 
application  of  the  principle  will  give  the  whigs  a  pow- 
erful majority  in  the  legislature.  Not  long  since  I 
thought  it  proper  to  allude  to  the  influence  of  a  minority 
government  upon  a  people  who  are  part  and  parcel 
of  a  federal  government.  I  promised  to  advert  to  this 
consideration  and  to  recur  to  this  part  of  the  subject, 
and  now  I  have  done  it.  Heretofore  there  have  been 
certain  great  doctrines  esteemed  by  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  as  highly  essential  in  their  federal 
relations.  These  doctrines  have  been  avowed  and  up- 
held from  the  foundation  of  the  government  to  this  mo- 
ment, and  universally  by  the  support  and  vindication  of 
the  democratic  party.  Yet  how  did  the  democratic 
party  do  it  ?  Was  it  not  by  giving  to  each  voter  in  the 
commonwealth  the  same  political  power  we  claim  as  a 
right,  and  by  giving  effect  to  every  vote  cast.  The  de- 
mocratic party  cannot  otherwise  maintain  its  ascendancy 
on  its  party  principles.  What  does  it  avail  to  cast 
a  thousand  party  votes  if,  by  a  principle  of  representa- 
tion as  odious  and  abominable  as  this  is,  we  are  virtually 
to  cancel  and  obliterate  those  votes  as  soon  as  they  are 
recorded?  According  to  my  view  of  this  _  subject,  and 
according  to  facts  and  figures,  which  it  is  said  cannot  lie, 
this  democratic  party  henceforward  is  to  be  prostrate  in 
the  dust  and  its  doctrines  are  to  be  condemned  and  pro- 
scribed. The  entire  relations  heretofore  maintained  be- 
tween Virginia  and  the  federal  government,  are  to  be 
utterly  and  totally  subverted.  And  why  ?  Has  any 
body  discovered  that  that  party  or  the  principles  of  that 
party  are  odious,  unjust  and  indefensible  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, the  gentlemen  whom  I  have  already  indicated 
have  fully  avowed  their  love  for,  and  devotion  to,  those 
principles,  and  yet  they  are  the  very  men  who  are  de- 


fending a  principle  which  will  result  in  the  destruction 
of  their  ascendancy.  I  am  stating  the  apportionment  of 
representation  according  to  the  mixed  basis,  and  it  is 
very  well  known  that  I  do  not  speak  of  this  in  derision 
of  the  democratic  party.  The  gentleman  from  Appo- 
mattox, (Mr.  Bocock,)  has  not  yet  spoken  on  this  question 
— this  basis.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  sustains  it  or  not. 

Mr.  LETCHER.    He  assisted  in  arranging  it. 

Mr.  NEESON.  I  will  let  the  gentleman  speak  for 
himself,  and  I  hope  he  will  do  it  speedily.  It  is  but  fair 
that  he  should  speak  for  himself. 

Mr.  BOCOCK.  I  refer  that  part  of  your  argument 
to  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha. 

The  CHAIR.    Gentlemen  must  address  the  Chair. 

Mr.  NEESON.  There  is  not  only  this  discrimination 
against  the  democrats  of  Virginia,  but  there  will  be 
found  an  inequality  and  discrimination  equally  odious 
between  the  whigs  and  democrats  of  Eastern  Virginia. 
Now,  what  is  the  calculation  ?  and  I  give  you  the  facts 
and  figures  derived  from  the  same  sources  which  I  have 
already  indicated.  I  give  the  figures,  and  if  they  be 
incorrect  any  gentleman  is  at  liberty  to  correct  them. 
I  will  take  the  delegation  from  Eastern  Virginia.  I  find 
that  the  whig  votes,  cast  in  the  presidential  election  of 
1848,  amounted  to  23,638,  and  that  under  that  appor- 
tionment, there  will  be  forty-five  whig  delegates  in 
the  legislature  from  Eastern  Virginia,  thus  showing 
the  ratio  of  voters  to  the  delegate  to  be  325.  I  find 
that  the  democratic  party  in  1848,  cast  at  the  same  elec- 
tion in  Eastern  Virginia,  21,463  votes,  and  that  they  are 
to  be  represented  in  the  legislature  by  thirty-seven  del- 
egates, thus  giving  a  ratio  of  580  votes  to  the  delegate. 
Now  mark  the  difference  :  five  hundred  and  twenty -five 
whigs  send  a  delegate,  and  five  hundred  and  eighty  dem- 
ocrats send  one,  making  a  difference  against  the  demo- 
ocrats  of  fifty-five  votes  orbetween  four  and  five  hundred 
in  the  white  population  assuming  one-eighth  to  be  voters. 

I  have  thus  far  adverted  to  the  house  of  delegates. 
And  is  it  not  obvious  that  if  such  be  the  operation  in 
that  body  it  must  so  operate  in  the  senate  ?  I  have  al- 
ready shown  you  that  taking  the  population  of  1840  as 
the  basis  of  representation,  Western  Virginia  would  be 
entitled  to  two  majority  in  the  House,  and  yet  would 
have  but  an  equality  in  the  senate  with  Eastern  Vir- 
ginia. But  I  endeavored  to  show  awhile  ago  the  great  in- 
equality between  ten  eastern  and  ten  western  counties 
or  districts ;  the  eastern  and  western  counties  having 
the  same  representation  in  the  legislature,  but  the  west- 
ern counties  having  more  than  double  the  population  of 
the  eastern  counties  ?  What  sort  of  politics  belong  now 
to  these  counties  ?    I  will  read  the  list : 


Western  counties, 

W.  P.  1850. 

D. 

W. 

8,806 

548 

215 

10,474 

669 

324 

.9,877 

526 

467 

11,871 

567 

372 

7  205 

469 

272 

9,736 

608 

413 

'  8,682 

484 

287 

.  9,443 

521 

324 

.  .  .9,629 

522 

331 

,  ,11,659 

521 

439 

97,362 

5,335 

Eastern  co.,  with  W.  P.  1850. 

4,285  • 

291 

373 

,5,664 

239 

304 

318 

354 

3,166 

162 

235 

4.277 

228 

282 

3.072 

135 

186 

190 

271 

8,093 

393 

592 

•  2,802 

112 

149 

3,104 

95 

170 

.43,600 

2,916 

VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


473 


According  to  this  table  the  western  counties  send  ten 
democratic  delegates  while  the  ten  eastern  counties, 
with  less  than  one  half  the  population  of  the  western 
ones,  and  with  scarcely  one  half  the  number  of  voters, 
send  ten  delegates.  Thus  the  same  number  of  delegates 
are  sent  to  the  legislature  by  one  half  the  number  of 
whig  votes  in  Eastern  Virginia,  as  by  democratic  votes 
in  Western  Virginia. 

I  will  now  allude  to  the  bearing  this  subject  has  on 
our  federal  relations.  Now  let  us  suppose,  what  is  true, 
that  the  democratic  party  of  this  State  have  a  majority 
ranging  from  three  to  five  thousand,  and,  by  a  right 
which  no  gentleman  should  controvert,  ought  to  have,  as 
the  other  party  should  have,  were  they  in  a  majority, 
the  ascendency,  in  the  legislature.  By  what  sort  of 
logic,  and  by  what  sort  of  right  are  you  thus  to  stifle 
that  voice  ?  Adopt  this  mixed  basis  apportionment  of 
yours,  and  you  send  into  the  halls  of  the  legislature  a 
majority  of  delegates  with  political  sentiments  adverse 
to  the  popular  sentiments  of  the  majority  of  the  people, 
on  doctrines  of  federal  legislation,  which  have  hereto- 
fore prevailed  in  Virginia.  What  next  ?  The  gentle- 
man from  Richmond  city  said  truly  that  the  doctrine  of 
instruction  had  found  favor  in  Virginia;  and  that  it  was 
a  doctrine  now  clearly  established,  and  especially  as 
between  the  legislature  and  the  senators  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States.  What  would  be  the  condition  of 
your  two  senators?  They  would  have  instructions. 
And  how  would  those  instructions' conform  to  the  senti- 
ments and  opinions  of  gentlemen  to  whom  I  have  allu- 
ded? They  would  be  as  far  asunder  as  the  poles.  Well, 
according  to  this  doctrine  of  instructions,  these  two 
senators  must  either  conform  their  conduct  to  them,  or 
resign.  I  think  I  have  said  enough  upon  this  subject. 
Let  those  who  are  interested  in  the  subject  examine  it 
for  themselves.  I  am  satisfied  with  having  brought  it 
to  their  attention.  Having  done  that  I  leave  it  for  them 
to  dispose  of. 

I  have  now  attempted  to  consider  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  mixed  basis.  I  have  endeavored  to  show 
thnt  it  is  at  war  with  the  true  principle,  that  it  is  at 
war  with  American  doctrine;  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  Virginia  herself,  and  destructive  of  her  great 
doctrine  in  regard  to  her  federal  relations.  By  what 
mode  of  argument,  then,  is  this  accumulation  of  wrong 
and  outrage  to  be  justified?  In  the  first  place  it  is 
maintained  that  Eastern  Virginia,  being  possessed  of  a 
greater  amount  of  wealth  in  the  ratio  of  two  to  one,  and 
paying  about  two-thirds  of  the  taxes,  and  having  a  great 
excess  of  slave  population  is  therefore  entitled  to  pre- 
dominancy in  the  legislative  department  of  the  govern- 
ment. Before  I  proceed  to  consider  briefly  the  argu- 
ment advanced  in  support  of  this  principle  let  me  ad- 
vert to  the  real  condition  of  Eastern  and  Western  Vir- 
ginia in  respect  to  population,  wealth  and  taxation, 
making  reference  particularly  to  slave  property. 

When  the  existing  constitution  was  adopted  in  1830, 
Eastern  Virginia  had  a  majority  of  51,612  white  inhab- 
itants over  western,  but  in  1840,  the  western  white  pop- 
ulation was  371,520,  and  the  eastern  white  population 
•369  398,  showing  that  a  majority  in  1840,  of  the  white 
population,  was  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  to  the  extent 
of  2,172.  In  the  year  1850,  according  to  the  authentic 
returns,  W estern  Virginia  has  a  white  population  of 
494,763,  showing  an  increase  of  176,118  since  1830,  and 
Eastern  Virginia  a  white  population  of  401,104,  showing, 
including  Alexandria,  an  increase  in  twenty  years,  of 
but  25,447,  and  giving  to  Western  Virginia  at  this  time, 
a  majority  of  white  inhabitants  of  93,659.  The  compara- 
tive increase  of  the  two  regions  of  country  in  white 
population,  .for  the  preceding  twenty  years,"  is  14  4-10 
in  the  east,  to  one  hundred  in  the  west.  The  trans-Al-j 
leghany  district,  in  1850,  had  attained  a  white  popular, 
lion  of  331,586,  being  an  increase  of  forty-one  and  two-| 
tenths  per  cent,  since  1840,  and  an  increase  in  the  ag-i 
gregate  for  the  last  ten  years  of  98,812,  and  an  aergre-j 
gate  increase  for  the  last  twenty  years  of  147,132;  thus 
you  see  that  in  regard  to  the  white  population.  Western  j 
4* 


Virginia  is  advancing  with  tremendous  strides,  while 
eastern  Virginia  is  almost  stationary. 

Now,  how  is  it  in  regard  to  slave  population,  of  which 
so  much  is  said,  so  many  apprehensions  entertained,  and 
so  much  illusion  suffered  to  possess  the  eastern  mind  ? 
At  this  time,  or  in  1850,  there  was  in  trans- Alleghany 
district,  24,436  slaves,  showing  an  increase  in  the  last 
ten  years,  of  4.396,  er  twenty-one  and  nine-tenths  per 
cent.  This  is  in  the  trans-Alleghany  district,  which  is 
said  to  have  no  interest  in  common  with  the  East  on  this 
subject.  In  the  Valley  there  were  38,789  slaves,  making 
an  aggregate  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge  of  63,234.  East  of 
the  Blue  Ridge  there  were  412,738  slaves,  being  an  in- 
crease since  1840,  of  17,000  only,  or  something  less  than 
tour  per  cent,  within  the  last  ten  years.  It  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  in  the  eastern  portion  of  the  State,  the 
slave  population  increased  something  less  than  four  per 
cent.,  whereas  in  the  trans-Alleghany  district,  the  same 
population  has  increased  at  the  ratio  of  at  least  twenty- 
two  per  cent.;  and  yet  the  gentleman  from  Richmond 
city,  (Mr.  Meredith,)  on  yesterday,  told  us  that  the  di- 
versity of  interest,  both  in  kind  ai|d  magnitude,  as  I  un- 
derstand him,  was  so  very  great  between  Eastern  and 
Western  Virginia,  that  it  never  could  be  reconciled ; 
that  it  was  increasing  and  would  continue  to  increase, 
and  would  never  even  approximate  an  assimilation. 
Yet  according  to  these  very  items  that  I  have  read, 
your  slave  population  is  about  stationary,  while  ours  in 
the  trans-Alleghany  district  is  increasing  at  the  rate  of 
twenty-two  per  cent.  But  I  suppose  that  the  gentle- 
man entertains  the  same  view  as  the  gentleman  from 
Halifax,  (Mr.  Purkins,)  who  addressed  the  Convention 
the  other  day,  and  a  most  extraordinary  ground  did  he 
take.  His  position  was  that  so  long  as  there  was  a  dis- 
similarity in  any  one  species  of  property,  and  so  long 
as  that  dissimilarity  might  tempt,  (and  any  dissimilarity 
he  said  would  tempt,)  the  encroachment  of  the  section 
not  possessed  of  these  interests,  so  long  must  that  pe- 
culiar section  who  did  possess  them,  have  the  control  in 
the  government.  That  was  his  sentiment — his  language 
was  much  stronger. 

If  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Eastern  Virginia,  and  he 
was  then  speaking  of  the  subject  of  slavery,  give  us 
notice  of  it  at  once.  Do  it  honestly,  boldly  and  man- 
fully, and  let  us  know  that  there  is  no  use  of  debating 
the  "question,  no  use  of  professing  our  faith  and  loyalty, 
and  no  use  in  attempt  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  no 
irreconcilable  hostility  of  interest  between  us. 

Why,  according  to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax,  so  long  as  Eastern  Virginia  possesses  any 
considerable  excess  of  slave  property  or  any  other 
property  over  Western  Virginia,  she  mustr retain  the 
control  of  this  government !  I  trust  that  it  is  not  East- 
ern doctrine.  But  I  wish  to  satisfy  myself  by  figures 
and  calculations  as  to  when  the  time  ever  might  be  that 
we  would  get  our  just  and  unalienable  rights  in  this 
government.  I  took  the  condition  of  the  slave  property 
of  the  commonwealth  East  and  West  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  when,  in  that  great  and  distant  future,  there 
would  be  an  assimilation  of  interests,  and  an  approxi- 
mate identity  of  interest  between  Eastern  and  Western 
Virginia.  And  what  was  the  result?  Why,  when  I 
got  down  to  the  year  1900,  I  gave  it  up  in  despair.  I 
could  go  no  further.  I  cannot  expect  to  be  here  longer 
than  that,  and  I  must  leave  it  to  others  to  calculate 
beyond  that  time.  I  will  assume  in  round  numbers  for 
the  puropose  of  illustration  that  Western  Virginia  now 
has  63.000  slaves,  though  she  has  a  trifle  over,  and 
supposing  an  increase  at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent,  every 
ten  years,  which  is  something  beyond  the  fact,  you  will 
find,  making  this  calculation  from  the  year  1850  at  every 
biennial  period,  when  you  arrive  at  the  year  1900,  that 
Western  Virginia  will  have  192,060  slaves;  while  East- 
ern Virginia,  assuming  slave  population  to  be  413,000 
and  to  increase,  four  per  cent,  every  ten  years,  which  is 
short  of  the  mark,  will  have  in  the  year  1900,  502,416 
slaves.    Thus  even  at  that  distant  day  we  shall  be  in- 


474 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


finitely  short  of  assimilating  in  interest  according  to  the 
-views  of  gentlemen  here  in  Eastern  Virginia.  Why, 
even  then,  we  will  stand  in  slave  population  west  of 
the  Blue  Ridge,  as  thirty-eight  to  one  hundred  in  East 
era  Virginia.  We  now  stand  as  fifteen  to  one  hundred. 
Is  it  not  time  for  me  to  despair  after  having  ascertain- 
ed that  result?  I  do  not  expect  to  reach  that  period, 
but  I  do  expect  that  before  that  year  arrives,  this  doc- 
trine will  have  no  foot-hold  in  T\  estern  or  Eastern  Vir- 
ginia. It  cannot  exist  thus  long  by  right  or  by  might. 
In  the  year  1900  while  you  have  a  majority  of  slaves  in 
the  proportion  of  one  hundred  to  thirty-eight,  where 
will  be  the  white  population  of  the  State,  and  where 
will  be  the  great  wealth  of  the  State  in  other  things  ? 
And  what  are  the  results  to  be  accomplished  by  it? 
Wrhy,  nothing  at  all  so  long  as  this  dissimilarity  con- 
tinues, so  long  as  this  unrighteous  ascendency  is  to  be 
maintained,  so  long  as  western  vassalage  depends  on 
eastern  slaves. 

I  will  now  refer,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
real  condition  of  the  East  and  the  West,  to  the  value  of 
the  lands.  I  shall  be  very  brief  on  this  point,  merely 
adverting  to  the  figures  as  exhibiting  that  real  condi- 
tion. Now  it  is  true  that  the  excess  in  the  value  of 
lands  is  in  Eastern  Virginia,  perhaps  some  twenty  mil- 
lions «of  dollars,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  during  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years  the  only  increase,  that  is 
the  real  appreciable  increase  in  lands,  has  been  in  West- 
ern Virginia,  and  the  continued  regular  increase  must  be 
also  in  Western  Virginia.  In  the  first  district  in  1850, 
the  average  value  of  land  per  acre  was  $8.02 ;  in  the 
second  $7.36  ;  in  the  third  $8.41 ;  in  the  fourth  $2  09. 
Now,  the  total  value  of  land  in  this  trans-Alleghany 
district  in  1819  was  $16,051,550  00,  being  an  average  of 
92  cents  per  acre.  In  1838  the  total  value  was  $39,- 
217,544  or  $1.40  per  acre,  being  an  average  increase  ex- 
ceeding 52  per  cent.  So  that  between  1819  and  1838 
the  increase  was  over  52  per  cent,  in  the  value  of  lands 
of  trans- Alleghany  Virginia.  It  is  true  that  the  ag- 
gregate increase  is  not  so  great  as  in  some  other  por- 
tions of  the  commonwealth,  but  look  at  the  per  centage. 
It  is  over  52  per  cent,  increase  in  that  time.  In  1850 
the  value  of  land  in  that  district  was  $61,527,768  57, 
being  an  average  value  per  acre  of  $2.09  ;  an  increase 
exceeding  49  per  cent,  from  1838,  an  increase  too,  vast- 
ly disproportionate  to  that  of  any  other  section  of  the 
State.  I  have  already  alluded  to  my  district,  which  is 
included  in  the  trans-Alleghany  district.  In  that  district 
the  average  value  of  land  per  acre  is  $6.46,  and  you 
cannot  call  it  a  very  poor  country.  The  annual  tax  on 
it  is  $6,882  25,  and  you  cannot  call  that  a  light  contri- 
bution from  land  to  the  public  treasury.  And  yet  these 
people  are  valued  at  8  cents  a  head !  This  district  has 
increased  in  population,  I  may  safely  assert,  for  1  have 
no  means  of  ascertaining  it  exactly  in  consequence  of 
the  formation  of  new  counties,  one  hundred  per  cent, 
during  the  last  ten  years.  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
she  is  bound  to  continue  to  make  that  large  per  cent, 
increase  upon  the  value  of  lands,  and  consequently  upon 
her  contributions  to  the  treasury,  and  if  you  will  put  8 
cents  a  head  valuation  upon  such  a  people,  occupying 
such  a  country,  paying  such  a  rate  of  taxation,  will  you 
put  any  estimate  on  those  whom  you  stigmatize  as 
paupers  upon  the  public  treasury?  Will  you  value 
them  at  all  ?  There  are  some  counties,  I  understand,  at 
least  it  has  been  so  asserted,  in  the  trans-Alleghany 
region,  who  receive  from  the  public  treasury  a  greater 
number  of  dollars  than  they  pay  into  it,  and  they  are 
denominated  paupers  upon  the  public  treasury.  Now, 
if  you  put  the  valuation  of  8  cents  a  head  on  my  con- 
stituents, circumstanced  as  I  have  described  them,  what 
will  you  estimate  those  paupers  at  ? 

I  have  already  shown  in  one  example  which  I  have 
presented,  that  if  this  Convention  had  even  the  small 
iiberality  which  characterized  the  Convention  of  1829,- 
'30,  when  they  apportioned  representation  ascording  to 
white  population,  ante-dating  it  about  ten  years,  we 
would  have  now  a  majority  in  the  legislature.  But 


suppose  I  try  our  right  to  this  majority  by  some  other 
standard  than  the  one  adopted  in  1829- '30.  Our  East- 
ern friends  then  contend  that  taxation  and  population 
should  go  together,  but  they  never  defined  the  propor- 
tion and  never  discriminated  between  one  portion  of 
the  tax  and  another. 

The  East  in  1830  was  taxed  on  lands  and  lots,  slaves 
and  other  property,  $230,030  84,  and  the  West  $76r 
874  17.  Seventy-five  per  centum  was  paid  by  the 
East  and  twenty-five  per  cent,  by  the  West,  In  1840 
the  East  was  taxed  $252,219  50?  and  the  West  $118,- 
943  44  ;  and  in  1850,  including  the  increased  lax  arising 
from  the  enhanced  value  of  the  land,  the  Eastern 
increase  being  $8,596  and  the  Western  $29,790,  the 
East  will  be  taxable  $347,547  99 ,  and  the  West  $187  r 
165  71.  It  will  be  understood  that  this  tax  is  derived 
from  lands  and  slaves  and  other  property,  dispensing 
with  the  license  tax.  Well,  in  1830,  the  West  paid 
twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  taxes  and  the  East  sev- 
enty five  per  cent,  of  the  taxes  and  the  East  seventy- 
five  percent.  In  1850,  how  is  it?  Gentlemen  have 
told  us  that  the  East  paid  over  two-thirds  of  the  taxes, - 
But  it  is  a  mistake,  if  you  include  the  increased  tax  up- 
on lands.  In  1850  the  East  pays  sixty-five  per  cent., 
and  the  West  thirty-five  per  cent,  of  the  whole  tax. 
We  have  increased  two-filths  upon  our  taxes.  Now, 
let  us  apply  this  majority  of  increase  to  the  represen- 
tation. In"  1830  the  East  had  78  delegates,  and  the  West 
56,  being  an  eastern  majority  of  22  in  that  house. 
Now,  if  you  give  representation  to  our  taxation  in  pro- 
portion to  the  representation  you  gave  on  our  taxation 
in  1830,  what  will  be  your  representation  now  ?  Why 
the  West  would  have  78  delegates,  and  the  East  56  in 
a  house  of  135,  giving  a  western  majority  of  22  dele- 
gates. So  that  if  you  take  the  white  population  and 
value  it  as  you  did  in  1830,  and  if  you  take  the  taxation 
and  value  it  as  you  did  in  1830,  both  together  or  sepa- 
rately, you  will  give  to  Western  Virginia  her  rightful 
though  not  her  full  majority.  Now, how  lias  this  derided 
trans-Alleghany  district  increased  in  taxation  ?  In 
1830  she  paid  a  tax  of  $27,498  90,  and  in  1840,  she 
paid  a  tax  of  $56,840,23,  showing  an  increase  in  that 
time  of  106  per  cent,  and  upwards.  Can  any  other 
district  boast  of  such  an  increase?  In  1850  it  is  $94,- 
835,92,  showing  an  increase  of  66  per  cent,  since  1840* 
Such  is  the  progress  of  Western  Virginia  ;  such,  in  no 
speculative  sense,  is  the  progress  of  the  future  state, 
and  such  is  the  condition  of  the  two  districts. 

Now,  having  presented  these  exhibits  for  the  coaside- 
ration  of  the  Convention,  having  shown  that  Western 
Virginia  is  making  astonishing  progress  in  population, 
in  wealth,  in  her  contributions  to  the  public  treasury,, 
and  in  her  slave  population,  I  demand  now  to  know  why 
it  is,  that  notwithstanding  all  these  things^  you  persist 
in  forcing  upon  us  this  mixed  basis  ?  Is  it  because  you 
pay  more  taxes  ?  That  is  one  thing.  You  say  that  you 
pay  more  taxes,  and  I  will  meet  it  boldly.  You  do  pay 
more  taxes,  but  you  do  not  pay  your  share.  I  say  that 
if  you  pay  it  in  proportion  to  your  ability,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  benefit  which  you  derive  from  government, 
you  should  pay  a  larger  per  centage  than  you  do  now. 
Let  gentlemen  not  boast  of  paying  into  the  treasury  an 
excess  of  taxation  when  they  fall  short  of  paying  their 
proportion.  Taxation,  we  are  told,  is  a  voluntary  con- 
tribution on  the  part  of  the  people,  and  is  never  com  • 
pulsory.  I  should  like  to  know  whence  that  definition 
comes.  I  know  it  was  used  in  1829-'30,  but  I  desire  an 
authoritative  source  for  the  definition.  Will  any  gentle- 
man give  it  me  ? 

Has  any  government  ever  organized,  or  can  any  gov- 
ernment ever  subsist  with  such  a  principle  recognized 
as  that  ?  What  would  be  the  consequences  ?  I  am 
told  that  it  prevails  in  England :  it  never  prevailed 
in  England.  1  believe  that  the  king  there  cannot  get 
any  money  unless  parliament  should  appropriate  it. 
But  suppose  that  one-fourth  of  the  parliament  should 
refuse  and  the  other  three-fourths  should  agree  to  grant 
it,  are  the  persons  represented  by  the  fourth  part  ex- 
empt from  the  payment  of  the  tax  by  reason  of  the  re- 


/ 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


475 


fusal  of  their  representatives  to  allow  it  ?  "Where  is 
there  then  any  voluntary  contributions  ?  It  has  never 
t»een  the  doctrine  of  America.  G-o  to  your  congress  and 
-see  it  there ;  go  to  your  State  legislatures  and  see  it 
there  ;  go  any  where.  Come  to  your  own  halls  of  legis- 
lation, a  tax  bill  is  proposed,  which  has  been  very  re- 
cently dene,  and  a  vote  is  taken  upon  it,  and  it  is  adopted 
by  a  majority  of  the  body  with  a  very  strong  minority 
against  it.  Do  the  constituents  of  this  minority  who 
opposed  levying  the  tax  have  to  pay  it  or  not  ?  If  they 
have  to  pay  it,  it  is  not  a  voluntary  contribution.  It  is  a 
compulsory  contribution.  It  is  an  exaction.  It  is  right, 
too,  for  property  owes  its  existence  to  society  notwith- 
standing the  avowal  of  a  contrary  doctrine  here.  So- 
ciety recognizes,  and  defines,  and  protects  property,  al- 
though there  may  be  a  vague,  undefined  and  compara- 
tively worthless  state  of  property  and  right,  anterior  to 
government ;  it  was  a  worthless  right.  What,  is  the 
right  of  property  anterior  to  society?  According  to  the 
best  of  lights  before  me  I  conclude  that  if  such  a  state 
ever  existed,  that  by  means  of  a  man's  actual  possession 
he  has  an  actual  right  to  the  property  within  that  pos- 
session. But  how  much  can  a  man  actually  possess  out 
of  a  state  of  society  ?.  How  many  acres  cf  land  \  Few, 
very  few  indeed.  How  many  other  articles  of  property 
can  he  possess?  They  must  be  in  the  actual  occupancy 
and  possession  of  the  party.  These  are  all  nominal 
rights,  subject  to  the  invasion  of  the  strong  arm  and  the 
violent  hand.  And  society  and  government  are  for  the 
purpose  of  protecting  each  individual,  not  in  the  rights 
he  possessed  anterior  to  society,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  and  defending  him  in  the  rights  which  that 
government  has  defined  and  recognized.  Take  the  pub- 
lic domain  in  a  state  of  nature.  Can  any  here  tell  the 
extent  of  his  territory  ? 

Who  defines  his  boundary  for  him  ?  If  he  goes  one 
step  beyond  actual  possession  he  exceeds  his  natural 
rights.  But  in  a  state  of  society  under  a  government 
his  rights  are  defined,  recognized  and  protected. 

In  a  state  of  nature  what  would  become  cf  our  black 
race!  Yf  hence  your  title  to  that  property  in  a  state  of 
nature,  to  the  millions  of  dollars  that  you  own  in  living 
merchandize  ?  Where  is  the  right  ?  Is  it  a  right  of  na- 
ture ?  Is  it  not  rather  a  right  derived  solely  from  the 
institution  of  government  ?  How  could  you  assert  that 
claim  or  protect  that  right  in  a  state  of  nature  ?  You 
would  have  the  right  to  ciaim  him  and  he  would  have 
the  right  to  claim  you,  and  that  would  be  the  extent  of 
your  right.  But  in  a  state  of  society  these  rights  are  re- 
cognized and  you  are  defended  and  protected  in  them. 
You  owe  that  property  then  to  society,  and  what  is 
the  extent  of  your  obligations  to  society  ?  Is  it  not  to 
the  full  extent  of  that  property  ?  You  owe  the  whole 
of  it  to  society,  and  it  is  for  the  protection  that  society 
renders  you  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  property  that  you 
are  justly  bound  to  contribute,  as  a  due,  taxes  to  the 
support  of  government  in  proportion  to  the  protection 
that  you  receive ;  that  is  to  say,  in  proportion  to  the 
true  value  of  the  property.  Why,  I  did  in  the  simpli- 
city of  my  heart,  at  a  very  early  day  in  the  session, 
propose  what  I  thought  to  be  a  mediatorial,  conciliatory 
proposition,  by  virtue  of  which,  to  conciliate  the  East 
and  the  West,  and  to  assure  the  East  that  we  meditated 
no  assaults  upon  their  property.  Desirous  to  dispel 
thi3  illusion,  which,  by  some  singular  futuity,  rests  upon 
eastern  minds,  I  proposed  that  a  system  of  ad  valorem 
taxation  should  be  adopted,  not  upon  all  property,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  very  unseasonably  suggested 
the  other  day,  not  upon  all  property,  but  upon  all 
property  subject  to  taxation.  Let  that  property  be  de- 
fined and  not  left  to  conjecture  or  legislative  caprice. 
It  is  not  the  first  time  that  such  a  proposition  has  been 
made  in  Virginia.  This  ad  valorem  system  of  taxation 
is  not  a  novelty  in  Virginia.  Long  ago,  in  the  better 
days  of  this  republic,  the  system  of  ad  valorem  taxation 
prevailed  and  included,  according  to  my  recollection, 
every  species  of  property.  It  was  declared  in  the  le- 
gislature of  Virginia  in  the  year  11*1%  and  afterwards, 


right,  just  and  proper  that  every  species  of  property 
J  should  contribute  to  the  common  defence  and  protec- 
j  tion  in  proportion  to  its  value.  I  am  now  speaking  in 
J  regard  to  taxation  in  general,  and  I  have  asserted  what 
j  i  maintain,  and  will  always  maintain,  that  however  great 
the  contributions  of  our  brethren  of  the  East,  they  are 
I  not  equitably  proportioned  to  the  burthens  imposed  on 
;  the  West.  You  may  reduce  the  taxation,  but  I  say  that 
■  so  long  as  eastern  taxation  remains  at  its  present  per 
jcentage,  the  western  tax  is  not  as  it  should  be.  In  other 
j  words,  we  pay  more  in  proportion  to  our  wealth  and 
!  ability  than  do  the  people  of  Eastern  Virginia.  I  repeat, 
|  this  is  no  novel  doctrine,  but  is  an  old  doctrine  in  Vir- 
ginia. I  will  refer  gentlemen  to  the  Statutes  at  Large, 
vol.  9,  p.  349,  where  they  will  find  a  tax  bill  of  October, 
17 77,  in  this  language: 

"An  act  for  raising  a  supply  of  money  for  public  exi- 
gencies," declaring  it  to  be  done  "in  a  mode  which  is 
ijudged  will  be  least  burthensome  to  the  people  of  any 
which  can  be  adopted,"  enacts  "  That  a  tax  or  rate  of 
j  ten  shillings  for  every  hundred  pounds'  value  of  lands, 
<&<?.,  slaves,  (fee,  horses,  <fcc,"  shall  be  paid. 

That  is  the  ad  valorem  principle  recognized  by  Virginia 
herself  in  her  first  days.  I  find  in  the  year  1778,  an- 
other statute  proposing  an  increased  tax  upon  the  same 
principle.  In  May,  1779,  there  was  another  increase  of 
tax,  and  then  it  was  that  the  specific,  or  capitation  of 
tax  was  introduced,  and  introduced  too,  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reducing  the  amount  of  tax,  but  from  the  greater 
facility  in  imposing  it.  Another  act,  in  the  year  1782, 
declared  that  "it  is  just  and  right  that  property  of  every 
kind  should  be  equally  burthened  for  the  defence  and 
protection  of  the  State."  These  were  the  sentiments 
of  Virginia,  as  expressed  through  her  general  assem- 
bly, in  those  days.  Well,  a  change  has  come  over  the 
spirit  of  things  since  then.  I  have  demonstrated  that 
the  increase  of  wealth,  population,  and  taxation,  is 
greater  in  the  West  than  in  the  East,  I  mean  the  per 
centage.  The  tendency  of  increase  is  in  the  West,  and 
one  consequence  of  this  increase  is  that  the  tax  on  this 
peculiar  property,  on  slaves,  has  been  diminished  from 
the  earliest  date  to  the  present  time,  because  the  tax 
then  has  been  imposed  upon  other  property  as  other 
property  has  increased  in  proportion.  I  have  a  table 
which  exhibits  rather  a  singular  state  of  things.  I  begin 
at  1800,  and  stop  at  every  decade  of  years,  and  show  the 
total  revenue  of  the  State — that  derived  from  slaves,  and 
its  proportion  of  per  centage  to  the  total  revenue.  The 
table  is  as  follows: 

Total  revenue.  Slave  tax.       pr.ct.  No.  slaves. 

1800  8265,168  25       $  30,596  12       30  344,756 
1810    295,533  06  91,516  16  30 

1820  537,270  12  163,538  20  28 
1830    385,111  31  81,945  55  22 

1840    477,010  42  72,388  20  15 

1850    744,319  49  91,444  54       11  475,972 

Increase  from  1800  to  1850  in  total  number  of  131,216. 

Thus  in  the  year  1800,  with  344,757  slaves,  you  paid 
a  tax  of  thirty-fouf  per  cent,  and  yet  when  you  come 
down  to  the  year  1850,  when  you  have  a  greater  num- 
ber of  slaves  you  pay  less  than  eleven  per  cent.  Now, 
this  is  to  be  accounted  for  very  readily  by  looking  at 
the  increase  in  the  trans -Alleghany  country.  Gentle- 
men should  be  very  far  from  complaining  at  this  state  of 
things. 

There  is  an  argument  which  struck  me  with  more 
force  than  any  other  in  this  discussion,  on  the  part  of 
eastern  gentlemen,  and  that  is,  that  by  giving  repre- 
sentation to  taxation  in  Eastern  Virginia,  you  can  con- 
fine a  representative  to  a  smaller  district,  and  by  doing 
that  make  him  responsible  to  the  constituents  whom  he 
has  to  protect.  There  i3  force  in  that  argument,  and  it 
is  one  which  I  can  appreciate,  but  it  is  totally  destitute 
of  that  power  which  should  emasculate  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people  of  Virginia.  But  let  us  see  how  it  works, 
lean  designate  certain  counties  in  Eastern  Virginia  in 
which  the  taxpayers  on  slaves  bear  to  other  taxpayers 


475 


VIRGINIA  KEF  OEM  CONVENTION. 


in  the  community  a  smaller  per  centage  than  in  the 
same  number  of  counties  in  the  West.  From  this  it  will 
appear  that  if  the  tax  paid  on  slaves  is  to  be  represented 
that  responsibility  in  favor  of  the  slave  interest  is 
greater  in  some  parts  of  Western  Virginia,  than  it  is  in 
some  parts  of  Eastern  Virginia.  Our  official  table  makes 
the  astounding  disclosure,  that  but  50,000  persons  are 
possessed  of  slaves  in  the  State;  but  that  number  taxed 
on  this  property.  Of  this  number  39,938  are  in  the  East 
taxed  with  219,605  slaves,  an  average  of  five  and  a  half  to 
each  master;  in  the  West  10,162  are  taxed  with  39,909, 
an  average  of  three  and  four-tenths  to  each  master. 
Thus  in  the  West  this  property  is  more  diffused  than  in 
the  East,  the  same  quantity  having  nearly  double  the 
number  of  persons  interested  in  its  protection  to  that 
in  the  East. 

The  injury  apprehended  to  slave  property  consists  in 
discriminating  against  it  in  favor  of  other  property ;  a  con- 
flict between  it  and  other  property  subject  to  taxation. 
To  prevent  this  is  it  necessary  to  give  the  East  a  pre- 
ponderance. But  the  means  of  protection  will  be  found 
in  a  superior  degree  in  the  W est  in  several  instances. 
Here  is  a  table  exhibiting  this  view : 
Number  of  Taxables  in  Eastern  Counties,  on  Land  and  on 
Slaves. 

On  land.    On  slaves. 

Culpeper   968  149 

Alexandria  1,521  359 

Charles  city   436  96 

Fairfax  1,221  497 

James  city   371  152 

Norfolk  county  1,286  631 

Northumberland   521  252 

Surry    637  234 

Prince  George   775  374 

Greene   449  204 

Henry   614  217 

Patrick   917  256 


9,616  3,421  35  per  cent 
Western  Counties,  8fc. 

On  land.  On  slaves. 

Winchester.  418  175 

Rockbridge  1,310  611 

Jefferson  827  675 

Warren  414  .  269 

Augusta                          25339  742 

Staunton  220  125 

Kanawha  1,312  481 

Pulaski  359  137 

Putnam  456  104 

Washington  1,438  362 

Smyth  872  172 

Russell   640  149 


10,605  4001  37  per  cent 
Now  there  are  twelve  counties  in  the  East  in  which  the 
taxables  on  lands  number  9,616,  and  the  taxables  for 
slaves  amounts  to  3,421;  the  number  of  persons  payin 
tax  on  slaves  bearing  a  ratio  of  35  per  cent,  on  the  land 
tax  payers.  I  will  then  take  the  same  number  of  coun- 
ties in  the  W est,  where  the  tax  payers  on  land  amount? 
to  10,605,  and  the  tax  payers  on  slaves  amount  to  4,001, 
bearing  a  ratio  of  37  per  cent,  to  the  taxables  on  land 
Thus,  in  these  twelve  counties  of  the  West  you  find  a 
greater  proportion  of  slave  tax  payers  than  you  can 
find  in  the  same  number  of  counties  I  have  selected,  in 
Eastern  Virginia.  How  then  is  this  argument  to  operate? 
Why  it  would  prove  that  in  those  counties  in  the  west- 
ern portion  of  the  State  there  is  the  greater  interest  to 
subserve  in  protecting  this  property.  And  this  is  true, 
not  only  in  regard  to  interest  but  in  principle  and  feel- 
ing. 

But  the  contest  now  pending  involves  the  political 
equality  of  our  citizens,  and  chiefly  the  equality  of  west- 
ern Virginia.  We  demand  that  equality.  You  refuse  it. 
This  refusal  is  resolvable  to  one  point,  which  is  the  su 


perior  slave  population  in  the  East.  It  is  a  fearful  issue; 
it  will  exasperate  the  pubiic  mind;  it  will  agitate  the 
country.  ^  What  will  tranquilize  popular  agitation  for 
popular  rights  ?  Nothing  but  success.  But  is  Virginia, 
at  this  juncture,  to  proclaim  to  the  world  that  the  exist- 
ence or  security  of  slave  property  is  incompatible  with 
the  political  equality  of  her  citizens  •?  Will  she  proclaim 
that  popular  sentiment  is  inimical  to  this  property  ? 
That  her  own  people  would  destroy  it?  What  a  com- 
mentary on  your  resolutions  to  defend  it  at  all  hazards 
and  to  the  last  extremity  ?  How  defend  it  if  the  people 
are  hostile  to  it !  The  truth  0i  your  resolves,  or  the 
sincerity  of  your  distrust  might  be  questioned.  But  is 
Virginia,  by  debasing  her  citizens  on  the  score  of  slavery, 
to  inspire  with  new  zeal  her  deadliest  enemies  ?  Will 
she  invite  them  to  sympathize  with  the  West,  to  find 
access  to  minds  heretofore  barred  against  their  malig- 
nant poison,  to  pour  their  copious  instilment  into  our 
ears  !    It  will  be  judicial  infatuation. 

But  are  the  people  of  Western  Virginia  less  faithful, 
3S  trustworthy  on  this  question  of  slavery  than  the 
people  of  any  section  of  the  Union  ?  Cannot  you  con- 
fide to  the  people  of  Western  Virginia  some  little  in- 
fluence in  the  government,  their  appropriate  influence  ? 
Why,  the  strongest  protection  you  have,  indeed  the  only 
protection  you  have,  is  in  their  hearts,  and  in  the  stout 
arms  of  Western  Virginia.  Their  fidelity  is  not  doubted, 
and  they  have  already  displayed  it  in  an  emphatic  man- 
ner on  many  occasions ;  yet  notwithstanding  those  man- 
ifestations of  loyalty,  notwithstanding  the  honorable 
declarations  made  in  regard  to  it  by  gentleman  here, 
they  are  to  be  told  that  they  are  not  to  be  trusted.  How 
long  is  this  to  last  ?  If  I  had  time,  I  would  refer  you 
to  several  of  the  States  where  this  very  basis  of  suffrage 
is  adopted,  and  where  no  injury  has  ever  been  inflicted 
on  slave  property,  where  nothing  of  injury  has  been  ap- 
prehended from  it,  and  where  nothing  has  ever  resulted 
from  it  to  the  injury  of  any  property.  The  reason 
may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  their  fellow-citizens  ad- 
mit that  they,  (the  non-slave-holders)  are  honest  and  ca- 
pable of  administering  the  government  wisely  and  faith- 
fully, with  due  regard  to  all  interests,  and  without  resort- 
ing to  profligacy  or  dishonesty  through  the  influence  of 
mere  rapacious  motives.  I  will  not  advert  to  them, 
however,  I  must  hasten  to  a  conclusion. 

Let  us  divest  ourselves  of  all  local  prejudice  and  let 
us,  if  possible,  come  here  with  fraternal  feeling,  with  a 
resolve  to  fraternize  and  build  upon  that  secure  founda- 
tion— the  affections  of  the  people — a  government  which 
they  ought  to  adopt  and  which  may  be  approved  by  them. 
And  what  must  you  do  ?  There  are  certain  considera- 
tions that  must  prevail  in  every  good  government;  gov- 
ernment to  be  good  and  stable,  must  rest  for  its  founda- 
tion upon  justice,  I  mean  that  justice  which  is  received 
as  such  in  the  hearts  of  the  people — -justice  according  to 
the  common  standard  of  justice.  If  you  build  your  gov- 
ernment on  injustice — I  mean  injustice  according  to  the 
common  popular  standard — can  you  expect  it  to  endure  ? 
No.  It  must  fall.  But  again,  you  must  so  constitute 
the  government  as  to  win  the  attachment  of  the  people, 
you  must  have  their  affections  entwined  about  it,  and 
you  must  have  their  hearts  in  love  with  it.  Then  you 
can  have  a  harmonious  and  stable  and  just  government, 
but  never  until  then.  Suppose  you  disregard  all  these 
considerations,  what  can  you  expect  from  Western  Vir- 
ginia. You  may  inflict  a  deadly  wrong  upon  Western 
Virginia,  or  what  her  people  will  believe  to  be  an  ini- 
quitous act.  And  you  know  that  when  men  are  enraged 
by  the  infliction  of  that  which  they  believe  to  be  iniqui- 
tous, you  have  very  little  reason  to  expect  affection  or 
devotion  from  them.  They  have  on  more  occasions  than 
one  defended  you,  and  they  will  ever  defend  you,  unless 
you  alienate  their  hearts,  You  may  do  it  because  you 
have  got  the  power  to  do  it,  but  the  power  to  do  it  will 
not  reconcile  them.  It  may  be,  then,  that  when  the  hour  of 
trial  comes,  and  when  that  portentous  cloud  which  has 
been  described  to  us  shall  burst  upon  us  in  all  its  fury. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


477 


Western  Virginia  will  feel  as  the  great  Achilles  felt  when 
he  was  wronged.    Repentance  deferred  till  that  day  will 
be  unavailing.    Look  at  your  population  here,  the  slaves 
exceeding  the  whites  and  consider  all  the  circumstances 
which  encompass  you.   You  need  friends,  brave  and  pow- 
erful.   The  hour  of  your  direst  need  may  not  be  far  dis- 
tant.   For  your  own  security,  for  the  sake  of  justice,  for 
the  harmony  of  all,  I  conjure  you,  be  wise  and  concilia- 
tory towards  "Western  Virginia.    Remember  this  iniqui- 
tous act  of  degradation  may  cause  thousands — all,  to 
swear  in  fierce  indignation  the  oath  of  the  injuied  Greek : 
By  this  I  swear,  when  bleeding  Greece  again, 
Shall  call  Achilles,  she  shall  call  in  vain. 
When  flushed  with  slaughter,  Hector  ccme?  to  spread 
The  uurpied  shore  with  mountains  of  the  dead 
Then  shait  thou  mourn  the  affront  thy  madness  gave, 
Forced  to  deplore  when  impotent  to  save  : 
Then  rage  in  bitterness  of  soul  to  know 
This  act  has  made  the  bravest  Greek  thy  foe. 
Mr.  WHITTLE.    I  move  that  the  committee  now 
rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

Then  the  Convention  adjourned  until  10  o'clock  to- 
morrow morning. 


FRIDAY  March  1th,  1851. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Eskrldge,  of  the  Methodist 
church. 

The  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

The  PRESIDENT  submitted  a  communication  from  I 
Whitmell  P.  Tunstall,  Esq.,  President  of  the  Richmond 
and  Danville  Railroad  Company,  which  was  read,  as 
follows : 

Richmond  and  Danville  Railroad  Office,  ) 
March"  6  th,  1851.  j" 

The  President  of  the  Richmond  and  Danville  Railroad 
Company  presents  his  respects  to  the  President,  mem- 
bers and  officers  of  the  Convention,  and  requests  the 
pleasure  of  their  company  at  the  depot  of  the  Richmond 
and  Danville  Railroad  on  Saturday  next,  at  3  P.M. pre- 
cisely, for  a  short  excursion  on  the  road.  The  President 
hopes,  on  their  return,  to  be  favored  with  their  company 
at  the  Exchange  Hotel,  at  8  o'clock,  P.  M. 

To  the  President,  members  and  officers  of  the  Virginia 

Reform  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor  the  communication  waa 
laid  on  the  table. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

Mr.  Whittle  then  addressed  the  committee. 

Mr.  WHITTLE.  The  wide  range  which  the  debate 
on  the  propositions  before  the  committee  has  taken, 
makes  it  necessary  to  a  just  appreciation  of  them,  that 
they  be  again  brought  before  our  view.  The  two  com- 
peting propositions  before  us,  are  that  part  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  the  basis  and  apportionment  of  rep- 
resentation denominated  "B,"  and  the  substitute  for  it, 
submitted  by  the  member  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott<) 
The  essential  element  in  proposition  B,  is,  that  repre- 
sentation in  the  legislative  department  of  the  govern- 
ment should  be  based  on  suffrage  alone,  and  if  this  be 
true,  I  am  free  to  admit  that  the  other  positions  taken 
in  it,  are  fairly  deducible  from  it,  to  wit :  That  the 
same  qualification  should  confer  the  same  right  to  vote 
throughout  the  State,  that  the  political  weight  of  every 
vote  in  any  one  portion  of  the  commonwealth  should  be 
the  same  with  a  similar  vote  in  any  other  portion  of  it, 
and  that  a  collection  of  any  number  of  votes  in  any  part 
of  the  State  should  exert  the  same  political  influence 
with  the  same  number  of  votes  in  any  other  part.  The 
substitute  of  my  friend  from  Fauquier,  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  proper  basis  of  representation  is  a  mixture  of 
taxation  and  population.  It  is  designed  to  bring  up 
these  two  propositions  in  competition  with  each  other, 
cautiously  and  wisely  framed  for  its  object,  it  rejects 


all  details,  it  omits  even  to  mention  the  proportions  in 
which  its  elements  are  to  be  mixed,  and  still  further  to 
disembarrass  it  of  any  collateral  matter  which  might 
present  obstacles  to  a  consideration  of  the  principle 
which  it  asserts,  the  mover  of  it  has  stricken  out  the 
clauses  relating  to  the  limit  on  city  representation,  and 
taking  the  average  of  ten  years  of  taxation,  next  pre- 
ceding any  new  apportionment  and  thus  presents  us 
with  two  abstract  propositions  in  a  shape  best  suited  to 
a  full  and  fair  consideration  of  them. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  propose  to  offer  to  the  com- 
mittee, I  shall  confine  myself  exclusively  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  two  schemes  thus  offered  to  us,  and  shall 
avoid  any  reference  to  details,  until,  having  settled  the 
principles,  the  details  shall  come  up  for  consideration. 
If  the  principle  be  correct,  the  details  properly  applica- 
ble to  them,  will  be  as  nearly  correct  as  is  to  be  expect- 
ed in  the  application  of  any  principle  to  human  affairs. 
That  they  must  sometimes  do  despite  to  the  principle 
out  of  which  they  grow,  that  they  will  not  work  with 
exact  uniformity,  in  a  commonwealth  possessed  of  such 
diversities  of  interest,  pursuit  and  locality  as  are  pre- 
sented in  Virginia,  is  to  be  expected.  While  1  will  not 
discard  the  suffrage  basis  merely,  because  it  does  not 
in  all  things  carry  out  the  principle  on  which  it  rests,, 
neither  will  it  present  any  difficulty  with  me  in  advoca- 
ting the  mixed  basis,  that  in  every  part  of  the  common- 
wealth, it  may  not  produce  its  proper  and  intended  re- 
sults. Upon  these  details,  as  well  as  upon  guarantees 
and  restrictions  on  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government,  in  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power,  much 
time  has  been  spent  in  this  debate  by  gentlemen  who 
contend  for  the  suffrage  basis  ;  indeed  these  topics  have 
constituted  the  chief  grounds  cf  their  arguments,  but 
as  they  form  no  part  of  the  subject  under  consideration, 
and  have  in  fact  been  expressly,  and  often  repudiated 
by  the  friends  of  that  basis,  as  in  anywise  connected 
with  it,  I  shall  forbear  to  enter  into  the  boundless  field 
of  discussion  on  those  points,  in  exploring  which  gen- 
tlemen have  applied  so  much  time.  It  has  been  often 
asserted  in 'the  course  of  this  debate,  that  the  plan  of 
representation  asserted  in  the  substitute  of  my  friend 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  is  based  on  an  element  of 
power  unknown  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  it  is 
demanded  of  those  who  are  attempting  so  vital  a  change 
in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to  offer  a  sufficient  rea- 
son for  the  alleged  innovation.  I  presume  to  assert 
that  from  about  the  year  1670,  down  to  the  present  time, 
a  period  of  one  hundred  and  eighty  years  except  during 
the  rebellion  of  Bacon,  when  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  land  were  set  at  defiance,  it  has  been  a  firm, 
constant  and  uninterrupted  principle  in  the  government 
of  Virginia  that  property  is  to  be  protected  by  having 
power  in  the  government,  adequate  to  that  end.  From 
the  period  mentioned  down  to  the  time  of  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  present  constitution,  the  whole  power  of 
the  government  was  placed  exclusively  in  the  hands  of 
freeholders,  excepting  only  the  lesseholders  in  the 
counties  of  Fincastle  and  West  Augusta,  and  the  house- 
keepers in  the  borough  of  Norfolk  and  city  of  Williams- 
burg. It  is  true  that  in  the  infant  state  of  the  colony,, 
before  its  resources  had  been  developed,  when  no  con- 
flicting interests  had  arisen,  when  the  rights  of  persons 
and  property  were  uniform  throughout  the  land,  the 
government,  to  invite  immigration  hither,  placed  the 
right  to  vote  in  the  hands  of  the  residents,  without  re- 
spect to  property  qualifications  of  any  kind.  But  as 
'early  as  the  date  which  I  have  mentioned,  when  the 
population  had  become  strong  enough  to  protect  them- 
selves against  the  incursions  of  the  Indians  who  sur- 
rounded them,  when  by  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  the 
pursuit  of  trade  and  the  bringing  of  property  into  the 
colony,  proprietary  rights  had  grown  to  a  sufficient 
magnitude  to  expose  them  to  the  danger  of  oppressive 
legislative,  it  became  obvious  to  our  forefathers,  that 
those  rights  to  be  protected  must  have  a  representation 
in  that  department  of  government  in  which  thejj  were 
most  liable  to  injury  adequate  to  their  protection. 
With  this  view,  the  freehold  right  of  suffrage,  long 


478 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


known  and  highly  prized  in  the  mother  country,  was 
Introduced,  and  to  it,  the  people  clung  through  every 
vicissitude  through  which  the  country  passed  with  only 
the  short  interval  which  I  have  mentioned  down  to  the 
year  1830.  So  strongly  did  property  enter  into  this 
basis  of  representation,  that  it  probably  excluded  two- 
thirds  of  the  entire  people  from  all  participation  in  the 
government. 

In  1829  came  the  Convention.  The  condition  of 
things  in  Virginia  in  respect  to  the  means  necessary  to 
the  protection  of  property  against  legislative  exactions 
had  at  that  time  greatly  changed.  When  the  freehold 
qualification  was  adopted,  and  for  very  many  years 
after,  nearly  all  the  taxes  were  imposed  on  land,  and 
such  things  as  were  used  in  connexion  with  land,  and  I 
presume  it  was  considered  proper  that  those  who  de- 
frayed the  expenses,  should  hold  the  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment. At  that  time  the  only  danger  apprehended, 
was  between  those  who  had,  and  those  who  had  not 
property,  in  that  strife  which  has  ever  existed  between 
them,  from  the  earliest  records  of  human  nature.  The 
danger  was  supposed  to  be  between  classes  in  whatever 
part  of  the  commonwealth  they  may  be  located  ;  it  was 
not  sectional,  and  hence  without  any  discrimination  in 
the  weight  of  one  over  another  vote  when  cast  ;  pro- 
perty was  deemed  to  be,  and  in  fact  was  sufficiently 
protected,  by  placing  the  power  to  control  it,  equally 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  deemed  most  interested 
in  its  preservation.  * 

Sometime  before  the  assembling  of  the  Convention  of 
1829,  a  new  era  had  arisen  in  the  affairs  of  Virginia  ;  a 
new  element  in  her  politics,  and  a  new  danger  to  pro- 
perty. I  allude  to  the  system  of  internal  improvements 
which  at  once  made  the  danger  to  property  no  longer 
one  merely  between  class  and  class,  but  between  sec- 
tion and  section  also.  Though  at  that  time  our  im- 
provements were  confined  chiefly  to  a  few  of  our  rivers 
and  turnpikes,  yet  they  were  sufficient  to  indicate  that 
ihey  were  the  forerunners  of  that  gigantic  system  which 
has  since  appeared,  and  which  threatens  exactions  on 
property,  of  a  character  and  degree  unknown  until 
recently  in  our  history. 

When  the  Convention  of  1829  assembled,  it  was  dis- 
covered that  three-fourths  of  the  taxes  were  paid  in  the 
East,  that  by  the  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage  gen- 
erally demanded  by  the  people,  and  the  equalization  of 
the  county  representation,  the  West  would  in  a  very 
few  years  contain  a  majority  of  the  voters,  and  that  the 
situation  of  her  country  would  require  vast  expendi- 
tures of  money,  to  open  to  her  ways  to  market  for  her 
produce.  It  was  plain  lo  be  seen  that  the  equality  of 
suffrage  then  prevalent,  though  sufficient  for  the  protec- 
tion of  property  at  the  time,  it  was  instituted,  would 
not  answer  in  the  altered  condition  of  the  country  ; 
that  as  sectional  danger  had  arisen,  sectional  security 
ought  to  be  demanded,  and  as  this  could  not  be  done 
without  giving  to  the  voters  in  the  sections  needing  pro- 
tection, a  political  weight  beyond  that  of  the  votes  in 
the  sections  whose  interest  it  was  unduly  to  burthen 
property  with  taxes  ;  the  East  insisted  that  taxation 
and  population  should  be  combined  in  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation by  which  means  such  discrimination  would 
have  been  made  in  the  weight  of  votes  cast  in  the 
different  portions  of  the  State,  as  to  afford  to  the  sec- 
tions exposed  to  undue  burthren  such  security  for  pro- 
perty as  was  deemed  sufficient.  It  happened  that  the 
power  of  the  government  was  at  that  time  in  the  hands 
of  the  Eastern  portion  of  the  State,  by  the  accident 
that  it  had  been  longest  settled  and  contained  a  larger 
number  of  counties  than  the  Western  region,  and  all  it 
had  to  do  for  its  safety  was  to  refuse  the  creation  of 
such  amount  of  new  counties  in  the  West,  as  would 
deprive  it  of  its  ascendancy  in  the  government.  As  1 
have  before  mentioned,  there  was  much  dissatisfaction 
with  all  parties  in  relation  to  the  equal  political  weight 
in  very  unequal  counties  in  population  and  taxes,  and 
the  East,  though  willing  to  remedy  this  evil,  yet  firm  to 
its  weft  established  conservative  doctrine  of  protecting 
property  through  political  power,  was  willing  to  change 


the  county  representation  only  on  the  condition  that  by 
the  new  arrangement,  the  same  safety  which  property 
always  had,  should  be  secured  to  it,  varying  the  means 
of  it,  to  suit  the  varied  condition  of  the  country,  and 
the  new  footing  on  which  it  was  proposed  to  place  the 
elective  franchise. 

We  all  know  the  result  of  the  contest  about  the  basis 
of  representation  in  the  last  convention.  The  East  and 
West  failed  in  carrying  out  their  favorite  schemes,  and 
though  the  EasUwas  defeated  in  the  means  of  protection 
most  agreeable  to  it,  yet  it  agreed  to  a  compromise 
which  it  deemed  sufficient  for  its  purpose  by  which  it 
secured  on  joint  ballot  in  both  houses  of  the  General 
Asssembly  a  majority  of  twenty-six.  There  was  there- 
fore, no  abandonment  of  the  object  of  the  East  in 
agreeing  to  this  compromise,  the  protection  of  property 
was  its  object  and  motive,  and  it  was  accomplished  in 
the  very  manner  proposed  by  the  substitute  under  con- 
sideration, by  giving  to  sections  a  political  weight  equal 
to  their  security,  the  only  difference  being  in  the  mode 
by  which  this  weight  is  to  be  secured.  And  here  per- 
mit me  to  say  a  word  as  to  the  charge  of  illiberality, 
so  often  urged  against  the  East  in  this  debate,  on  the 
subject  of  creating  new  counties  in  the  West,  under  the 
old  constitution.  I  am  not  informed  that  any  wilful 
purpose  was  ever  entertained  or  carried  out  by  the  East 
to  oppress  the  West,  by  refusing  to  give  it  such  new 
counties  as  its  wants  demanded,  though  I  doubt  not 
but  that  it  so  exercised  its  power  as  to  avoid  the  pos- 
sibility of  transferring  a  majority  to  the  West.  It  was 
right  that  it  should  have  done  so.  There  was  no  other 
means  within  its  reach  by  which  paying  three-fourths 
of  the  taxes,  it  could  have  guarded  itself  against  pay- 
ing three  to  one,  and  then  being  subjected  to  the  appro- 
priation of  the  whole  by  the  party  who  paid  the  one- 
fourth.  Especially  was  it  to  be  expected  that  the  East 
would  retain  within  its  own  hands  every  means  of  pro- 
tection when  it  was  discovered  that  a  spirit  of  internal 
improvement  had  been  awakened  by  which  the  interests 
and  passions  of  men  were  to  be  more  aroused,  than 
from  any  cause  which  had  ever  been  in  operation 
among  us,  and  that  to  supply  its  demands  would  call 
forth  exactions,  mainly  too  for  the  benefit  of  the  "West, 
which  had  no  parallel  in  our  annals.  When  the  East 
consented  to  come  into  this  Convention,  it  was  only  on 
the  terms  that  population  and  taxes  should  be  combined 
in  the  choice  of  its  members,  and  though  it  receded 
from  the  majority  of  twenty-three,  which  by  the  ex- 
isting constitution  it  has  in  the  House  of  Delegates, 
and  to  which  on  the  clearest  pi  inciple  it  had  a  right  on 
this  floor,  to  a  sectional  majority  of  only  seventeen, 
that  was  a  concession  made  without  any  surrender  of 
her  long  cherished  doctrine,  that  property  has  a  right 
to  protection  through  representation ,  and  we  accordingly 
set,  upon  this  floor  on  a  basis  composed  of  people  and 
taxes  equally.  The  East,  therefore,  is  resting  on  a 
principle  as  old  as  1670 — modified,  it  is  true,  to  suit  the 
altered  condition  of  the  country — varying  as  the  danger 
to  proprietary  rights  has  varied,  and  with  the  view  of 
securing  them  more  effectually;  but  the  principle  all 
the  time  has  been  the  same — defended  whenever  as- 
sailed— clung  to  through  each  change  of  government, 
and  all  the  alterations  of  our  fortunes.  It  is  a  new 
doctrine  that  mere  numbers  are  to  possess  the  power  of 
this  government.  It  is  for  those  who  assert  it  to  ad- 
duce reasons  in  its  support,  and  strong,  overwhelming 
must  the  reasons  be,  which  can  induce  considerate  men 
to  disregard  the  teachings  of  a  lengthened  experience 
and  the  wise  counsels  of  our  ancestors,  who  by  imbed- 
ing  the  principle  for  which  1  contend  in  the  organic 
law  did  more  to  secure  to  themselves  and  their  posterity, 
that  order,  quietness,  morality  at  home,  and  honor 
abroad,  which  have  so  much  distinguished  this  ancient 
Commonwealth,  than  by  any  other  of  its  provisions. 
Almost  every  gentleman  who  has  spokeri  on  the  other 
side  of  this  question,  has  sought  to  find  a  reason  for 
this  great  change  in  the  bill  of  rights,  and  three  sec- 
tions in  that  almost  sacred  instrument  have  been  in- 
voked in  aid  of  their  views.    I  will  proceed  to  bestovf 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


a  few  remarks  on  each  one  of  them  in  its  order.  The 
first  clause  declares  "that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally 
free  and  independant,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights, 
of  which  when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they 
cannot  by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  theirposterity, 
namely  :   the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the 
means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  pur- 
suing and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety.' '    Before  this 
clause  can  be  of  any  service  to  the  argument,  it  must 
be  shown  that  it  declares  all  men  by  nature  are  entitled 
to  equal  political  power,  that  is  the  kind  of  power  now 
in  contest.    Hut  it  is  manifest  that  the  natural  rights  of 
man  are  alone  the  subject  of  that  clause,  for  political 
rights  are  the  creatures  of  government.    They  suppose 
the  state  of  nature  put  off,  and  a  state  of  society  taken 
on,  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  a  man  in  a  state 
of  nature  has  rights  which  grow  entirely  out  of  society. 
The  rights  as  alluded  to,  as  possessed  in  the  natural 
state,  are  carried  into  society  it  is  true,  and  are  de- 
clared to  be  inherent  rights  when  so  carried,  but  this 
may  be  and  is  the  case  without  their  assuming  the  char- 
acter of  political  rights — in  society,  they  are  civil  rights 
merely,    They  are  such  rights  as  those  to  whom  the 
political  power  is  delegated,  ought  not,  and  by  the  bill 
of  rights  cannot  impair,  they  take  the  governmental 
authority  upon  the  trust  that  they  will  not  diminish  or 
weaken  them,  but  they  are  still  mere  civil  rights.  In 
the  natural  state,  if  the  mind  can  conceive  a  condition 
in  which  there  was  no  government  of  any  kind,  the 
defence  of  these  rights  depends  on  such  uncertain  and 
precarious  means  as  in  that  condition  man  may  be  sup- 
posed to  possess  when  they  are  brought  into  society,  a 
new  sanction  and  protection  is  given  them,  through  the 
power  of  the  government  to  shield  them  from  the  ef- 
fect of  force,  or  the  finesse  of  fraud,  but  they  are 
still  civil  and  not  political  rights.    If  it  had  been  the 
design  of  him  who  penned,  and  of  those  who  sanctioned 
that  masterly  compendium  of  civil  and  political  rights, 
to  assert  that  all  men  are  by  nature  entitled  to  equal  po- 
litical power,  would  they  not  have  used  terms  expres- 
sive of  such  purpose,  so  plainly  designated  as  to  defy 
cavil  or  doubt?    Would  they  have  employed  terms, 
not  only  dubious  in  their  import,  but  leading  the. mind 
to  do  violence  to  them  before  they  could  be  made  to 
convey  the  idea  attributed  to  them?  The  rights  enumer- 
ated are  of  the  civil  kind  entirely,  viz :  the  enjoyment 
of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  pos- 
sessing property,  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness 
and  safety.    And  the  instrument  goes  on  to  designate 
the  means  of  securing  them,  and  that  is  not  by  giving 
to  the  persons  entitled  to  them  any  political  power,  but 
by  declaring — that  those  to  whom  political  power  is 
given — the  free-holders  of  that  day  and  the  present  vo- 
ters now — shall  so  exercise  the  powers  delegated, 
as  not  to  impair  those  rights.    The  intention  of  the  in- 
strument is  to  warn  and  perpetually  notify  the  active 
managers  of  the  government,  to  wit :  the  voters,  that 
they  are  to  exert  their  powers  in  such  a  manner  as  not 
to  destroy  these  rights.    The  manner  in  which  they  are 
to  be  exercised,  in  order  to  protect  these  rights,  is  de- 
signated, for  it  will  be  found  that  if  an  adherance  be 
had  to  the  several  classes  in  the  bill  of  rights,  after- 
wards enumerated,  all  the  rights  mentioned  in  the  first 
clause,  will  be  protected — as  the  provision  respecting 
the  right  of  the  party  accused  to  demand  the  cause  of 
accusation — to  be  confronted  with  his  accusers — to  call 
for  evidence  in  his  favor — the  right  of  trial  by  his  peers 
— the  prohibition  of  the  demand  of  excessive  bail — of 
general  warrants — the  jury  trials  in  cases  of  property — 
the  freedom  of  the  press — and  the  freedom  of  religious 
opinions — should  these  rights  be  violated,  by  those  to 
whom  the  administration  of  the  government  is  confided, 
there  is  no  political  power  vested  in  the  owners  of  their 
rights,  to  redress  the  wrong,  unless  they  are  allowed 
the  right  to  vote,  but  they  are  thrown  upon  these  powers 
of  vindication,  whatever  they  may  be,  which  man  pos- 
sesses above  and  beyond  all  government.    This  re- 
dress is  not  under  but  in  opposition  to  government,  a 
redress,  which  so  far  from  being  guarantied  to  them,  by 


any  agency  in  government,  supposes  and  demands  an 
overthrow  of  government.    If  infracted,  what  political 
power  does  the  bill  of  rights  confer  on  them  for  a  reme- 
dy, if  they  have  not  the  elective  franchise?    In  what 
clause  may  it  be  found?    Women,  children,  nay  idiots 
are  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  designated  in 
this  clause  of  the  bill,  as  fully  as  all  others,  and  by  the 
argument  of  my  opponents,  they  would  be  entitled  to 
an  exercise  power  in  the  government.     But  why- 
waste  our  time  in  a  further   investigation  of  this 
clause,  when  the  very  persons  who  ordained  it,  gave  a 
practical  and  conclusive  commentary  on  it,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  '76,  made  at  the  same  time,  and  of  which 
it  was  indeed  a  part,  and  by  which  none  but  free-hold- 
ers constituting  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  people, 
were  invested  with  any   political  power  whatever. 
What  a  glaring  contradiction  would  these  wise  men 
have  furnished,  between  their  precept  and  their  prac- 
tical application,  had  the  meaning  of  the  clause  under 
consideration,  been  such  as  those  contend  for,  who  ad- 
vocate suffrage  basis  ?    The  next  clause,  which  has  been 
resorted  to  in  support  of  the  suffrage  basis,  is  the  second, 
wherein  it  is  declared  that  "  all  power  is  vested  in,  and 
consequently  derived  from  the  people  ;  that  magistrates 
are  their  trustees  and  servants  and  at  all  times  amena- 
ble to  them."    There  is  an  admirable  symmetry  pre- 
vading  this  entire  instrument.    In  the  first  clause  we 
find  the  civil  rights  of  the  citizen  enumerated,  in  other 
parts  the  manner  of  respecting  and  guarding  them  ;  in 
the  second,  a  declaration  of  rights,  as  between  magis- 
trates and  the  people,  who  bestowed  their  powers  upon 
them.    In  others  will  be  found  a  recital  of  rights,  a& 
between  the  people  themselves.    The  whole,  forming  a 
collection  of  natural,  civil  and  political  rights.    In  the 
clause  which  we  are  now  considering  in  the  apprehen- 
sion that  magistrates  might  consider  themselves  entitled 
to  power  beyond  or  without  a  grant  of  it  from  the 
people,  to  keep  them  reminded  that  they  have  no  in- 
herent authority,  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  them, 
this  declaration  is  made  "  all  power  is  vested  in,  and 
consequently  derived  from  the  people. "    It  is  not  thence 
affirmed,  that  all  men  are  entitled  to  equal  political 
power,  this  was  not  the  inference  intended  to  be  drawn 
from  it — but  "  that  magistrates  are  their  trustees  and 
servants  and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them."    It  was  to 
lay  the  foundation  for  asserting  this  truth,  that  the 
declaration  was  made.    The  latter  part  of  the  third 
clause  is  next  quoted,  in  vindication  of  the  suffrage 
basis  ;  in  it  it  is  asserted  that  "a  majority  of  the  com- 
munity hath  an  indubitable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasi- 
ble right  to  reform,  alter  or  abolish  it,  (the  government) 
in  such  a  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to 
the  public  weal."    It  is  assumed  that  a  majority  of  the 
people,  now  demand  the  suffrage  basis  and  that  under 
the  clause  which  I  have  quoted,  it  ought  to  be  adopted 
by  this  Convention.    What  community  was  intended  by 
this  clause,  a  majority  of  whom  has  aright  "to  reform, 
alter  or  abolish  "  the  existing  constitution  ?    Is  it  a  ma- 
jority of  the  entire  people,  as  well  those  without,  as 
those  within  the  present  body  politic  ?    Is  it  a  majority 
of  all  the  white  inhabitants  of  the  State,  as  well  those 
who  have,  as  those  who  have  not  the  right  to  vote  ?  or 
is  it  a  majority,  of  the  political  community,  as  organiz- 
ed, ascertained  and  qualified  by  the  present  constitution 
— a  majority  of  the  existing  voters,  with  the  political 
weight  attached  to  their  votes,  as  it  has  been  fixed  by 
the  constitution?    Upon  a  proper  solution  of  these  ques- 
tions, will  depend  the  true  construction  of  the  clause 
now  under  consideration.    Nothing  is  clearer  to  my 
mind  than  that  the  majority  of  the  community  intend- 
ed by  the  bill  of  rights,  is  a  majority  of  the  present 
voters  with  such  weight  attached  to  their  votes,  as  the 
constitution  annexes  tothese  votes.    So  that  a  numerical 
majority  of  the  voters  may  not  be  a  majority  of  the 
community.    The  majority  of  the  community  has  been 
arranged  by  the  constitution,  its  chief  office  is,  first  to 
designate  the  persons  who  make  the  community,  then  to 
decide  what  shall  compose  a  majority  of  that  com- 
munity, then  what  that  majority  may  do  or  shall  for- 


430 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


bear  to  do,  and  lastly  the  means  of  accomplishing  the 
ends  intended.  The  constitution  has  designated  the 
persons  entitle  to  vote  ;  it  has  given  to  those  residing 
on  the  tide,  no  matter  how  small  their  number,  thirty- 
seven  delegates  in  the  lower  house  of  the  General  As- 
sembly— forty-two  to  Piedmont — twenty-five  to  the  Val- 
ley, and  thirty-one  to  the  trans-mountain  country.  The 
census  shows  a  majority  of  near  ten  thousand  voters, 
under  the  present  constitution  in  the  West  and  valley, 
over  the  Eastern  section  of  the  State,  but  the  two 
former  are  by  that  constitution  entitled  to  fifty-six,  and 
the  Eastern  region  to  seventy -nine  representative  in  the 
House  of  Delegates,  the  latter  section  with  a  minority 
of  voters,  having  a  majority  of  delegates  of  twenty- 
three.  All  our  laws  since  1830,  were  enacted  on  this 
basis,  except  that  until  the  retrocession  of  Alexandria 
the  majority  was  twenty-two. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  how  all  the  powers 
of  legislation  could  be  exercised  alone  by  an  assembly 
constituted  as  I  have  stated  ours  to  be,  how  a  law  passed 
by  a  legislature,  organized  on  any  other  principle  would 
under  the  constitution  be  void,  and  how  a  legislature  so 
constituted,  could  alone  pass  any  bill  for  the  purpose  of 
^altering,  reforming,  or  abolishing  the  constitution," 
and  yet  such  a  legislature  does  not  represent  the  "com- 
munity," and  a  majority  of  that  legislature  does  not 
represent  a  ''majority  of  the  community."  Indeed,  it 
was  decided  in  the  last  convention,  that  a  majority  of 
the  community  should  not  consist  of  a  majority  of  mere 
numbers,  this  was  then  the  great  matter  in  contest  be- 
tween the  two  sections,  and  the  result  of  that  contest 
was,  that  a  majority  should  consist  of  voters,  estimated 
according  to  the  scale,  which  I  have  cited  from  the  con- 
stitution. What  purpose  would  the  establishment  of 
that  scale  have  subserved  if  a  majority  of  mere  num- 
bers could  at  any  time  have  called  a  convention  and  re- 
pealed the  constitution,  and  along  with  it  the  scale  of 
influence  which  it  had  established  for  the  votes  in  the 
different  sections  of  the  State  ?  To  what  end,  deny  that 
numbers  alone  should  wield  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  yet  intend  that  the  same  numbers  could  amend 
and  obliterate  the  constitution,  and  with  it  all  the  re- 
straints which  it  had  imposed  upon  them  ?  The  com- 
munity, meant  by  the  authors  of  the  bill  of  rights,  is 
the  existing  political  community,  be  it  composed  as  it 


may.  The  community  which  tfiey  established  under  it 
was  the  body  of  the  free-holders,  each  of  whose  votes 
had  the  same  weight  throughout  tho  State.  The  com- 
munity which  has  since  been  established,  is  the  present 
body  of  voters,  but  with  very  unequal  weight  attached 
to  their  votes,  and  to  alter  either  by  increasing  or  di- 
minishing the  weight  of  these  votes,  is  as  essentially  to 
change  the  character  of  that  community  as  to  exclude 
any  having  a  right  to  vote,  or  to  admit  any  not  now  pos- 
sessed of  that  right.  If  these  sectional  discriminations 
should  be  disregarded,  and  each  vote  through  the  State 
be  allowed  the  same  weight  with  any  other  vote5  then  a 
majority  of  voters  casting  such  votes,  would  not  be  a 
majority  of  that  community  which  the  constitution  has 
erected.  The  constitution,  as  I  have  already  remarked, 
designates  the  community,  and  it  has  done  so  in  this 
commonwealth,  by  declaring  who  shall  vote,  and  the 
effect  of  the  vote,  so  arranging  them  in  order  to  pro- 
tect property,  that  they  shall  depend  not  merely  on 
the  numbers  cast,  but  on  their  weight.  Can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  the  authors  of  the  bill  of  rights  in  ascertain- 
ing who  the  community  was,  in  which  existed  the  im- 
portant rights  which  they  designed  to  assert  for  them, 
should  have  omitted  so  large  a  class  as  the  non-voters, 
and  have  prescribed  no  means  by  which,  under  the  con- 
stitution, they  could  act  or  speak  but  through  the  voters  ? 
Would  not  some  place  in  the  body  politic  have  been 
assigned  them? — some  facilities  afforded  them  for  as- 
serting their  rights  ? — some  plan  of  organization,  with- 
out throwing  them  on  the  boisterous  and  rugged  and 
bioody  right  of  revolution?  The  uniform  sanction  of 
the  people  has  been  extended  to  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

The  freeholders  in  1776,  as  the  recognised  community 


framed  our  first  constitution,  they  framed  the  present 
one.  Their  successors,  the  present  voters,  called  this 
Convention,  and  each  one  of  these  acts  has  been  sanc- 
tioned ;  the  first  by  acquiescence,  and  the  two  last  by 
direct  votes  of  the  people.  Indeed,  not  only  is  the 
community  such  as  I  have  described  it  to  be,  but  in 
truth  and  upon  principle,  that  community  in  calling  this 
Convention  should  have  observed  all  the  sectional  dis- 
criminations, in  the  weight  of  votes  in  the  several  parts 
of  the  commonwealth,  as  designated  in  the  constitu- 
tion, and  the  majority  of  the  East  on  this  floor  should 
have  been  twenty-three,  instead  of  seventeen.  By  what 
process  of  reasoning  it  was  that  the  conclusion  was 
arrived  at,  that  the  constitutional  community  was  one 
thing  for  passing  all  laws,  but  that  calling  a  Convention 
to  change  the  constitution,  and  quite  a  different  thing 
for  that.  How,  in  altering  this  government,  it  is  not 
the  same  community  as  in  administering  that  govern- 
ment, I  have  never  been  able  to  discover.  My  friends 
from  the  West,  however,  cannot  complain  that  the 
East,  in  the  framing  of  the  bill  which  called  us  together, 
has  abated  much  of  the  strength  to  which  she  was  en- 
titled. The  East,  containing  a  majority  of  the  political 
community,  it  is  for  them  to  "reform,  alter,  or  abolish" 
the  "  constitution,"  in  such  manner  as  may,  in  their 
opinion,  be  most  "  conducive  "  to  the  public  weal 
though  there  may  be  a  numerical  majority  in  the  West, 
who  may  be  dissatisfied  with  such  alterations. 

Before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  subject,  permit  me 
to  remark  on  a  proposition  somewhat  tauntingly  sub- 
mitted to  the  Eastern  members  by  the  gentleman  from 
Loudoun,  (Mr.  White.)    He  asks  why  it  is  that  we  do 
not  submit  two  constitutions  to  the  people  well  as  to 
the  present  voters,  as  to  those  who  are  to  be  admitted 
alike  in  all  things,  but  the  basis  of  representation,  then 
to  be  on  the  suffrage  basis,  the  other  on  the  mixed  basis, 
and  abide  the  selection  of  the  majority.    I  cannot  do  it 
for  several  reasons  :  one  is,  that  I  represent  in  part  a 
district  utterly  opposed  to  the  suffrage  basis,  and  I  could 
not,  without  infidelity  to  it,  do  anything  which  might 
tend  to  promote  it.    Were  I  a  representative  of  the 
whole  State,  elected  by  general  ticket,  and  thus  deputed 
to  carry  out  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  1  believed  that  the  majority  desired  such  a 
proposition,  I  should  consider  myself  bound  to  give 
effect  to  it ;  another  reason  with  me  is  derived  from  an 
application  of  the  views,  1  have  already  taken,  as  to  the 
political  community,  to  the  proposition  of  the  member 
from  Loudoun.    According  to  my  ideas  of  that  com- 
munity, there  is  a  majority  of  it  on  this  floor  in  favor 
of  the  substitute  of  my  friend  from  Fauquier,  (Mr. 
Scott, )  myself  among  the  rest.    I  have  already  at- 
tempted to  demonstrate  that  the  majority  on  the  mixed 
which  was  substituted  for  the  basis  fixed  by  the  consti- 
tution, has  the  right  in  this  Convention  to  make  what 
changes  they  please ;  strictly  speaking,  the  new  consti- 
tution should  be  submitted  to  the  present  voters  alone 
for  then  approval  or  rejection,  whose  votes  on  the  ques- 
tion should  tell  precisely  as  they  are  represented  on. 
this  floor,  and  on  its  ratification  by  them,  it  would  be 
left  to  the  new  voters  to  accept  the  powers  conferred  on 
them,  by  claiming  or  refusing  to  exercise  them  as  they 
might  think  best.    This  would  result  in  the  majority  of 
the  community,  making  the  change  as  the  .bill  of  rights 
intended  them  to  do.    It  is  proposed,  however,  instead 
of  adopting  this  cumbrous  mode  of  ratifying  the  consti- 
tution, which  may  result  from  our  labors,  to  submit  it 
to  the  present  voters,  and  such  as  we  may  admit  under 
the  new  government  jointly.    But  in  doing  so,  the  pre- 
sent voters  have  a  right  to  insist  on  the  precise  weight 
of  the  vote  which  they  now  possess,  and  this  can  only 
be  secured  to  them  by  offering  a  constitution  made  by 
them  while  acting  in  a  body,  in  which  that  weight  is 
fully  felt,  and  refusing  to  offer  any  other.    Their  safe- 
guard is  in  their  right  to  propose,  and  in  the  necessity 
in  which  the  voters  on  the  question  of  ratification  are 
placed,  of  merely  receiving  or  rejecting  what  may  be 
proposed  to  them.    It  would  be  placing  the  enure  ques- 
tion of  basis  in  the  hands  of  those  who  contend  for  the 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


49; 


They  are  addressed  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  them. 
They  are  the  men  to  be  convinced  in  the  first  place, 
and  duty  as  well  as  courtesy  requires  that  they  should 
listen  to  those  speeches.  We  are  presumed  to  be  here 
listening  to  them,  and  my  opinion  is,  that  that  duty  will 
be  fully  performed  if  we  continue  to  sit  from  10  until 
4  o'clock.  Many  of  us  live  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
city,  and  in  bad  weather.it  will  be  extremely  incon- 
venient for  us  to  come  here  at  night ;  while,  if  we  meet 
at  an  early  hour  in  the  morning,  we  can  sit  until  we  do 
such  an  amount  of  work  as  the  people  may  think  we 
are  required  to  do.  These  are  briefly  the  reasons,  why 
I  am  utterly  opposed  to  these  evening  sessions.  I  do 
riot  believe  that  we  shall  get  over  twenty  or  thirty — 
certainly  not  a  quorum — present,  if  we  shall  hold 
them.  1  am  not  one  of  those  who  believe  that  it  is 
enough  for  the  chairman  to  be  in  his  seat,  and  the  sec- 
retary to  be  at  the  desk,  with  no  other  person  in  attend- 
ance, when  a  gentleman  desires  to  speak. 

Mr,  ANDERSON.  I  am  satisfied  from  experience 
that  the  Convention  is  not  willing  to  sit  more  than  four 
hours  at  a  time.  We  have  tried  and  have  ascertained 
it.  We  have  met  at  10  o'clock,  and  have  invariably 
adjourned  about  2  o'clock.  If  the  Convention  was 
willing  to  sit  until  three,  or  half  past  three,  I  should 
not  press  an  evening  session,  but  I  find  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  induce  gentlemen  to  sit  more  than  four 
hours.  Indeed,  many  cannot  with  comfort  sit  longer. 
I  do  not  wish  to  obtrude  my  opinions  upon  the  wishes 
of  gentlemen  so  as  to  put  them  to  any  great  incon- 
venience. I  am  willing  to  sit  here  and  listen  to  all 
such  speeches  as  I  think  will  be  of  service  to  me.  But 
when  I  think  a  speech  is  not  very  instructive,  I  am  not 
bound  to  listen  to  it,  and  I  can  recreate  myself  by  walk- 
ing round  while  the  speech  is  being  delivered.  I  do 
not  intend  to  treat  a  gentlemen  with  discourtesy,  if  I 
do  not  listen  to  his  speech.  No  gentleman,  especially 
If  he  is  making  a  four  or  six  hour  speech,  has  a  right  to 
think  so.  I  have  no  disposition  to  curtail  or  restrict 
debate  in  any  form,  I  am  willing  to  give  every  gentle- 
man who  desires  it  a  fair  hearing.  But  we  must  re- 
member that  we  have  to  expect  at  least  forty  more 
speeches  on  this  basis  question,  and  th&t  if  we  get  no 
more  than  one  speech  a  day,  it  will  occupy  us  for  forty 
days  longer.  If  we  hold  an  evening  session,  we  may 
have  two  speeches  in  a  day,  and  thus  save  twenty  days. 
I  am  willing  to  sit  here  as  long  as  I  can  hope  that  the 
Convention  will  do  any  thing  for  the  relief  of  the  people, 
and  as  long  as  I  can  hope  that  we  shall  adopt  a  consti- 
tution acceptable  to  the  people.  I  do  not  believe  the 
people  expect  us  to  sit  here  as  long  as  some  gentlemen 
think.  If  we  are  to  sit  here  for  six,  nine  or  twelve 
months }  as  some  gentlemen  seem  to  suppose,  we  shall 
make  ourselves  a  reproach  and  a  by-word  throughout 
the  State.  I  think  we  ought  to  do  the  business  of  the 
people  and  go  home.  We  can  do  it  in  a  short  time  as 
well,  and  probably  better  than  in  a  long  time.  If  we 
are  to  have  this  interminable  debate,  I  trust  the  Con- 
vention will  agree  to  have  evening  sessions. 

1  believe  it  would  suit  the  convenience  of  a  large  ma- 
jority to  meet  at  4  o'clock,  and  shall,  therefore,  while 
I  am  not  particular  myself,  vote  for  that  hour  on  that 
account. 

Mr.  LYONS.  I  have  heard  many  strange  things  du- 
ring the  session  of  this  Convention  ;  but  I  do  not  think 
I  have  heard  any  thing  so  strange  as  the  very  remarka- 
ble commentary  upon  me,  made  by  my  friend  from  Ac- 
comac. Certainly  if!  had  heard  that  commentary  and  did 
«ot  knew  what  I  myself  had  said,  1  never  should  have  im- 
agined that  it  was  a  commentary  upon  me,  or  any  thing 
like  me ;  and  least  of  all  did  I  expect  that  he  would 
have  made  the  intimation  that  1  was  likely  to  lose  in  my 
wind,  who  have  given  out  so  little  of  it  in  this  Conven- 
tion in  comparison  with  him  who  has  discharged  so 
much  of  it  1  know  very  well — no  man  better — that  I 
cannot  compete  with  him  in  many  other  higher  and 
important  qualities  ;  but  certainly  I  have  supposed  that 
if  there  was  any  thing  at  this  stage  of  our  proceedings 
in  which  I  might  hope  to  bear  with  him,  it  was  in  the 
48 


relative  stock  of  wind  that  ez  ch  possessed.  One  would 
have  supposed,  moreover,  that  I  had  said  something 
about  the  wine  cup  or  faro  table.  Now,  I  spoke  not  of 
the  ©ne,  and  certainly  did  not  think  o0the  other,  for  I 
never  was  at  a  faro  table  in  my  life.  I  am  as  ignorant 
of  the  mysteries  of  that  game  as  my  friend  from  Acco- 
mac,  and  I  did  not  suppose  that  any  body  was  coming 
into  this  Convention  in  the  afternoon  in  a  state  of  in- 
toxication. But  he  knows,  as  every  body  knows,  that 
the  very  fact  of  eating  a  hearty  meal,  throws  the  blood 
more  into  the  head  than  in  the  morning,  and  pre-dispo- 
ses  every  man,  more  or  less,  to  excitement ;  and  the 
very  reason  given  on  yesterday  by  himself,  in  which  I 
concur,  that  all  desire  rather  to  speak  at  night  than  in 
the  day,  was  the  fact,  that  in  the  evening  the  circum- 
stances and  the  attendance  which  always  attaches  to  a 
night  meeting  makes  it  the  more  exciting,  and  there- 
fore, one  is  apt  to  speak  more  to  his  satisfaction. 

But  he  told  us,  however,  that  the  night  was  favora- 
ble for  speaking,  though  not  for  working.  He  told  us 
himself  that  which  his  own  experience  in  Congress  had 
taught  him,  and  which  the  newspapers  now  tell  us  of 
the  last  Congress,  that  it  ended  very  much  indeed  in  a  fit 
of .  intoxication — that,  however,  the  night  might  do  for 
speaking,  it  was  not  the  time  for  working.  I  say,  there- 
fore, and  I  meant  to  say  no  more  at  first,  that  my  opin- 
ion on  the  sub!ect  had  been  changed  by  the  remark 
made  by  my  friend  from  Accomac,  in  regard  to  the  test 
to  wrhich  our  physical  endurance  was  to  be  subjected, 
and  that  if  this  was  to  be  the  case,  I  was  for  husband- 
hg  the  resources  I  possess,  and  I  admit  they  are 
small.  And  in  connection  with  the  speech  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kanawha,  I  say  again,  however  I  may  or 
may  not  have  the  sympathy  of  the  gentleman  from  Ac- 
comac, and  the  wonder  is  that  I  do  not  have  it — that 
while  I  may  not  take  personal  offence  at  what  was  said 
by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  that  in  my  opinion  it 
is  neither  wise  nor  prudent  for  us  to  come  into  this 
hall  at  night  to  listen  and  reply  to  wholesale  imputations 
and  denunciations  such  as  were  passed  upon  us  yester- 
day. I  do  not  know  how  the  gentleman  from  Accomac 
mayT  feel  them,  and  not  the  least  remarkable  event  of 
the  session  is  when  such  an  assault  is  made  upon  the 
history  and  the  men  and  the  motives  of  the  East,  that 
he  who  has  heretofore  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  first, 
one  of  the  ablest,  and  one  of  the  most  chivalric  cham- 
pions of  the  East,  should  now  be  found  to  tell  me  that 
he  has  no  sympathy  with  me:  but  I  confess  I  feel 
an  onslaught  on  Eastern  Virgirna,  of  that  discription 
far  more  than  I  would  any  onslaught  on  myself  even. 
My  views,  therefore,  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  an 
evening  session  were  changed  mainly  by  the  remark  of 
the  gentleman  from  Accomac  himself,  that  this  ques- 
tion was  to  be  determined,  more  he  thought  by  physical 
endurance  than  by  mental  power,  and  I  sayr  if  that  is 
the  case,  that  we  had  better  husband  this  capacity  for 
endurance  as  much  as  we  can,  and  take  the  thing  more 
coolly. 

I  say  it  in  no  unkind  spirit,  but  more  in  a  spirit  of 
regret  and  pain,  that  if  we  are  the  men  my  friend  from 
Kanawha  thinks  us,  if  our  course  has  been  marked  by 
this  utter  and  total  disregard  of  ail  right,  if  we  have 
been  those  gross  oppressors  and  shameless  violators  of 
every  thing  like  propriety,  disregarding  all  the  claims 
of  the  West  and  voluntarily  surrendering  them  to  be 
plundered  by  the  land  jobbers  for  gain  or  any  other 
cause,  I  have  little  hope  that  there  can  be  a  govern- 
ment established  now,  which  will  be  adapted  to  the 
common  wants  and  necessities,  and  secure  the  happi- 
ness of  a  people  s  3  unlike.  I  have  no  feelings  that  are 
unkind  to  the  West,  and  1  have  heard  no  gentleman 
from  the  East  utter  that  sort  of  denunciation  of  the 
West.  I  have  come  here  regarding  every  Western  man 
as  a  brother,  and  desiring  to  ask  nothing  of  the  West 
that  I  would  not  be  willing  to  yield  were  I  in  their  po- 
sition ;  I  design  to  do  nothing  in  respect  to  the  West 
that  I  would  not  have  the  West  do  to  the  East  in  the 
same  position,  and  I  confess,  therefore,  that  I  heard  the 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  yesterday 


498 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


with  pain,  mortification,  and  regret.  I  do  hope,  there- 
fore, we  shall  not  come  here  at  night  for  the  purpose 
of  making  and  repelling  attacks  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  WISE.  ^Vhy  not  at  night  as  well  as  any  other 
time?  Are  the^irits  any  higher  at  night  than  they  are 
at  any  other  time  ?    Whai  elevates  them  ? 

Mr.  1  TONS.    Eating  for  one  thing. 

Mr.  WISE.  Eating?  The  viands  stupify  and  make  dull. 

Mr.  LYONS.    Then  it  is  worse. 

Mr.  WISE.  And  drinking  even  stupifies  me.  It  was 
in  reply  to  my  friend  on  the  right,  that  I  repelled  the 
imputation  that  we,  this  gray  headed  assembly ?  could 
not  sit  after  dinner. 

Mr.  SCO G GIN.    Will  the  gentleman  allow— 

Mr.  WISE.  Certainly,  because  I  hope  you  will  dis- 
claim it. 

Mr. -SCOGGIW.  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  cast 
any  imputation  on  this  body  or  any  member  of  it.  I 
have  not  said  any  thing  about  drinking  or  gaming,  and 
I  did  not  even  have  those  subjects  on  my  mind.  What 
I  intended  to  say  was,  that  I  believed  it  was  generally 
understood  that  men  were  not  qualified  to  discharge 
their  duties  as  well  after  dinner  as  before.  It  may  not 
be  from  drinking,  and  I  did  not  say  that  it  was,  but  from 
some  cause  or  other  we  know  that  men  do  not  feel  as 
well  qualified  to  discharge  the  duties  which  they  may 
be  called  upon  to  discharge  after  dinner  as  before.  1 
disclaim  all  intention  of  casting  any  imputation  upon 
the  body,  or  any  member  of  the  body. 

Mr.  WISE.  Then  we  can  sit  soberly  after  dinner, 
and  the  gentlemen  did  not  mean  to  say  that  we  could  not. 
J f  we  can  sit  then  we  ought  to  sit.  I  put  it  to  this 
body,  that  four  hours  out  of  the  twenty-four  is  too 
short  a  time  to  dispose  of  the  press  and  quantum  of 
matter  we  are  called  upon  to  dispose  of  here.  I  did 
not  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Lyons,) 
that  he  was  ventose.  I  need  not  have  said  that  ;  I  would 
not  have  said  it.  I  said  that  his  nag  lacked  wind.  1 
said  nothing  personal  to  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  ; 
I  merely  intimated  to  that. gentleman  that  there  seemed 
to  be  something  in  the  considerations  which  he  pre- 
sented himself  that  evinced  that  he  had  no  confidence 
that  his  cause,  the  cause  of  the  mixed  basis,  could  stand 
a  long  and  continued  drag.  Not  the  rider,  not  the  pro- 
prietor, very  far  from  it.  Those  who  know  my  friend 
from  Richmond,  know  his  substance,  and  whether  he 
occupies  a  long  or  a  short  time  in  the  debate,  they  know 
the  weight  of  his  matter.  They  know  if  he  does  blow, 
that  he  blows  like  old  Jiolus  "with  distended  jaws  so 
as  to  belly  the  sails."  [Laughter.]  Yes,  whether  he 
blows  with  the  east  wind  or  the  west  wind  ;  whether 
he  be  blowing  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  (and  I  believe 
if  he  has  not  been  blowing  here  of  late  he  has  been 
blowing  there)  or  whether  he  be  blowing  elsewhere, 
he  can  drive  even  the  vessel  and  cargo  of  a  cause 
through  the  vast  expanse — of  the  briny  deep.  But  had 
the  gentleman  been  here  all  the  time,  he  would  have 
found,  that  though  I  have  been  playing  some  slight  zeph- 
yrs in  this  house,  that  1  have  not  made  a  blast  here  yet. 
[Laughter.]  Though  I  have  been  more  often  on  the 
floor,  I  have  not  begun  to  give  him  yet  what  I  consider 
a  wind.  [Renewed  Laughter.]  Not  I.  I  have  been 
collecting  myself  for  what  I  will  try  to  make  a  gust — 
not  a  tornado,  for  I  would  destroy  nothing — but  I  desire 
it  to  be  what  the  sailors  call  a  "blue  nosed  north-wester," 
that  will  purify  the  atmosphere,  and  that  will  drive 
away  the  exhalations  from  those  south-east  winds. 
They  are  winds  that  always  breed  malaria,  and  that 
bring  upon  us  those  miserable,  little,  mean,  sheep-steal- 
ing diseases,  that  we  call  agues  and  fevers.  Why,  a  man 
can  hardly  have  one  of  those  diseases  very  long,  before 
he  is  both  disposed  to  drink  bald-faced  whiskey  and  to 
steal  a  sheep. 

Wind  is  a  very  useful  element.  I  could  give  my 
friend  a  very  surprising  commentary  upon  wind.  We 
could  treat  it  in  various  aspects  and  in  lights,  whether 
blowing  from  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  or  the 
West.  Wind—you  can  turn  a  mill  and  grind  corn  with 
w  ind  ;  you  can  sail  i  hips  with  wind  ;  and  would  to  God 


that  I  could  blow  a  wind  (it  is  an  ill  wind  that  blows- 
nobody  any  good,)  that  would  sail  some  ships  for  old 
Virginia.  I  see  strange  things  here—the  strangest  and 
most  opposite  currents  of  wind,  I  see  Richmond  here 
with  a  windlass,  trying  to  haul  ships  all  the  way  from 
the  mouth  of  James  rives  to  City  Point,  and  here  is  the 
gentleman  on  my  right,  and  another  behind  me,  from 
the  city  of  Richmond,  at  the  head  of  tide-water,  trying 
to  pull  commerce  up  this  river  from  Norfolk,  the  natu- 
ral point  of  commerce.  Where  is  the  Norfolk  deputa- 
tion ?  Why,  I  see  that  delegation,  instead  of  seeking 
to  bring  ships  and  commerce  to  their  own  doors,  with 
a  parcel  of  tow-boats  all  around  the  ships  of  com- 
merce aiding  Richmond  with  her  windlass  In  bring- 
ing commerce  up  here  to  City  Point.  That  is  a 
strange  sight,  and  a  most  unnatural  sight,  to  me. 
Tow-boats,  scows,  periaugers  oyster  boats,  all  are  aiding 
the  ships  of  commerce  to  come  up  the  James  river  to 
City  Point.  And  then  I  see  another  and  a  stranger  sight 
still— 1  see  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  a  manufac- 
turing and  commercial  point,  telling  us  that  all  the 
property  back  of  them  in  the  western  part  of  the  State 
is  inimical  to  the  property  of  commerce,  that  a  back 
country  property  is  inimical  to  the  property,  business, 
and  commerce  of  Richmond,  whilst  at  the  same  time 
he  is  turning  the  windlass  to  pull  commerce,  what  little 
he  can  get,  Boston  ships  and  New  York  ships,  up  the 
James  river.  Yes,  he  is  setting  a  guard  to  keep  the 
West  back  from  getting  to  market,  and  he  tells  us  that 
there  is  something  inimical  between  a  back  country 
and  commercial  property.  I  would,  if  I  could,  raise  a 
wind  that  would  scatter  all  this  artifice  of  the  govern- 
mental majority,  all  this  artifice  of  the  Piedmontese 
policy,  as  it  has  been  exhibited  heretofore  in  rejecting 
all  the  laws  of  commerce  and  trade,  and  in  making 
Virginians  act  against  themselves.  I  want  a  wind  to 
scatter  that  fleet  of  tow-boats,  to  blow  over  this  wind- 
lass, and  destroy  with  a  gust  and  a  tornado  this  idea  that 
there  is  a  conflict  between  the  property  of  a  back  coun- 
try and  the  property  of  a  commercial  point,  and  that 
would  set  up  a  guard  between  them.  I  would  raise  a 
powerful  wind,  a  tornado,  or  a  hurricane,  if  I  could,  to 
destroy  that  sectional,  blind,  destructive,  and  anti-self 
interest  policy.  And  let  me  tell  that  gentleman  that 
this  is  but  a  specimen.  He  wonders  why  I  do  not  sym- 
pathize with  him  in  the  wind  that  he  would  raise — the 
counter  current  of  the  air  which  he  would  raise  in  op- 
position to  that  which  would  level  mountains  and 
bring  a  back  country  to  Richmond,  and  make  her  what 
she  must  must  be,  a  manufacturing  town,  and  hence, 
a  commercial  town.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  such 
ideas  of  eastern  interests,  and  I  thank  any  gentleman 
of  the  West,  who  will  get  up  and  knock  the  scales  off 
the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  make  Norfolk  cease  to- 
be  a  mere  resort  for  fishermen.  Let  the  truth  be  poured 
out.  Let  us  be  told  the  truth,  let  us  stare  it  boldly  in 
the  face  ;  and  instead  of  being  offended  at  being  told 
the  truth,  let  us  be,  before  we  have  done  with  this  de- 
bate, indignant  and  angered  even  with  ourselves  and 
not  with  our  brethren  for  telling  us  the  truth.  Let  us 
be  vexed  rather  with  ourselves  that  we  have  not  seen 
the  error  and  corrected  it  long  ago.  Talk  all  men,  loud, 
loud,  without  fear  and  without  blenching,  Let  it  reach 
down  to  the  ocean's  wave  from  the  mountain  cave.  Let 
the  chorus  come  from  old  iEolus'  cave,  let  the  winds 
tell  us,  for  the  winds  are  tale-bearers.  And  if  I  can 
be  an  instrument  of  the  wind,  I  will  be  very  windy,  more 
so  even  than  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Lyons.) 
I  hope  that  God  will  give  me  the  strength  and  ability 
not  only  to  blow  a  blast  of  wind,  but  a  blast  of  matter. 
There  can  be  no  very  great  high  wind  without  raising 
some  solid  matter  in  its  currents.  And  when  we  come 
to  the  debate,  if  my  friends  from  Richmond,  these  gen- 
tlemen that  ought  to  enlighten  us,  these  metropolitan 
gentlemen  that  represent  the  very  head  and  sources  of 
intelligence  here,  as  well  as  the  head  of  fashion  can 
satisfy  me  that  I  am  wrong,  and  that  nothing  can  be 
done  for  Eastern  or  Western  Virginia,  they  will  find 
no  more  grateful  heart  than  mine,  for  the  favor  which 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONTENTION. 


499 


they  will  do  me.  But  under  my  present  lights,  if  1 
can  hear  nothing  better  from  Richmond,  if  my  friend 
on  my  right,  and  my  friend  on  my  left,  can  give  me  no 
better  reason  than  they  have  yet,  I  cannot  sympathize 
with  them,  I  Repeat,  in  reproaching  the  West  for  setting 
before  you  the  errors  which  to  my  mind  are  more  than 
glaring.  I  wish  an  evening  session.  I  wish  eight  hours 
in  the  day  at  least,  instead  of  three  and  a  half  or  four. 

Mr.  LYONS.    Suppose  we  meet  at  10  and  sit  until  4. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  would  prefer  an  equal  division  of 
time,  and  I  prefer  an  interval  of  relaxation.  I  would 
rather  meet,  as  the  gentleman  before  me  suggests,  at 
ten  and  sit  three  or  four  hours,  take  my  dinner  and  then 
come  back  at  four  or  seven,  just  as  gentlemen  please. 
But  I  do  require  this  house — seeing  that  we  will  be  here 
probably  until  August,  I  see  no  hope  of  getting  from 
here  before  August,  and  my  friends  need  not  turn  up 
the  whites  of  their  eyes,  for  there  is  no  help  for  them 
— should  meet  more  than  four  hours  a  day,  or  we  will 
bave  to  adjourn  to  eat  our  Christmas  dinner  at  home. 
We  shall  be  here  at  Christmas,  if  we  do  not  sit  here 
more  than  three  and  a  half  or  four  hours  a  day. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Being  utterly  opposed  to  all  these 
propositions,  I  rise  to  test  this  question.  Whenever  I 
shall  hear  a  motion  made  to  increase  the  length  of  the 
sessions,  by  gentlemen  who  are  in  the  habit  of  attending 
at  ten  o'clock,  and  of  rising  with  the  committee,  then  I 
shall  be  prepared  to  receive  it  with  more  deference  ; 
but  I  regret  to  say  that  these  motions  are  not  always 
made  and  sustained  by  gentlemen  who  have  taken  this 
course.  Being  opposed  to  this  motion,  then  and  wishing 
to  put  myself  fairly  before  my  own  constituents,  to 
whom  permit  me  to  say,  I  alone  feel  responsible  on  this 
floor,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of  meeting  at  10 
o'clock,  and  setting  until  4,  if  it  be  necessary,  but  I  am 
opposed  to  all  night  sessions.  From  long  experience  I 
am  satisfied,  that  instead  of  having  forty  speeches,  we 
will  have  not  only  forty  speeches,  but  a  repetition  of 
the  speeches  which  we  have  already  heard.  If  we 
come  here  in  the  evening,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  will  not 
cconimize  time  or  advance  the  business  of  the  Conven- 
tion ;  and,  therefore,  with  a  view  of  testing  this  ques- 
tion, I  move  its  indefinite  postponement,  and  I  call  the 
yeas  and  nays  upon  the  motion.  We  have  already  ex- 
pended an  hour  and  a  half  upon  this  subject,  and  how 
many  hours  we  have  previously  expended  in  the  same 
way,  I  do  not  now  remember.  II  I  fail  in  this  motion, 
I  shall  then  be  able  to  determine  whether  I  am  in  favor 
of  an  afternoon  or  of  an  evening  session.  But  with  a 
view  of  testing  the  question,  whether  we  shall  have  an 
evening  session  at  all,  I  call  upon  all  who  are  opposed 
to  this  proceeding  to  sustain  me  in  this  motion,  and  for 
the  views  I  have  stated. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  desire  briefly  to  explain  the  vote 
I  shall  give.  I  am  distinctly  in  favor  of  this  body  re- 
maining in  session  longer  than  we  have  done  heretofore. 
I  beg  leave,  however,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  this  fact.  We  saton  Monday  until 3  o'clock; 
on  Tuesday  until  two  ;  on  Wednesday  until  two  ;  on 
Thursday  until  two  ;  and  the  committee  rose  on  yester- 
day at  half  past  one.  Although  we  have  met  at  ten 
o'clock,  we  have  lost  at  least  four  hours  this  week  of 
the  time  which,  by  resolution  of  this  body,  we  have 
solemnly  decided  to  appropriate  to  the  public  service. 
I  am  in  favor  then  of  longer  sessions,  but  1  am  inclined 
to  believe,  from  the  experience  of  our  sessions  thus  far, 
that  when  we  have  not  more  than  half  of  the  body  here 
from  ten  until  two,  that  if  we  meet  in  the  evening,  we 
shall,  probably,  not  have  twenty  members  present.  I 
purpose  to  vote  for  the  indefinite  postponement  of  this 
resolution,  and  afterwards  to  endeavor  to*carry  a  res- 
olution through,  making  it  the  standing  order  of  this 
House  that  the  committee  shall  not  rise  until  4  o'clock, 
and  in  that  way,  I  think,  I  shall  effect  the  object  I  have 
at  heart,  in  common  with  the  gentleman  from  Accomac, 
better  than  if  we  should  determine  to  hold  evening  ses- 
sions. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.    I  rise  merely  to  state  one  fact,  and 


that  is  derived  from  the  experience  of  the  Convention 
of  1829  and  1830.  In  that  Convention,  they  had  as  many 
speaking  men  as  in  this,  and  they  met  on  the  first  day 
at  12  o'clock  ;  and  for  several  days  afterwards  at  2 
o'clock,  and  from  the  27th  of  October  regularly  until 
the  last  day  of  the  session  at  11  o'clock  ;  yet  they  com- 
pleted their  labors  within  three  months  and  ten  days. 
Now,  1  will  add,  that  my  own  experience  in  the  legis- 
lature has  been  that,  with  the  single  exception  of  read- 
ing a  number  of  bills,  the  evening  sessions  have  always 
delayed  the  business  of  that  body.  And  1  believe  in  my 
soul  that  it  will  delay  the  business  of  this  body,  if  we 
resort  to  them.  We  have  already  had  several  calls  of 
the  House  at  10  and  11  o'clock,  and  there  will  be  more 
of  such  calls,  if  we  are  to  have  evening  sessions.  But 
there  seems  to  prevail  an  idea  here  that  members  are 
justified  in  leaving  the  hall  when  speeches  are  going  on, 
and  that  they  are  not  required  to  be  here.  Yet,  by  the 
spirit  of  our  rules,  when  it  is  evident  to  your  eyes,  at 
any  time,  that  there  is  no  quorum  present,  it  is  your 
duty  to  arrest  the  proceedings  and  notify  the  Conven- 
tion of  that  fact.  1  utterly  deny  the  assumption  that 
we  are  not  bound  as  much  to  remain  here  while  speeches 
are  being  made  as  at  any  other  time.  We  are  not  pre- 
sumed to  understand  every  proposition  which  may  arise. 
I  come  here  to  get  light  and  information  from  others. 
I  want  to  get  all  the  information  I  can  ;  but  I  confess 
that  I  am  not  willing  to  sit  seven  hours  a  day  until,  as 
my  friend  from  Accomac  supposed,  August  next.  I 
do  not  expect  to  open  my  mouth  on  this  basis  question 
at  all.  But  1  am  willing  to  listen  to  the  speeches  of 
others  to  acquire  all  the  light  I  can.  I  believe  these 
evening  sessions  will  produce  delay,  and  if  not  delay, 
that  they  will  not  tend  to  advance  the  character  or  the 
business  of  the  body.  The  legislature,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, pass  acts  which  can  be  repealed  at  the  suc- 
ceeding session  ;  but  we  are  engaged  in  forming  a  con- 
stitution for  the  present  generation  and  those  who  come 
after  us.  Let  patience,  attention,  and  dignity  and  order 
mark  our  deliberations,  and  I  am  sure  that  the  patience 
of  this  body  will  not  endure  more  than  to  sit  here  from 
10  until  3  or  4.  I  shall,  therefore,  vote  for  this  motion 
for  indefinite  postponement,  because,  in  so  doing,  I  be- 
lieve I  shall  be  promoting  the  harmony  and  the  dis- 
patch of  the  business  of  this  Convention.  But  if  it  be 
voted  down,  then  I  am  inclined  to  think  I  shall  prefer  a 
night  session  to  coming  here  at  4  o'clock. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  rise  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
stating  that  my  experience  in  the  legislature  has  brought 
my  mind  to  an  exactly  opposite  conclusion  from  that  of 
the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  In  my 
opinion,  evening  sessions  advance  the  business  of  the 
legislative  body.  And  I  appeal  to  every  gentleman 
who  has  served  in  that  body  for  the  last  six  or  seven 
years,  if  this  is  not  true. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
correct  him.  I  said  expressly  that  it  advanced  the 
business  of  the  House  so  far  as  the  reading  of  bilk  is 
concerned,  but  not  in  the  way  of  speaking. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  It  advances  the  business  of  the 
ordinary  character,  and  also  the  speaking.  It  is  easy 
to  demonstrate  that  if  we  hold  evening  sessions  we 
must  get  through  with  this  discussion  in  less  time  than 
if  we  do  not.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  gentlemen  are 
to  speak  here,  and  will  speak  a  certain  number  of  hours, 
and  that  whether  it  be  morning  or  evening,  the  speech 
will  be  delivered,  and,  therefore,  if  we  sit  seven  hours 
a  day,  more  speeches  can  be  made  in  a  day  than  if  we 
sit  four  hours.  I  am  willing,  if  it  will  suit  the  conve- 
nience of  the  Convention,  to  sit  from  10  until  4  o'clock  ; 
but  I  am  satisfied— and  every  gentleman  must  concur  in 
the  same  view — that  the  Convention  cannot  be  prevail- 
ed upon  to  sit  more  than  four  or  five  hours  at  most  at 
one  session,  Being  satisfied  with  that,  I  think  we  should 
hold  an  evening  session  ;  and  the  only  question  with  me 
is  whether  we  shall  meet  at  four  or  seven  o'clock.  For 
the  Convention  there  is  this  other  question,  whether  we 
shall  have  one  or  two  speeches  a  day.    As  we  have 


500 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


gone  on,  we  have  not  had  more  than  one  a  day  on  an 
average. 

Mr.  SCOTT  of  Richmond.  At  some  future  period 
of  the  session  of  the  Convention,  I  hope  to  be  indulged 
in  saying  something  upon  the  question  now  under  debate 
in  the  committee  of  the  whole.  But  when  I  make  that 
effort,  there  is  at  least  one  subject  which  I  shall  not 
undertake  to  correct,  for  the  malady  under  which  he 
seems  really  to  be  laboring  is  past  control.  The  disease 
has  seized  upon  him  with  such  inveteracy  as  to  require 
a  more  skillful  physician  than  I  should  prove,  to  eradi- 
cate it.  I  think  that  my  friend  from  Accomac  is  past  a 
stage  at  which  the  doctor  can  help  him.  And  while  I 
have  hopes  in  other  respects  in  regard  to  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Smith,)  who,  by  the  by,  is  my 
patient,  and  although  he  eschewed  all  mixtures  on  yes- 
terday [laughter]  yet  1  am  not  very  sure  that  a  mixture 
is  not  working  a  most  powerful  change  upon  him,  and 
bringing  him  over  to  the  mixed  basis.  I  have  hope  of 
him  in  that  respect,  for  I  see  the  cure  going  on  from 
day  to  day.  I  have  no  feelings  of  regret  for  what  that 
gentleman  said  on  yesterday.  I  like  his  boldness,  his 
fiat-footed  directness,  and  bye  and  bye,  he  may  find 
some  talk  a  little  like  his.  Not  to  separate  us  [laughter] 
but  to  make  the  friendship  an  enduring  one.  I  believe 
that  at  last  we  can  settle  this  great  question  and  bring 
this  good  old  commonwealth  together — not  upon  your 
basis  but  upon  one  which  I  believe  the  West,  or  a  great 
portion  of  it,  will  approve.  So  much  for  that,  matter. 
The  real  question  before  us  is, "  how  can  we  appropriate 
the  time,  we  have  best  to  subserve  the  interest  of  the  pub- 
lic who  have  confided  their  great  interests  to  us.  I  am 
prepared  to  come  here  and  remain  four  hours,  from  ten 
until  two.  That  length  of  time  dedicated  to  the  public 
service,  at  one  sitting,  with  the  mind  fixed  upon  every 
thing  which  may  be  said  or  done,  is  long  enough.  I  am 
growing  an  old  man,  and  I  feel  the  effects  of  much  labor 
from  time  to  time  ;  but  at  no  period  of  my  life  have  my 
physical  or  intellectual  powers  been  so  organized  that  I 
could  direct  them  entirely  to  mental  labor  for  a  period 
of  more  than  four  hours  at  a  time.  Let  us  then  take  a 
recess  from  two  until  four.  Let  us  make  the  experi- 
ment, and  after  we  have  come  here  and  remained  until 
twilight,  let  us  then  adjourn  and  go  home  to  the  reflec- 
tion and  consideration  of  what  has  past  during  the  day, 
and  not  to  the  gaming  table  or  to  indulge  in  bald-face 
whiskey. 

I  am  sure  that  the  constituency  which  sent  me  here, 
will  be  satisfied  with  that.  I  protest  against  coming 
here  at  night — meeting  at  seven  and  remaining  here  until 
10, 11  or  12  o'clock  before  retiring.  My  habit,  general- 
ly speaking,  is  to  be  up  as  soon  as  the  sun  gives  the 
light,  and  therefore  I  do  not  desire  to  be  forced  to  re- 
main here  until  11  or  12  o'clock.  I  put  the  question  to 
every  man  here,  young  or  old,  if  from  10  until  2,  and 
from  4  until  7 — in  all  making  a  session  of  7  hours — 
would  not  satisfy  the  expectations  of  everybody.  I 
hope,  therefore,  that  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely 
may  not  now  prevail,  but  that  we  shall  agree  to  hold 
evening  sessions.  We  can  meet  at  10  o'clock,  adjourn 
at  2  and  meet  again  at  4. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  have  got  but  one  remark  to  make  to 
my  friend  from  Richmond.  He  says  that  I  have  got  a 
bad  disease.  I  do  not  know  what  it  is.  I  am  not  con- 
scious of  it.  But  I  am  very  glad  to  learn  that  he  is  not 
to  be  called  in.  If  left  alone,  1  may  possibly  die,  but 
if  I  fall  into  the  hands  of  that  doctor,  I  am  sure  to  die. 
[Laughter.] 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to  post- 
pone indefinitely  the  resolution,  and  the  result  was — 
yeas  33,  nays  65,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (President,)  Botts, 
Byrd  of  Frederick,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cox,  Edwards, 
Fisher,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Goode,  Hopkins,  Jones,  Letch- 
er, Lyons,  Meredith,  Miller,  Petty,  Price,  Rives,  Scott 
of  Fauquier,  Seymour,  Shell,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Kana- 
wha, Southall,  Summers,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Van  Win- 
kle, Wallace,  Watts  of  Norfolk  county  and  Watts  of 
Roanoke — 33. 


Nays — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Banks,  Barbour  r 
Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Bland,  Blue,  Bocock,  Bowles, 
Brown,  Burgess,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carter  of  Russell, 
Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chambers,  Claiborne,  Conway,  Cook,  x 
Davis, Deneale,  Douglas, Edmunds,  Faulkner.  Flood,  Ful- 
kerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  M.  Garnett,  Hall,  Kftl),  Hoge,  Hunt- 
er, Jacob,  Johnson,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Leake, 
Ligon,  Lucas,  McCamant,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin 
of  Henry,  Moore,  Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton, 
Purkins,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Richmond 
city,  Smith  of  King  &  Queen,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith 
of  Greenbrier,  Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Stephenson,  Stew- 
art of  Morgan,  Stuart  of  Patrick,  Trigg,  Turnbulls 
Wingfield  and  Wise— 65. 

So  the  motion  was  rejected. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  motion  of  Mr„ 
Scoggin,  to  amend  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Clai- 
borne, by  striking  out  7  o'clock  and  inserting  4  o'clock  % 
and  a  count  being  had  there  were  yeas  47,  and  nays  46. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  proper  that  I  should  state 
that  in  the  condition  of  the  hall,  I  am  not  certain  that  I 
counted  correctly. 

Mr.  WISE.    I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  and  the  result  was— 
yeas  46,  nays  45,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Armstrong,  Banks,  Bar- 
bour, Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Bland,  Bowles,  Braxton, 
Brown,  Burgess,  Camden,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Conway, 
Cook,  Davis,  Douglas,  Edmunds,  Fulkerson,  Fultz, 
Fuqua,  M.  Garnett,  Hall,  Kilgore,  Leake,  Lucas,  Mar- 
tin of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry,  Murphy,  Purkins, 
Rives,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier, 
Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Shell,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Jack- 
son, Smith  of  Greenbrier,  Snowden,  Stewart  of  Mor- 
gan, Stuart  of  Patrick,  Taylor,  Turnbull,  Wallace 5, 
Watts  of  Roanoke  and  Wingfield — 46. 

Nays— Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Blue,  Bo- 
cock, Botts,  Bowden,  Byrd  of  Frederick,  Caperton, 
Carter  of  Russell,  Chambers,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Clai- 
borne, Cox,  Edwards,  Faulkner,  Fisher,  Flood,  Gallyr 
Garland,  Goode,  Hill,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jacob, 
Johnson,  Jones,  Kenney,  Knote, Letcher, Ligon, Lyons, 
McCamant,  Meredith,  Miller,  Moore,  Morris,  Neeson, 
Pendleton,  Petty,  Price,  Seymour,  Sheffey,  Smith  of 
Kanawha,  Smith  of  King  &  Queen,  Snodgrass,  South- 
all,  Stanard,  Stephenson,  Summers,  Tredway,  Trigg, 
Van  Winkle,  Watts  and  Wise— 45. 

So  the  Convention  refused  to  strike  out  7  and  insert 
4  o'clock. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  proposition  to  meet 
at  7  o'clock. 

Mr.  BYRD.  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  the  preseat 
resolution  that  it  be  a  standing  rule  with  the  Convention 
to  meet  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  remain  in 
session  until  4  o'clock  in  the  evening.  Is  it  in  order  to 
make  that  motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.    It  is  not  in  order  at  this  time. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE.  I  accept  the  substitute  proposed; 
by  my  friend  from  Frederick,  and  will  withdraw  my 
proposition  to  meet  at  seven. 

Mr.  ANDERSON.  I  regret  that  the  gentleman  has 
withdrawn  his  proposition,  for  I  imagine  that  every 
gentleman  here  must  be  satisfied  that  the  Convention  is 
not  going  to  sit  for  the  length  of  time  proposed,  with- 
out a  recess.  I  should  like  to  have  the  vote  taken  on 
the  question  of  having  an  evening  session,  although  if 
the  Convention  should  prefer  to  sit  until  4  o'clock,  I 
would  acquiesce  with  pleasure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Fi^tnklin  having  been  voted  upon,  cannot  be 
withdrawn  without  the  vote  of  the  Convention. 

JVlr.  LETCHER.    I  call  for  the  ayes  and  noes. 

Mr  ANDERSON.  I  hope  that  all  in  favor  of  even- 
ing sessions,  will  vote  for  this  amendment^  reserving  to 
themselves  the  privilege  of  voting  for  the  substitute 
afterwards  if  they  desire.  I  should  like  to  get  one  or 
the  other,  and  1  hope  we  shall  not  be  defeated  by  & 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


501 


union  of  those  who  oppose  evening  sessions  ;  and  those 
who  desire  a  longer  session  in  the  day. 
£JMr.  CLAIBORNE,  I  prefer  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Frederick,  (Mr.  Byrd,)  to  meet  here  at 
10  o'clock,  and  to  sit  until  4,  rather  than  come  here  at 
7  o'clock,  and  1  shall,  therefore  vote  against  my  own 
amendment. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  understand  the  movements  of  the  gen- 
tlemen very  well.  Four  o'clock  has  been  voted  down 
by  those  who  intend  to  vote  down  7  o'clock.  I  regard 
the  vote  now  about  to  be  taken,  as  testing  the  question 
whether  we  are  to  have  evening  sessions  or  not ;  whether 
we  are  to  have  fresh  divided  labors,  four  hours  in  the 
morning,  and  three  or  four  in  the  evening,  or  a  continu- 
ous debate  six  hours  to  exhaust  us  in  labor.  Now  I 
voted  in  good  faith  for  7  o'clock,  but  am  willing  to  take 
4,  and  I  hope  the  gentlemen  who  voted  for  7,  and  against 
4,  in  good  faith,  will  stick  to  7  o'clock. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  ordered. 

The  question  being  then  taken,  there  were  yeas  59, 
nays  44,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  John  T.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Anderson, 
Bland,  Bowles,  Brown,  Burgess,  Camden,  Caperton, 
Carlile,  Carter  of  Russell,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Cham- 
bers, Conway,  Cox,  Cook,  Flood,  Floyd,  Fulkerson, 
Fultz,  Gaily,  M.  Garnett,  Hall,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Hunt- 
er, Jacob,  Johnson,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher, 
Ligon,  McCamant,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Hen- 
ry, Moore,  Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton,  Price, 
Purkins,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Shell,  Smith  of  Kanawha, 
Smith  of  King  and  Queen,  Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Steven- 
son, Summers,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Trigg,  Turnbull,  Van 
Winkle,  Wingfield  and  Wise — 59. 

Nays — Messrs.  Armstrong,  Banks,  Barbour,  Blue, 
Bocock,  Botts,  Bowden,  Braxton,  Byrd  of  Frederick, 
Chapman,  Chilton,  Claiborne,  Cox,  Davis,  Douglas, 
Edwards,  Fisher,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Goode,  Hill,  Jones, 
Leake,  Lucas,  Lyons,  Meredith,  Miller,  Petty,  Rives, 
Scoggin,  Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Richmond  city, 
Seymour,  ShefFey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of 
Greenbrier,  Southall,  Stanard,  Stewart  of  Morgan, 
Stuart  of  Patrick,  Wallace,  Watts  of  Norfolk  county 
and  Watts  of  Roanoke — 44. 

So  the  amendment  to  meet  at  7  o'clock  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BYRD.  1  now  offer  the  following  as  a  substi- 
tute to  the  resolution  as  amended  : 

Resolved,  That  it  be  a  standing  rule  of  the  Conven- 
tion that  from  and  after  Monday  next,  the  sessions  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  during  the  pending  dis- 
cussion ;  shall  commence  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning 
of  each  day,  and  continue  till  4  o'clock  in  the  evening 
thereof. 

Mr.  LETCHER.  What  good  will  that  resolution  do  ? 
The  committee  can  rise  at  any  time,  if  I  understand  the 
rule. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not,  if  there  be  a  standing  rule  of 
the  Convention  to  prevent  them. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  am  opposed  to  that  resolution  for  one 
of  the  best  reasons  in  the  world.  It  cuts  off  the  com- 
mittee from  all  power  of  extending  any  courtesy  to  its 
members.  It  prevents  them  from  rising  after  a  member 
has  become  exhausted  from  speaking,  and  unable  to 
proceed.  By  commencing  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning 
and  sitting  a  sufficient  number  of  hours,  and  them  taking 
a  recess  until  7  in  the  evening,  we  cannot  only  extend 
those  courtesies,  which  may  be  desirable,  to  members 
of  the  committee,  but  we  will  be  fresh  and  better  pre- 
pared to  discharge  our  duties. 

Mr.  CARLILE.  I  desire  to  inquire  if  a  motion  that 
the  committee  rise  would  not  be  in  order  at  any  time 
before  4  o'clock,  the  rule  proposed  to  be  adopted  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Unquestionably  ;  the  committee 
finding  itself  without  a  quorum,  and  in  a  condition  in 
which  it  could  not  go  on  with  its  business,  can  rise  at 
any  time  and  report  to  the  Convention,  and  the  Con- 
vention can  decide  whether  it  will  enforce  the  standing 
order  or  not. 


Mr.  BYRD.  I  do  not  concur  in  the  idea  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  that  the  adoption  of 
this  resolution  will  cut  off  gentlemen  from  the  means 
of  extending  the  usual  and  necessary  courtesy  in  debate. 
If  there  should  be  any  reason  why  debate  should  be 
suspended,  all  the  committee  would,  have  to  do,  would 
be  to  determine  to  pass  over  the  pending  subject  for  the 
present.  Then  there  are  other  subjects — one  now  un- 
finished before  the  committee,  which  might  be  taken  up 
and  considered.  What  would  prevent — according  this 
courtesy  when  desired,  and  passing  over  the  pending 
subjects,  and  taking  up  some  other  which  would  not  in- 
volve the  same  question  of  debate,  and  the  same  degree 
of  exertion  and  fatigue.  1  think,  therefore,  that  there 
is  nothing  in  his  idea  which  affords  any  argument  against 
the  adoption  of  this  resolution.  But  1  perceive  that  it 
will  have  the  effect,  in  some  measure,  of  curtailing  de- 
bate, and  that  is  the  object  most  desirable  in  this  body? 
situated  as  it  is,  and  afflicted  as  it  is  by  cacoethes  loquendi* 
There  is  another  consideration  which  induces  me  to  be- 
lieve that  it  will  economize  time,  and  facilitate  the 
labors  of  the  body,  and  at  the  same  time  prove  to  the 
country  that  we  are  striving  to  arrive  at  some  result. 
I  have  had  some  experience  in  the  Virginia  legislature^ 
and  I  have  seen  this  experiment  tried,  time  after  time, 
of  holding  evening  sessions,  and  the  consequence  was  to 
shorten  the  morning  sessions,  And  when  the  evening 
sessions  came,  it  was  productive  of  nothing  but  confu- 
sion whenever  there  was  debate  to  take  place.  I  agree 
with  the  gentleman  from  Powhatan  (Mr.  Hopkins)  ikat 
where  the  purpose  of  holding  an  evening  session  was 
to  read  bills,  then  time  was  saved  and  progress  made„ 
But  generally  when  debate  takes  place,  the  evening 
sessions,  so  far  from  saving  time,  resulted  in  a  loss  of 
time.  I  have,  therefore,  offered  this  resolution  in  good 
faith — not  because  I  desire  to  diminish  my  own  labor, 
or  the  number  of  hours  that  I  am  employed  here — not 
that  I  am  not  anxious  to  promote  the  businsss  of  the 
Convention,  and  economize  t;me,but  because  1  have  all 
these  objects  in  view,  and  think  the  best  way  to  pro- 
mote them  is  n  sone  degree  to  repress  the  spirit  of  this 
idle  discussion  which  we  have  here. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Frederick,  (Mr.  Byrd)  that  he  strike  out  from  his  reso- 
lution, the  words  "during  the  pending  discussion." 
Mr.  BYRD.  I  accept  that  amendment. 
Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  understand  the  President  to  say,, 
that  it  is  competent  for  the  committee  to  rise,  notwith- 
standing the  rule  when  there  is  no  quorum.  Do  I  un- 
derstand the  Chair  as  deciding  that  the  committee  can 
only  rise  when  there  is  no  quorum  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  sir.  The  Chair  gave  the 
opinion  in  answer  to  the  inquiry  that  it  is  competent  for 
the  committee  to  rise  and  present  themselyes  to  the 
Convention  whenever  a  majority  of  the  committee 
pleases.  A  member  may  die,  or  the  committee  may  be 
without  a  quorum— a  thousand  occurrences  may  arise 
which  may  make  it  advisable  for  the  committee  to  rise 
and  ask  the  Convention  to  relieve  them  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  continuance  of  the  session. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  precisely  what  I  supposed v 
and  that  obviates  the  great  objection  raised  by  my 
friend  from  Accomac.  If  any  contingency  shall  arise 
which  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee  may  make  it 
necessary  as  an  act  of  courtesy,  to  suspend  their  action, 
they  can  do  it.  The  object  of  the  resolution  is,,  to  have 
the- desire  of  the  Convention  deliberately  expressed r 
that  this  committee  should  sit  from  10  until  4  o'clock. 

Mr.  WISE.  This  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Frederick  (Mr.  Byrd)  stands  in  one  category  or  the 
other,  and  I  do  not  care  which.  Take  either  horn  of 
the  dilemma  you  please,  it  is  binding,  and  will  compel 
the  committee  to  sit  from  10  until  4  o'clock ;  and  then 
it  is  liable  to  the  objection  which  is  urged,  that  it  will- 
cut  off  the  ordinary  courtesies  of  debate  ;  or  it  is  not 
binding,  and  will  leave  us  precisely  where  we  are  now. 
That  is  the  effect  of  the  very  appropriate  decision  just 
made  by  the  President.  No  standing  order  can  pi  event 
the  committee  from  rising,  or  a  majority  of  the  Con- 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


vention  from  adjourning  whenever  they  please,  and  the 
consequence  will  be  that,  if  we  adopt  this  resolution, 
you  leave  us  precisely  where  we  are  now,  continuing 
in  session  to  from  three  to  four  hours  in  a  day.  Let  us 
now  determine  this  question  of  an  evening  session,  for 
it  is  one  of  work  or  no  work. 

Mr.  BYRD.  I  rise  because  I  feel  that  an  explana- 
tion is  due  to  the  Convention.  In  using  the  terms  idle 
and  endless  discussion,  I  did  not  refer  to  the  discussion 
on  the  basis.  That  is  an  important  subject  which  ought 
to  be  fully  discussed.  But  I  referred  to  the  disposition 
to  discuss  every  question,  whether  important  or  unim- 
portant. In  reply  to  the  new  ground  of  objection  taken 
by  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  that  this  proposition 
will  not  be  binding,  I  ask  him  whether  the  same  major- 
ity which  could  rescind  the  operation  of  this  resolution, 
will  not  also  rescind  the  operation  of  the  resolution  pro- 
viding for  the  holding  of  evening  sessions  ?  Is  not  the 
argument  ^against  one  equally  as  strong  against  the 
other  ? 

Mr.  BOTTS.  I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  by  in- 
serting at  the  end  of  it,  these  words:  "unless  they 
should  adjourn  at  an  earlier  hour."  [Laughter.]  lam 
entirely  opposed  to  evening  sessions,  whether  at  4,  or  7 
o'clock.  My  impression  is,  that  the  members  of  this 
body  who  come  here  at  10  o'clock,  and  devote  4  or  5 
hours  of  the  day  assiduously  to  the  labors  of  the  Con- 
vention, will  not  find  their  minds  in  a  situation  to  justify 
their  return  here  just  after  they  have  eaten  their  meals, 
to  engage  upon  the  same  subject  again.  This  looks  to 
me  as  if  there  was  a  good  deal  of  "Runcombe"in  it.  I 
am  altogether  opposed  to  tying  up  this  Convention  by  any 
fixed  rule,  to  do  that  which  will  be  found  inconvenient  or 
disagreeable  to  the  Convention.  I  am  in  favor  of  leav- 
ing this  Convention  free  to  act  from  day  to  day,  as  in 
their  judgment  at  the  time  the  question  is  propounded, 
they  shall  think  proper,  and  as  their  own  convenience! 
shall  dictate.  It  is  for  that  purpose  I  offer  my  amend-! 
merit  to  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  the  county  | 
of  Frederick  (Mr.  Byrd)  which  proposes  to  sit  here 
with  or  without  business,  until  4  o'clock.  I  am  willing 
to  say  we  sit  here  until  4  o'clock,  unless  the  Conven- 
tion chooses  to  adjourn  at  an  earlier  hour. 

Why,  I  am  altogether  behind  the  times.  I  came  here 
this  morning  with  a  desire  and  purpose  of  offering  a 
proposition  to  change  the  hour  of  meeting,  from  10  to 
II.  I  have  no  objection  when  you  have  commenced 
the  session  at  10  or  11,  to  sit  here  until  3  or  4,  or  if  cir- 
cumstances should  require  it  until  5  or  6.  It  would  not 
often  happen,  it  might  sometimes  happen,  that  it  would 
be  both  agreeable  and  convenient  to  sit  here  until  that 
time. 

But  we  ought  cot  to  impose  upon  ourselves  a  fixed 
rule  from  which  we  cannot  depart.  Will  we  not  be 
as  competent  on  Monday,  or  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  or 
any  other  day  of  the  week,  to  decide,  as  we  are  now, 
to  fix  the  time  of  adjournment.  I  do  trust  that  the 
Convention,  will  rely  somewhat  upon  their  own  discre- 
tion from  day  to  day,  and  not  fix  any  prescribed  rule  by 
which  we  will  be  forced  to  do  what  will  be  inconvenient, 
disagreeable,  or  a  useless  consumption  of  time,  not  de- 
voted to  the  public  interest.  I  would  prefer  to  lay  the 
whole  upon  the  table,  and  but  for  the  decided  vote 
given  a  while  ago  against  the  motion  for  indefinite  post- 
ponement, I  would  make  that  motion.  As  it  is,  I  will 
content  myself  at  present  with  the  amendment  I  have 
offered.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  LETCHER.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
that  motion. 

Several  MEMBERS.    Oh,  no!  Oh,  no! 

Mr.  LETCHER.    Well,  I  will  withdraw  the  call. 

Mr.  WISE.  I  will  renew  the  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays,  because  it  is  really  the  question  now  whether  we 
shall  or  shall  not  have  evening  sessions. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  BYRD.  I  move  to  amend  the  amendment  by 
adding  to  it,  "a  vote  of  two-thirds." 

Mr.  BOTTS.  1  raise  the  question  whether  it  is  in 
order  to  require  a  vote  of  two-thirds  to  adjourn.    Is  it 


not  a  fnndamental  rule  of  parliamentary  law,  that  a 
I  majority  can  adjourn  at  any  time  they  please? 

The  PRESID ENT.  It  is  competent  for  the  Conven- 
to  adopt  any  rule  for  its  government  which  it  may 
choose. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  The  day  is  very  far  advanced  and 
it  will  not  be  doing  justice  to  the  gentleman  entitled  to 
the  floor  to-day,  if  this  question  is  not  decided  at  once. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Byrd,  and  it  was  rejected. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Botts  was  then  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  feel  reluctant  to  take  any  course 
that  may  prevent  the  Convention  from  coming  to  a  de- 
cision on  this  question  at  this  time,  but  really  I  feel  that 
some  injustice  is  likely  to  be  done  to  my  colleague  who 
is  entitled  to  the  floor  to-day,  unless  this  question  shall 
at  once  be  disposed  of,  and  if  the  vote  cannot  be  taken 
at  once,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  move  to  lay  this  sub- 
ject on  the  table. 

Mr.  BYRD,  of  Frederick.  I  merely  desire  to  say 
that  I  offered  my  amendment  in  good  faith,  and  not  with 
any  view  of  defeating  the  holding  of  evening  sessions. 
The  effect  of  the  amendment,  however,  adopted  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Henrico  (Mr.  Botts) 
will,  in  my  opinion,  much  impair  its  value,  [laughter] 
but  poor  as  it  has  become  in  his  hands,  I  shall  vote  for 
it  in  preference  to  the  proposition  for  which  it  is  offered 
as  a  substitute. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  substitute  of  Mr. 
Byrd,  as  amended  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Botts,  and 
there  were  yeas  33,  nays  65,  as  follows  : 

Yeas. — Messrs.  Banks,  Barbour,  Blue,  Bocock,  Botts, 
Braxton,  Byrd  of  Frederick,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cox, 
Douglas,  Edwards,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Goode,  Jones, 
Leake,  Lyons,  Meredith,  Miller,  Petty,  Price,  Rives, 
Scoggin,  Sheffey,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  of  Green- 
brier, Southall,  Stanard,  Stewart  of  Morgan,  Wallace, 
Watts  of  Norfolk  county,  Watts  of  Roanoke— 33. 

Nays. — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (President,)  Anderson, 
Armstrong,  Bland,  Bowles,  Brown,  Camden,  Caperton, 
Carlile,  Carter  of  Russell,  Carter  of  Loudoun,  Cham- 
bers, Conway,  Cook,  Davis,  Edmunds,  Faulkner  Flood, 
Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  M.  Garnett,  Hall, 
Hays,  Hoge,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Jacob,  Johnson,  Ken- 
ney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher,  Ligon,  Lucas,  McCa- 
mant,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry,  Moore, 
Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton,  PurkihS,  Scott  ot 
Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Scott  of  Richmond  city, 
Seymour,  Shell,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Kanawha,  Smith  of 
King  &  Queen,  Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Stephenson,  Stuart 
of  Patrick,  Summers,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Trigg,  Turn- 
bull,  VanWinkle,  Wingfield,  Wise— 65. 

So  the  substitute  was  rejected. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  original  resolution 
as  amended. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken,  there  were  yeas  57,  nay? 
42,  as  follows  : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Anderson,  Bland,  Bocock,  Bowles, 
Brown,  Camden,  Caperton,  Carlile,  Carter  of  Russell, 
Carter  of  Loudoun,  Chambers,  Conway,  Cook,  Edmunds. 
Faulkner,  Flood,  Floyd,  Fulkerson,  Fultz,  Gaily,  M. 
Garnett,  Hall,  Hays,  Hill,  Hoge,  Hunter,  Jacob,  John  ■ 
son,  Kenney,  Kilgore,  Knote,  Letcher,  Ligon,  Lucas, 
McCamant,  Martin  of  Marshall,  Martin  of  Henry, 
Moore,  Morris,  Murphy,  Neeson,  Pendleton,  Purkins, 
Scott  of  Caroline,  Scott  of  Fauquier,  Shell,  Smith  o' 
King  &  Queen,  Snodgrass,  Snowden,  Stephenson  , 
Stuart  of  Patrick,  Taylor,  Tredway,  Trigg,  TurnbuH , 
Wingfield  and  Wise— 57. 

Nays — Messrs.  John  Y.  Mason,  (Pres't,)  Armstrong, 
Banks,  Barbour,  Bird  of  Shenandoah,  Blue,  Botts, 
Braxton,  Byrd  of  Frederick,  Chapman,  Chilton,  Cox, 
Davis,  Douglas,  Edwards,  Fuqua,  Garland,  Goode, 
Hopkins,  Jones,  Leake,  Lyons,  Meredith,  Miller,  Petty* 
Price,  Rives,  Scoggin,  Scott  of  Richmond  city,  Sey- 
mour, Sheffey,  Sloan,  Smith  of  Jackson,  Smith  oi 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVECTION. 


503 


Greenbrier,  Southall,  Stanard,  Stewart  of  Morgan, 
Summers,  Van  Winkle,  Wallace,  Watts  of  Norfolk 
county  and  Watts  of  Roanoke — 42. 

So  the  Convention  agreed  to  hold  evening  sessions  on 
and  after  Monday  next,  commencing  at  7  o'clock. 

THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

The  Convention  then  resumed  the  consideration  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  Miller  in  the  Chair,  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Basis  and  Apportion- 
ment of  Representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  propo 
sition  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Fauquier. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  owe  my  acknowledgements  to  the 
committee  for  the  courtesy,  they  extended  to  me  yes- 
terday. During  my  long  practice  in  public  speaking,  I 
believe  it  is  the  first  instance  in  which  my  strength  has 
failed.  Had  I  known  the  feebleness  of  my  health,  1 
should  not  have  taken  the  floor.  I  was  not  aware  of 
the  physical  debility  under  which  I  was  laboring,  and 
feeling  to-day  very  little  improved,  I  shall  be  constrain- 
ed to  omit  much  of  what  I  had  intended  to  say. 

On  yesterday,  from  what  had  transpired  in  this  house, 
I  thought  the  issue  had  been  fairly  made  here  between 
the  East  and  the  West,  and  that  the  issue  had  been 
tendered  by  the  East,  whether  they  were  wise  rulers 
or  not.  1  attempted  to  meet  that  issue,  and  to  meet 
it  fairly  with  truth,  and  not  with  declamation,  and  I  at- 
tempted to  meet  it  with  all  proper  respect  to  my  east- 
ern friends.  I  announced  in  the  beginning  that  I  had 
no  purpose  of  assailing  any  single  individual  on  this 
floor.  But  the  principles  avowed  and  maintained  by 
them  here,  I  meant  to  meet  and  to  assail,  and  when  1 
did  it,  I  intended  to  do  it  directly,  and  with  the  force 
of  truth. 

1  feel  myself  bound,  on  this  occasion,  to  notice  the 
remarks  made  by  my  friend  from  Richmond,  (Mr.  Ly- 
ons) this  morning.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  designed 
to  be  a  lecture  to  me.  I  will  not  charge  it  as  intended 
for  a  lecture,  but  I  will  say  candidly,  I  was  surprised 
to  hear  him  make  the  remarks  which  he  did,  in  relation 
to  what  I  had  said  on  yesterday. 

Mr.  LYONS.  It  never  occurred  to  me  to  offer  him 
or  any  other  gentleman,  certainly,  a  lecture  personally. 
What  I  did  say,  was  not  intended  in  any  unkind  spirit 
to  him,  but  I  said  what  I  really  thought,  that  I  heard 
with  great  regret  denunciation  coming  from  him,  the 
very  last  member  from  whom  I  should  have  expected 
it,  and  that  I  felt  very  much  wounded  by  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  1  owe  it  to  myself  as  well  as  to  other 
gentlemen,  to  put  myself  right  as  to  what  I  did  say. 
That  gentleman  entirely  misunderstood  my  remarks.  I 
never  did  declare,  in  the  language  of  that  gentleman, 
that  the  East  had  wilfully  adopted  a  system  of  law  thai 
was  to  oppress  the  West.  That  was  not  the  issue  which 
we  were  trying.  The  question  was,  were  they  wise 
and  competent  rulers  ?  Had  they  administered  this  gov- 
ernment wisely?  I  then  stated,  when  I  spoke  of  the 
system  of  land-law,  that  I  did  not  charge  it  to  their 
wilfulness,  but  I  charged  it  to  their  neglect — to  their 
incompetence.  I  never  charged  it  to  any  wilfulness  in 
any  respect.  My  deduction,  from  facts  and  history,  is 
legitimate,  and  its  propriety  is  obvious  from  the  course 
which  eastern  gentlemen  have  pursued  in  this  house. 
Now,  whi'e  they  put  me  at  the  foot  of  the  platform — 
they  standing  at  the  top  of  it — I  wish  to  work  my  way 
up,  and  stand  at  least  on  as  high  a  platform  as  they  do, 
and  where  I  think  we  do  stand,  so  far  as  practical  skill 
in  legislation  is  concerned.  I  think  I  may  safely  say  I 
have  vindicated  my  country  so  far  as  to  place  them,  at 
least,  on  as  elevated  a  position  as  the  East  now  occupy, 
or  ever  did  occupy.  I  never  sought  to  elevate  my  coun- 
try above  them  ;  but  here  I  stand  as  the  representative 
of  the  West,  struggling  to  maintain  my  equality  with 
them,  and  am  I  to  be  charged  with  throwing  firebands 
into  this  house,  when  I  come  to  vindicate  my  equality? 
Is  my  voice  to  be  stifled  here  ?  Is  the  voice  of  the  West 
to  be  stifled?  And  are  gentlemen  to  be  astonished,  if, 
when  they  make  the  issue,  and  tender  the  glove,  that 


we  should  pick  it  up  ?  Surely  not.  I  see  no  sort  of 
ground  for  exception  to  anything  that  I  have  said,  un- 
less it  is  untrue.  Meet  the  truth  of  my  arguments,  and 
the  facts  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  do  not  confine 
yourselves  to  rebuking  the  spirit  with  which  they  are 
expressed.  I  am  very  little  inclined,  at  any  time,  to 
indulge  in  poetry,  but  there  is  a  little  scrap  of  a  song 
that  1  have  recently  learned,  and  learned  from  the  fair 
lips  of  a  lady,  which  I  will  quote  for  the  benefit  of  my 
friend  from  Richmond,  and  one  of  those  who  stand  in 
the  same  category  with  him  ; 

"  There  is  none  ever  feared 
That  the  truth  should  be  heard 
But  those  whom  the  truth  would  indict." 
They  are  the  parties  who  feared,  and  if  the  truth 
here  has  indicted  them,  they  must  bear  it.  We  from 
the  West  intend  to  stand  to  the  truth,  and  maintain  the 
truth.  If  it  be  in  bad  taste — if  it  be  rude,  charge  it 
to  the  rudeness  of  our  mountain  character.  There  is  as 
strong  a  sense  of  freedom  in  the  rude  sons  of  the  mount- 
ain as  there  is  in  the  more  polished  sons  of  the  East. 
It  is  as  pure  and  holy  as  that  to  be  found  in  any  coun- 
try, and  freemen  will  speak  whenever  their  freedom  is 
assailed  from  any  quarter.  Gentlemen  will  find  no 
violence  from  the  West,  but  they  will  find  determination 
— they  will  find  decision — they  will  find  that  the  West 
know  their  rights,  and  that  they  will  dare  to  maintain 
them.  I  offer  no  threat,  and  I  hope  gentlemen  will  not 
take  the  free  and  independent  language  which  I  use,  as 
intended  for  a  threat  to  them.  We  mean  what  we  say — 
take  it  for  threat  or  what  you  will — it  is  what  we  in- 
tend. 

I  have  thought  it  proper  to  notice  so  much  of  what 
has  been  said  this  morning,  although  it  is  rather  out  of 
the  order  of  discussion  which  I  had  proposed  to  pursue. 

When  the  Convention  adjourned  yesterday,  we  were 
engaged  in  discussing  the  question  of  guarantees.  V'  e 
were  inquiring  whether  there  was  nothing  due  to  the 
West  on  that  subject.  And,  as  I  stated,  although  it 
may  not  sound  kindly  upon  the  ears  of  eastern  gentle- 
men, we  intend  to  use  all  that  is  legitimate  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question,  and  let  the  consequences  take 
care  of  themselves.  We  intend  to  defend  our  rights  as 
they  are.  Gentlemen  say  we  have  nothing  to  fear — 
that  they  are  going  to  administer  the  government  fairly 
and  properly.  Now,  there  are  some  questions  of  inter- 
est even  in  this  slave  question,  in  which  we  are  deeply 
ccncerned,  to  which  no  gentleman  has  alluded.  Let 
me  call  the  attention  of  the  house  to  the  state  of  things 
that  exists  in  the  country  now.  It  is  apparent  that  the 
West  is  increasing  in  wealth  most  rapidly,  and  that  the 
day  is  not  very  distant  when  that  West  may  be  the  chief 
source  of  State  revenue. 

There  is  another  thing  apparent,  and  that  is  that  you 
are  overstocked  with  that  peculiar  property  which  you 
are  eager  to  sustain  and  cherish.  Nothing  in  the  world 
protects  you  from  more  rapid  decay  by  means  of  that 
property,  but  the  fact  that  there  is  a  south-western  out- 
let for  it,  and  when  that  outlet  ceases,  that  property 
will  accumulate  to  the  destruction  of  the  owner,  and, 
therefore,  some  measure  must  be  adopted  to  relieve  the 
East  of  that  property.  This  is  not  an  idea  of  my  own. 
I  can  quote  you  the"  authority  of  divers  distinguished 
patriarchs  of  Virginia,  who  l  ave  entertained  the  same 
opinion.  I  may  call  your  attention  to  George  Mason, 
Thomas  Jefferson,  and  others,  who  have  maintained 
that  same  proposition,  and  the  fact  only  has  to  be  look- 
ed at  to  see  its  truth.  The  State  of  Texas  now,  alone, 
is  to  be  supplied  with  that  property.  When  that  terri- 
tory is  filled,  where  is  there  an  outlet  for  it?  And 
when  you  cease  to  have  that  outlet  for  this  property, 
what,  I  ask,  is  to  be  the  consequence  to  this  country  ? 
Indeed,  it  is  a  question  that  statesmen  in  early  times 
have  looked  to.  It  is  one  that  statesmen  now  may  be- 
gin to  look  to,  and  the  time  will  come,  and  it  may  be 
before  the  lapse  of  twenty-five  years,  when  there  will 
be  an  effort  even  by  you,  to  take  measures  to  relieve 
yourselves  from  that  very  property  that  will  then  be- 


504 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION. 


come  a  burthen  to  you.  I  look,  as  a  citizen  of  Virginia, 
to  the  coast  of  Africa  as  the  place  to  drain  the  country 
of  this  superabundance  of  that  property.  The  time 
may  not  be  distant  when  measures  will  be  compulsory 
upon  the  State  to  remove  that  very  property  for  the 
security,  safety  and  happiness  of  the  white  population. 
And  when  that  time  shall  come,  do  you  propose  to  bear 
that  burden?  May  not  the  West  be  required  to  bear 
her  portion  of  that  burden  which  may  be  necessary  to 
relieve  you  ? 

Why,  even  at  this  day,  I  believe  there  is  a  statute  now 
existing,  appropriating  $30,000  for  that  purpose.  We 
do  not  complain  of  it  ;  you  never  heard  a  western  man 
complain  of  it.    It  has  always  been  the  policy  of  west- 
ern men  to  allow  the  East  to  legislate  upon  this  subject 
as  to  her  may  seem  best.    Should  the  time  arrive  when 
thirty,  fifty,  or  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  per  annum, 
and  more,  may  be  required  to  carry  off  this  surplus 
population  from  the  State  of  Virginia,  may  not  we  with 
all  our  increasing  taxes,  be  called  upon  to  furnish  our 
proportion  of  that  fund  ?  Do  we  ask  guarantees  against 
such  almost  certain  taxation?     The  gentleman  from 
Richmond  said  he  did  not  charge  it  upon  us  as  a  fact, 
that  we  would  tax  the  negroes  and  carry  the  money 
to  the  West,  but  he  said  the  power  was  given  us  to 
do  so.  We  might  do  it,  and  that  was  sufficient  for  him. 
May  not  that  argument  apply  here  ?  May  you  not  do  it  ? 
You  have  done  it  and  we  have  not  complained  ;  and  you 
will  do  it,  to  an  infinitely  greater  extent  than  it  has 
been  done,  yet  we  do  not  complain.    Whatever  you 
may  do  and  may  require  as  essential  to  your  safety,  we 
accord  to  you,  and  never  have  resisted  in  the  slightest 
degree,  and  never  will  resist  it.    Again,  we  say,  that 
the  larger  portion  of  the  public  expenditure  already 
incurred,  has  been  applied  to  the  improvements  of  the 
East.    The  West,  which,  as  I  undertook  to  show  yes- 
terday, you  are  bound  to  improve,  has  been  neglected 
almos't  entirely.    She  has  not  received  her  just  propor- 
tions of  the  fund  paid.    But  has  the  amount  expended 
been  paid  ?    Have  you  raised  by  taxation  all  the  money 
that  has  been  expended  in  making  these  improvements  ? 
You  have  not.    Where  is  it  ?    Do  you  not  hear  it  on  all 
hands  spoken  of  as  a  funded  debt  now  existing  against 
the  State.    You  have  not  paid  it.    It  is  still  existing, 
and  who  is  to  pay  it,  and  when  is  it  to  be  paid?    I  ask 
you  when  is  it  to  be  paid?    When  that  time  arrives,  I 
think  it  most  probable  that  the  greater  portion  of  that 
fund  will  be  paid  out  of  western  pockets.    And  if  you 
make  the  improvements  you  now  contemplate,  will  you 
raise  the  money  directly  from  a  tax  upon  the  people, 
and  expend  it  as  it  is  raised,  in  making  th°m  ?    No,  you 
borrow  the  money,  and  you  mortgage  the  lands  of  the 
West,  as  well  as  of  the  East,  to  indemnify  the  lender. 
And  when  is  that  to  be  paid  ?    Why  of  course  we  will 
get  it  upon  as  long  a  time  as  we  can,  and  when  it  comes 
to  be  paid,  we  of  the  West  must  pay  our  portion  of  that 
debt.    These  facts,  and  the  history  of  our  growth  and 
increase  in  wealth  and  population,  justify  me  in  say- 
ing that  we  will  have  to  pay  a  full  proportion  of  the  ex- 
isting debt — yet  are  we  complaining  that  you  are  ex- 
pending the  borrowed  money  of  the  State,  in  improving 
your  own  country?    It  is  true  you  have  made  us  a  few 
dirt  roads,  equal  to  thrse  or  four  miles  of  railroad. 
There  has  always  been  a  sort  of  compact  between  the 
log-rollers  of  the  two  sections,  and  our  western  friends 
were  satisfied  with  small  favors.    Give  me  $50,000  for 
the  dirt  roads  of  the  West,  and  we  will  give  you  $500,C0'i 
for  railroads.    That  has  been  the  sort  of  log-rolling 
jou  have  had.    You  complain  of  it  ;  but  I  tell  gentle- 
men here  that,  in  all  these  log-rollings  we  had  the  big 
end  of  the  log.  [Laughter.]    The  West  have  generally 
been  put  off  with  a  mud  turnpike.    The  only  railroad 
that  they  have  ever  given  us,  is  the  little  one  from 
Harper's  Ferry;  my  friend  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lu- 
cas) can  tell  us  all  about  that.    It  is  a  little  road,  I  be- 
lieve, extending  through  from  Harper's  Ferry  to  Win- 
chester.   We  are  trying  to  get  the  central  road  through, 
but  I  believe  you  are  determined  to  block  up  the  tun- 
nel through  the  Blue  Ridge.    All  this  money,  I  say, 


that  is  borrowed  and  is  so  expended ,  may  have  to  be  paid 
by  the  West.  Well,  we  do  not  complain  of  it ;  it  is 
right.  But  do  not  raise  the  hue  and  cry  against  the 
West,  because,  perchance  she  may  borrow  a  little 
money  to  improve  the  West,  and  pay  it  too.  She  will 
have  to  pay  for  you,  as  well  as  for  that  which  is  ex- 
pended in  the  West.  Yet,  gentlemen  say  they  pay  all 
now,  and  will  be  compelled  to  do  so  for  the  future,  and 
that  our  paper  guarantees  are  of  no  value. 

I  intend  to  hasten  on  as  rapidly  as  I  can,  for  I  can 
scarcely  speak  ;  I  desire,  notwithstanding  the  state  of 
my  health  and  the  hoarseness  of  my  voice,  if  practica- 
ble, to  continue  my  remarks. 

A  MEMBER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for  a 
motion  to  rise  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Kanawha.  If  I  were  to  consult  my 
own  wishes,  1  would  give  way,  but  I  cannot  ask  such 
indulgence  from  this  committee.  It  would  be  asking 
too  much  ;  they  have  indulged  me  already  as  far  as  I 
had  a  right  to  expect,  but  my  voice  is  such  that  I  can 
scarcely  proceed. 

Mr.  LYONS.  I  would  make  this  suggestion  to  the 
gentleman.  As  he  is  not  in  a  condition  to  discuss  the 
subject,  I  would  suggest  that  he  give  way  to  a  resolu- 
tion that  the  committee  rise.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  some  gentleman  go  on,  but  if  we  are  to  give  him  a 
real  benefit,  we  must  indulge  him  so  far  as  to  let  him 
keep  the  floor.  We  can  adjourn  till  Monday  morning, 
and  he  may  continue  on  the  floor.  I  would  move,  there- 
fore, with  the  consent  of  the  gentleman,  that  the  com- 
mittee rise. 

Mr.  PRICE.  My  colleague  will  be  perfectly  willing 
to  yield  the  floor  to  any  gentleman  who  may  be  prepar- 
ed to  address  the  committee.  If  there  is  any  gentleman 
prepared  to  do  so,  he  can  now  take  the  floor,  and  my 
colleague  can  reserve  himself  the  privilege  of  com- 
pleting his  speech  on  Monday,  or  some  other  day. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  hope  some  other  gentleman  is  pre- 
pared to  continue  the  discussion,  either  for  the  East  or 
West.  There  is  a  gentleman  in  my  eye  now  who  will 
go  on  I  have  no  doubt. 

Mr.  BYRD,  of  Frederick.  It  is  my  purpose,  and  my 
desire  to  address  the  committee  briefly  upon  the  sub- 
ject now  under  consideration,  but  not  anticipating  that 
an  opportunity  would  have  been  afforded  me  to  do  so  to- 
day, inasmuch  as  the  floor  was  pre-occupied  by  a  west- 
ern gentleman,  and  supposing  that  the  regular  course 
of  debate,  alternating  between  eastern  and  western 
gentlemen  would  continue,  I  have  not  come  here  with 
the  requisite  documents  from  which  I  intended  to  cite. 
I  therefore  express  the  hope  that  some  eastern  gentle- 
man will  take  the  floor.  It  would  be  far  more  agreeable 
to  me  to  follow  some  eastern  gentleman  than  to  follow 
immediately  in  the  wake  of  a  western  gentleman.  I 
feel  too  that  not  having  anticipated  being  called  upon 
to  occupy  the  position  of  addiessing  this  house  to-day, 
I  should  labor  under  great  disadvantage.  I  should  not 
shrink  from  making  the  effort  now,  were  it  not  for  the 
circumstances  to  which  I  have  referred.  I  hope  the 
committee  will  not  rise  yet,  for  it  is  only  a  little  after 
one  o'clock,  and  it  is  out  of  the  question  to  adjourn  day 
after  day  at  this  early  hour. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  motion  to  rise  was 
agreed  to. 

The  committee  accordingly  rose  and  reported. 

PAYMENT  OF  AN  ACCOUNT. 

Mr.  M.  GARNETT.  I  am  instructed  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Accounts,  to  report  the  following  resolution, 
although  I  do  not  myself  endorse  it  by  any  means. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  cer- 
tify  for  payment  the  account  of  H.  Regnault,  amount- 
ing to  the  sum  of  $342  82,  for  materials  furnished  and 
the  work  done  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 

There  was  some  conversation  as  to  the  propriety  of 
the  account,  when, 

Mr.  LETCHER  moved  the  re-commitment  of  the 
matter  to  the  committee,  as  he  was  not  satisfied  to  pay 
the  amount. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HUGH  ¥.  SHEFFEY,  ESQ.,  OF  AUGUSTA, 


IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE 


THE  BASIS  QUESTION, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE 


VIRGINIA    REFORM  CONVENTION, 


TUESDA  Y,  FEBR  UAR  Y 18,  WEDNESDA  Y,  FEBR  UAR  Y 19,  THURSDA  Y,  FEBR  UAR  Y  20. 


RICHMOND,  YA. : 
PRINTED  BY  R.  H.  GALLAHER, 


1S;A. 


SPEECH. 


TUESDAY,  February  18,  1851. 


Mr.  SHEFFEY  said:— 

Mr.  Chairman.  I  confess  that,  so  far  as  I  am  per- 
sonally concerned,  this  debate  is,  to  some  extent,  forced 
upon  me.  I  do  not  deny  that  I  have  given  some  atten- 
tion to  the  great  principles  involved  in  this  question,  or 
that  I  have  investigated  the  facts  connected  with  it. 
I  acknowledge,  however,  that  the  documents  on  which 
I  wish  to  rely  are  not,  at  present,  at  my  command. 
"Not  expecting  that  the  debate,  on  the  part  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  were  to  begin  the  discussion,  would  be 
concluded  to-day,  I  did  not  come  armed  with  those 
facts  to  which  I  wish  to  refer.  But  I  can  make  a  few 
remarks  in  reply  to  some  of  those  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Greenville,  (Mr.  Chambliss.)  That 
gentleman  and  myself  differ  toto  ccelo,  in  respect  to  the 
great  starting  point  of  his  argument — of  all  argument 
on  this  subject ;  that  is,  that  in  this  great  machinery 
of  government — this  science  in  which  are  involved  all 
the  dearest  rights  and  privileges  of  men,  there  are  no 
principles — there  is  nothing  to  begin  an  argument  with  ; 
that  in  framing  the  organic  law  we  are  to  look  to  no 
fundamental  principles  of  government ;  that  our  fathers 
were  all  wrong  in  declaring  certain  rights  to  be  "the 
basis  and  foundation  of  government."'  That  these  are 
mere  abstractions — a  succession  of  empty  abstractions 
I  have  not  so  learned  the  theory  of  government. 

There  was  one  .principle  conceded  here  a  few  days  ago, 
though  all  others  Avere  denied,  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier,  (  Mr.  Chilton) — one  staple  left  on  which  to 
hang  the  frame-work  of  government.  It  was,  that  all 
power  rightfully  resides  in  the  people,  and  that  when- 
ever it  is  exercised  by  any  other  than  the  people,  it  is 
still  considered  their  power,  and  legitimately  derived 
from  them.  Yes,  sir7  it  belongs  to,  and  comes  from, 
the  people.  And  who  are  the  people ?  The  people, 
it  is  said  by  some-, ,are  a  combination  of  sentient,  intel- 
ligent, responsible,  and  immortal  beings,  and — money. 
[Laughter.]  I  am  foolish  enough  to  believe  that  the 
people  are  a  community  of  men,  with  responsibilities 
to  themselves,  to  each  other  and  to  God;  that  a  free 
people  has  a  high  and  holy  mission  confided  to  them, 
and  that  their  destiny  will  be  noble  and  exalted  if  they 
faithfully  observe  the  laws  of  their  intellectual  and 
moral  being  !  The  power  derived  from  the  people  is 
to  be  exercised  for  their  benefit  ;  but  the  gentleman 
from  Greensville  says  it  is  to  be  exercised  for  the  ben- 
fit  of  men  and  money,  and  that  in  the  declaration  of 
independence,  and  in  our  bill  of  rights,  the  rights  of 
property  stand  side  by  side  with  the  rights  of  persons. 
He  says  the  laws  are  made  rather  to  protect  property 
than  persons — that  the  courts  of  justice  and  the  exec- 
utive are  established  rather  to  expound  and  enforce 
laws  concerning  property  than  persons.  In  this  argu- 
ment lies  the  radical  error  of  the  gentleman  :  it  is  in 
supposing  that  by  our  laws  property  is  regarded  as  a 
being  that  has  a  right  to  speak,  to  litigate  its  interests 
in  our  courts,  and  to  demand  for  itself  the  execution 
of  the  laws.  Property  is  no  separate  subject  or  source 
of  government  ;  the  right  to  hold  it  is  a  mere  personal 
right,  just  as  the  right  to  life  and  liberty.  One  great 
cause  of  this  assumption  of  power  for  property  origin- 
ates, perhaps,  in  the  distinction  made  by  Blackstone 
and  others  between  the  rights  of  persons  and  the  rights 
of  things.  All  rights  that  appertain  to  men,  as  mem- 
bers of  a  community,  are  personal  rights,  and  there  is 


the  Hghts  of  persons.  In  the  convention  of  1829-- '30, 
there  was  an  eloquent  man  who  came  from  the  county 
of  Northampton — I  refer  to  Mr.  Upshur — who,  in  a 
speech  that  reflected  immortal  honor  on  his  intellect — 
immortal  credit  on  his  ingenuity — spoke  of  this  matter 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  mystify  the  thoughts  of  the 
great  men  who  were  around  him.  But  what  did  he 
say?  He  admitted  that  property  was  a  creature  of 
society,  but  argued  to  show  that  "a  feeling  of  prop- 
erty" led  to  the  formation  of  society.  If  we  can  go 
back  to  those  dark  periods  of  the  past,  when  it  may 
be  supposed  man  was  in  a  state  of  nature,  I  would  ask 
what  probably  prompted  him  to  cease  roaming  over 
the  plains,  or  meeting  his  fellows,  by  chance,  in  the 
forest,  to  form  a  social  compact?  It  would  seem  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  it  was  to  preserve  rights  which 
man  understood — the  value  of  which  he  realized. 
What  were  they?  The  answer  is — the  right  to  life, 
the  right  to  liberty— to  use  his  limbs  and  body  accord- 
ing to  his  pleasure.  These  are  clearly  natural  rights, 
and  to  preserve  them  intact,  it  would  seem,  men  were 
led — if*  they  ever  were  in  a  state  of  nature — to  form 
the  social  compact.  Feeling  the  danger  to  life,  with 
regard  to  which  there  is  an  instinctive  and  innate  sense 
of  apprehension,  the  danger  to  liberty — an  impulsive, 
restless  love  of  which — a  love — a  passion  that  starts  in- 
stinctively from  every  human  heart,  men  would  band  to- 
gether to  protect  themselves  against  the  law  of  force,  of 
which  the  gentleman  spoke  awhile  ago — from  the  as- 
saults of  the  strong  against  the  weak,  from  attempts 
to  destroy  life,  to  curtail  liberty,  and  to  enslave 
the  bo'dy.  Self-preservation  was  the  first  impulse 
to  society  ;  a  spontaneous  impulse  to  protect  clear- 
ly appreciated  rights-,  led  men  to  combine,  that 
those  who  were  separately  weak,  and  a  prey  to  vio- 
lence, might,  by  union,  become  strong  to  resist  the 
ruthless  and  the  violent.  Out  of  such  an  association 
sprung  the  concession  that  he  who  should  expend  his 
labor  on  any  work  should  have  the  right  to  claim,  and 
the  privilege  of  using  it  as  his  own,  by  separate  title. 
Prior  to  this,  all  property  was  held  in  common,  as  na- 
ture gave  the  means  of  sustenance  to  man.  This  right 
to  separate  property  was  a  concession  of  society,  al- 
ready formed,  to  its  individual  members.  How,  then, 
is  property — to  use  the  idea  of  Mr.  Upshur — the  off- 
spring, the  creature  of  society  ?  And  now  what  is  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Greenville  ?  (Mr. 
Chambliss.)  Why,  that  the  creature  shall  become  the 
ruler  of  the  creator — that  property,  instead  of  being 
an  interest,  recognized,  protected,  and  allowed,  by  the 
consent  of  society,  shall  have  power  to  countervail 
that  consent  in  respect  to  life  and  liberty— to  control 
the  original  purposes  that  brought  it  into  being.  The 
doctrine  that  property  ought  to  have  power  to  control 
government,  cannot  be  said  to  find  its  origin  either  in 
nature  or  in  the  original  institution  of  society.  But  I 
did  not  design  to  speak  on  these  abstract  questions.  I 
may  refer  to  them  to-morrow.  My  chief  purpose, 
indeed,  is  to  address  to  this  committee  arguments 
founded  on  facts.  Taking  the  principle,  which  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  will  concede,  that  if  we,  as  a 
people  be  homogenous,  and  possess  identity  of  inter- 
ests, representation  should  be  so  based  as  to  give  equal 
power  to  equal  numbers  of  voters — I  wish  to  show 
that  we  may  safely  and  properly  adopt  the  suffrage 


no  such  thing  as  a  right  of  property  independent  of  \  basis.    I  desire  to  prove,  by  the  statistics  that  have 


4 


been  laid  before  us,  what  will  be  the  legitimate  effect 
of  the  principle  that  representation  should  be  appor- 
tioned according  to  the  number  of  qualified  voters.  I 
wish  to  satisfy  my  friend  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott) 
that  if  this  principle  be  carried  out — the  principle  of 
equality,  not  only  in  regard  to  suffrage,  but  represent- 
ation— his  apprehensions  of  danger  are  wholly  unfound- 
ed ;  and  that  if  there  is  to  be  any  plundering — if 
there  is  to  be  any  marauding — if  there  is  to  be  any 
foray  from  the  mountains  down  on  the  lowlands,  (as  in 
former  times  was  the  case  in  Scotland,)  the  lowlanders 
themselves  must  invite  the  foray — must  open  the  way 
for  the  incursion.  And  I  will  endeavor  to  show  that 
my  friend  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has,  in  days 
gone  by,  been  heard  sounding  the  bugle  charge,  at  the 
head  of  the  mountaineers,  in  their  rush  to  plunder  the 
treasury.  [Laughter.]  I  wish,  also,  to  intimate  to 
tide  water  that  she  has,  perhaps,  as  much  to  fear  from 
the  Piedmont  district  as  from  the  valley  and  the  west. 
I  wish  to  show  that,  if  oppressions  are  anticipated, 
they  have  already  been  inflicted,  and  that  if  tide  wa- 
ter has  any  right  to  complain  of  burdens  on  its  purse  , 
those  complaints  must  be  directed  against  the  Pied- 
montese  as  well  as  western  men. 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  would  ask  my  friend  from  Augusta 
if  it  would  not  be  more  agreeable  to  him  to  move  that 
the  committee  rise.  He  has  stated  that  his  documents 
are  not  here  

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    It  would,  perhaps-,  be  better. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  PRICE,  the  committee  rose. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  19,  1851. 

MivSHEFFEY.  I  trust  I  shall  be  pardoned  if  I  repeat 
to-day  some  things  uttered  my  me  in  the  desultory  re- 
marks I  submitted  to  the  committee  on  yesterday.  And 
now,  permitme  to  say,  that  I  approach  again  the  discus- 
sion of  the  question  under  consideration,  with  unaffected 
distrust  of  my  own  ability  to  cope  with  the  momentous 
issue  it  presents.  It  is  indeed  a  great  question,  profound- 
ly interesting  to  all  portions  of  the  Commonwealth  ;  aff- 
ecting the  hearts  of  the  people  ;  and  stirring  in  their 
lowest  depths  the  feelings  and  prejudices  of  our  consti- 
tuents. I  tremble  lest  I  be  unable  to  rise  tcs  the  summit 
of  the  lofty  theme.  I  shall  be  sustained,  however,  by 
two  considerations  which,  I  trust,  will  give  me  power 
to  discharge  my  duty — the  first  .is,  that  with  ail  my 
heart,  I  believe  in  the  virtue  of  the  cause  and  in  the 
truth  of  the  principles  I  advocate  ;  and  the  second,  is 
generous  freemen  whom  I  represent.  It  is  no  new- 
born zeal  for  the  principle  of  equality  which  animates 
my  constituents,  and  I  will  add,  it  is  no  selfish  feeling 
that  prompts  them  to  demand  for  themselves  and  their 
brethren  of  the  West  an  equal  participation  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Commonwealth.  The  district  from 
which  I  came  contains  a  white  population  ©f  34,309  ;  a 
slave  population  of  9617  ;  and  pays  annually  into  the 
treasury  $ 21, 898.  My  constituents  are  no  seekers  af- 
ter mere  power  ;  they  are  no  mendicants  praying  for  a 
higher  rank  in  the  sisterhood  of  counties.  Whatever  be 
the  decision  of  this  question,  their  political  power  will 
not  be  diminished.  May  I  not  be  justly  proud  of  the 
position  I  am  permitted  to  occupy,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  a  people  abounding  in  all  the  elements  of  pros- 
perity, and  contending  for  a  great  principle  with  no  in- 
terest to  be  prompted  by  the  result  ?  The  gentleman 
from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has  ventured  to  declare 
that  if  the  suffrage  basis  be  adopted,  the  door  now 
closed  against  the  plunderers  of  property,  will  be 
thrown  wide  open — that  the  people  of  the  West  are 
struggling  for  the  purse-strings  and  not  for  principle — 
and  that  the  clamors  of  the  West  for  equal  representa- 
tion vex  his  patience.  Should  property  be  assailed, 
"  the  plunderers"  will  never  come  from  the  Augusta 
district.  The  people  of  that  community  have  interests 
too  vast  at  stake  to  tolerate  a  threat  against  the  in- 
stitution of  property,  much  less  to  become  its  plunder- 
ers ;  they  have  purses  too  capacious  and  well-filled  to 
be  found  clutching  at  those  of  their  neighbors  ;  but  in 
respect  to  the  principle  of  equal  representation,  their 


unceasing  clamors  must  continue  to  vex  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier.    I  have  said  that  the  devotion  of  my 
constituents  to  this  principle  is  no  new-born  feeling, 
called  into  active  energy  by  appeals  to  their  self-inter- 
est.   If  the  scales  of  the  heartless  calculator  were  to 
be  suspended  and  men's  interests  estimated  by  the  stand- 
ard of  dollars  and  cents  were  to  be  coldly  weighed,  it 
might  be  found  that  our  interests  would  bear  down  our 
principles.    The  time  has  been  when  the  people  of  Au- 
gusta were  urged  to  espouse  the  doctrines  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier,  and  were  told  that  it  was  their 
interest  to  do  so.    Could  you  have  witnessed  the  man- 
ner in  which  that  appeal  was  met,  and  however  ably 
pressed,  indignantly  rejected,  you  would  be  satisfied 
that  it  were  vain  to  renew  the  attempt  to  pervert  their 
principles  in  order  to  promote  their  interest.  They 
believe  from  the  heart  and  with  the  understanding,  that 
suffrage  should  be  uniform,  and  that  representation 
should  be  equal ;  and  their  faith  in  these  doctrines  is 
srrengthened  by  the  memories  of  the  past.    They  re- 
member well  the  events  which  occurred  twenty-five 
years  ago — how  they,  in  common  with  the  people  in  the 
valley  and  the  Piedmont  district,  groaned,  being  hesfvi- 
ly  burdened  by  the  oppression  of  unequal  representation 
— how  cordially  the  trans-Alleghany  district  co-opera- 
ted with  them  to  secure  political  equality,  though  at 
the  time  to  its  own  detriment.    I  need  not  remind  you 
that  the  Valley  and  the  Piedmont  district  gained,  whilst 
the  trans-Alleghany  lost  political  power  in  the  Conven- 
tion of  1829- '30 — lost  it  under  a  stern  and  arbitrary  ap- 
portionment— by  a  constitutional  provision  which,  like 
the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  changes  not.  Mr, 
Doddridge,  with  prophetic  eye,  foresaw  that  the  time 
might  come  when  the  Valley  and  the  Piedmont  would 
cast  off  their  faithful  associates  and  turn  their  backs  up- 
on them.  Awed,  as  it  were,  by  this  apprehension,  how 
eloquently  did  he  appeal  to  the  people  of  those  dis- 
tricts, to  cherish,  to  keep  alive  the  memory  of  common 
struggles  for  great  principles,  and  never  to  desert  their 
glorious  standard.    The  memory  of  that  appeal,  which 
twenty-one  years  ago  was  answered  by  the  Valley  and  the 
Piedmont  with  a  vow  of  fidelity,  still  thrills  the  hearts  of 
the  people  of  my  district — its  echoes  still  linger  in  our 
beautiful  valley,  and  I  am  here  to  redeem  the  plighted 
faith  of  days  gone  by — to  declare  now  the  opinions — to 
advocate  now  the  principles  so  dear  to  the  hearts,  so 
cordially  approved  by  the  judgments  of  our  people 
twenty-one  years  ago.  I  do  indeed  take  pride  in  their  po- 
tion— feel  proud  of  their  consistency,  and  honored  by 
their  confidence.    And  Loudoun — who,  if  I  mistake 
not,  in  1825,  called  her  sister  counties  into  convention 
at  Staunton — who,  at  least,  united  in  the  great  purpo- 
ses of  that  convention,  which  were  to  secure  thorough 
reform  of  the  old  constitution  in  respect  to  suffrage  and 
representation — noble  old  Loudoun  !  have  the  impres- 
sions, the  principles  of  the  past  been  effaced  from  her 
mind  by  the  progress  of  time  or  by  a  change  of  circum- 
stances?   No,  I  believe  not;  and  I  would  fain  h©pe 
that  her  voice,  always  on  the  side  of  liberty  and  equal- 
ity, may  yet  be  heard  on  this  floor  without  one  discord- 
ant tone.    And  is  it — can  it  be,  that  Albemarle,  Nel- 
son, Amherst,  Bedford,  Campbell  and  other  counties  in 
the  East,  once  keenly  alive  to  the  eloquent  appeal  of  the 
orator  of  the  West,  are  now  prepared  to  turn  a  deaf  ear 
to  the  cry  for  justice  once  uttered  by  themselves,  sim- 
ply because  their  cry  has  been  answered,  and  they  are 
content  ? 

The  gentleman  from  'Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has  de- 
nominated the  proposition  we  advocate  as  new  and  ex- 
traordinary, and  that  this  eternal  clamor  of  the  people 
of  the  West  for  the  white  basis  vexes  his  patience  ;  and 
has  declared  that  the  mixed  basis  being  the  foundation 
of  the  existing  state  of  things,  we  must  give  reasons  for 
a  change.  I  beg  leave  to  give  ra  rapid  sketch  of  the 
history  of  representation  in  this  Commonwealth  ;  this 
history,  I  think,  will  establish  tAvo  facts — first,  that  the 
people  of  Virginia,  as  a  people,  have  never  had  an  op- 
portunity to  vote  upon  and  determine  for  themselves  the 
just  principle  of  representation  ;  and  second,  that  proper- 
ty has  never  been  recognized  as  an  element  in  representa- 


5 


i  tion,  except  in  the  case  of  the  bill  calling  this  convention, 
the  precedents,  so  far  as  they  go,  being  against  such  a 
doctrine.  The  colonial  government  was  established  in 
July,  1621.  Two  burgesses  were  authorized  to  be  elect- 
ed from  each  town,  hundred  and  particular  plantation 
by  the  inhabitants  ;  afterwards  they  were  permitted  to 
send  a  larger  number  of  burgesses.  In  1634  counties 
were  formed  ;  in  1660  each  county  was  authorized  to 
elect  two  delegates,  and  so  it  continued,  irrespective 
of  the  wealth  of  the  counties,  through  the  revolution 
and  under  the  old  constitution  to  the  year  1830.  In 
1776  the  ordinance  of  government  was  adopted — it  was 
established  under  the  authority  of  an  ordinary  legisla- 
tive body,  and  was  never  submitted  for  ratification  or 
rejection  to  the  people.  The  circumstances  were  ur- 
gent— the  war  for  liberty  was  raging — the  old  govern- 
ment was  just  thrown  off— the  reasons  for  that  act  and 
the  principles  on  which  freemen  ought  to  erect  the 
structure  of  government  were  announced  in  the  bill  of 
rights — a  new  government  was  to  be  organized,  in  the 
language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  "  for  purposes  of  resistance 
and  temporary  self-protection,"  and  therefore  the  free- 
hold suffrage  which  had  been  imposed  on  the  colony 
by  the  Kifig  of  Great  Britain  at  the  point  of  the  bayo- 
net, and  the  county  representation  were  permitted  to 
remain  as  they  were.  It  will  be  seen  that  property 
representation  was  not  thought  of  in  1776.  There  were 
twenty-four  senatorial  districts  named  in  the  constitu- 
tion— twenty  east  and  four  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  ;  as 
nearly  as  we  can  judge,  this  was  at  the  time,  a  fair 
apportionment  of  representation  according  to  white 
population.  But  in  17*30  each  Eastern  senator  repre- 
sented 15,726,  and  each  Western  senator'  81,898  white 
persons  ;  in  1800  the  numbers  were  16,819  East,  and 
44,369  West;  in  1810  there  were  16,941  East,  and  53,181 
West;  and  in  1815,  it  was  estimated  that  the  four 
Western  senators  represented  two-fifths  of  the  white 
population  of  the  State.  These  developments  aroused 
the  West,  and  they  began  to  vex  the  ears  of  Eastern  men 
with  their  clamors  for  equal  representation.  They -did 
not  at  that  time  complain  so  much  of  inequality  in  the 
house  of  delegates,  because,  as  population  increased, 
new  counties  were  formed,  and  each  new  county  be- 
came entitled  to  two  delegates.  In  1815,  a  bill  was  in- 
troduced into  the  house  of  delegates  to  equalize  repre- 
sentation in  the  senate ;  the  love  of  power  is  strong  in 
man's  heart — so  strong  that  his  grasp  of  the  sceptre  is 
always  reluctantly  relaxed.  Then,  as  now,  the  demand 
for  equal  representation  was  regarded  as  a  selfish  cla- 
mor for  power  on  account  of  its  emoluments,  and  not  as 
the  assertion  of  aright  to  the  loss  of  which  freemen  cannot 
tamely  submit.  To  this  reluctance  to  give  up  the  pow- 
er the  East  had  been  wont  to  "wield,  and  to  a  certain 
opinion  given  by  constitutional  lawyers,  the  bill  was  re- 
jected. That  opinion  was,  that  the  constitution  having 
defined  the  limits  of  the  senatorial  districts,  the  general 
assembly  c  juld  not  alter  them.  This  repulse  created 
profound  excitement  in  the  West,  and  led  to  the  great 
convention  at  Staunton  in  1816.  That  Convention  pre- 
ferred a  petition  to  the  general  assembly,  praying  for 
the  call  of  a  convention  to  equalize  representation,  and 
for  other  purposes.  A  bill  was  reported  and  passed  the 
house  of  delegates,  which  provided  for  the  call  of  a  con: 
vention  for  three  purposes :  first,  to  enlarge  the  right 
of  suffrage ;  second,  to  equalize  representation  on  the 
basis  of  the  white  population  ;  and  third,  to  equalize  the 
land  tax.  This  bill  announced  three  great  principles  of  a 
free  republican  government,  viz :  enlarged  suffrage ; 
equality  of  representation,  and  taxation  in  proportion  to 
the  ability  to  pay.  The  combined  or  mixed  basis  was 
still  unheard  of  in  Virginia,  although  as  early  as  1808,  it 
had  been  engrafted  on  the  constitution  of  South  Caroli- 
na, whose  example  we  are  now  invited  to  follow.  The 
bill  thus  adopted  by  the  house  of  delegates,  and  so  fa- 
tally dangerous  to  Eastern  power,  went  to  the  senate  and 
was  about  to  pass  that  body,  when  the  constitutional 
lawyers  were  again  consulted,  who,  after  due  and  care- 
ful consideration,  came  to  the  same  conclusion,  at  which 
Mr.  Jefferson  had  arrived  as  early  as  1783 — namely, 


that  as  the  constitution  itself  was  a  creature  of  legisla^ 
tive  power,  the  same  power  might  change  the  senatorial 
districts.  Accordingly,  to  avoid  the  hnminent  peril  of  a 
convention,  a  bill  was  prepared  and  passed,  February, 
1817,  re- apportioning  representation  in  the  senate  on  the 
basis  of  white  population  and  for  re-assessing  the  lands. 
Mne  senators  were  given  to  the  West,  each  representing 
23,636  white  persons,  and  fifteen  to  the  East,  each  re- 
presenting 22,589  white  persons — as  near  an  approxi- 
mation to  justice  as  could  have  been  expected.  It  was 
of  this  act  that  Mr.  Leigh  said  in  1829,  "to  avoid  the 
call  of  a  convention,  the  bill  for  equalizing  the  represen- 
tation in  the  senate  on  the  basis  of  the  white  population 
was  in  an  evil  hour  passed;  I  had  no  share  in  it ;  I 
thank  Heaven  for  all  its  mercies,  none."  I  beg  to  know 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  whether  there  is  any 
authority  thus  far  in  the  history  of  Virginia  for  the 
doctrine  that  property  is  entitled  to  control  govern- 
ment— that  representation  should  be  made  to  quadrate 
with  wealth?  In  the  Convention  of  1829-'30,  although 
there  was  a  majority  of  twenty-four  m<aabers  frofia  the 
East,  the  resolution  of  t  he  legislative  •oaimittee,  which 
declared  that  "in  apportioning  representatioa  in  the 
house  of  delegates,  regard  should  be  had  to  white  pop- 
ulation exclusively,"  atone  time  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  49  to  47,  and  no  substitute  ior  the  resolution  asserting 
any  other  principle  could  ue  carried.  The  difficultly  of 
agreeing  to  a  principle  of  apportionment  for  the  senate 
finally  opened  the.way  for  Gordon's  compromise,  whieh 
has  settled  down  upon  the  energies  of  Virginia,  with  an 
unyielding  arbitrary  power  that  has  chafed  her  people 
to  the  present  moment. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  relies  upon  the  call 
of  the  present  Convention  as  a  sufficient  justification 
of  his  position,  that  the  mixed  basis  is  the  existing 
principle  of  representation,  and  that  therefore  we  must 
show  reasons  for  a  change.  What  was  the  condition 
of  things  which  led  to  the  passage  of  the  act  calling 
the  Convention,  and  to  the  adoption  of  that  act  by  the 
people?  The  cry  for  reform,  had  for  years  been  heard 
in  the  House  of  Delegates.  Winter  after  winter  the 
petitions  for  a  Convention  had  been  either  rejected  or 
coolly  passed  by.  At  length  the  east  began  to  feel  the 
burden  of  greviances  as  well  as  the  west,  and  then  it  was 
thought  expedient  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  people.  I 
had  the  honor  of  preparing  the  original  bill  which  was 
reported  to  the  House  of  Delegates :  it  proposed  to  sub- 
mit to  a  majority  of  the  people  two  questions,  1st  "wheth- 
er they  would  have  a  Convention,"  and  2nd,  "whether 
it  should  be  based  upon  the  white  population  or  upon 
tire  white  population  and  taxation  combined.  I  wished  to 
tender  to  the  freemen  of  Virginia  a  choice  of  principles. 
But  the  original  bill  so  truly  republican  in  its  provisions 
was  defeated,  and  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Halifax.  (Mr.  Stovall,)  which  submitted  to  the  people 
substantially  this  question :  "will  you  have  a  Conven- 
tion organized  as  this  is  or  none  ?"  was  adopted.  And 
in  voting  for  a  Convention  thus  organized,  it  is  alleged 
there  was  freedom  of  choice  in  respect  to  the  principle 
on  which  it  ought  to  have  been  organized.  The  body 
politic  was,  as  it  were  starving  for  reform — we  tendered 
to  the  fettered  and  emaciated  prisoner  the  choice  be- 
tween starvation  and  a  parched  and  wretched  diet, 
winch,  if  the  principles  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
prevail,  I  fear  will  only  serve  to  keep  alive  a  feverish 
and  fretful  vitality.  And  now,  we  are  told  that  a  free 
choice  was  made,  and  the  diet  was  relished  and  approved, 
and  has  become  the  staff  of  political  life.  In  replying 
affirmatively  to  the  question,  "will  you  have  this  Con- 
vention or  none  V  the  people  acted  under  the  impulse  of 
two  common  incentives  to  human  action — discontent  with 
present  ills,  and  an  eager,  and  oft  times,  a  too  sanguine 
hope  of  blessings  in  the  future,  which  will  result  from 
change.  The  people  from  the  West,  too,  looked  with 
strong  hope,  almost  confidence,  to  the  constituent  body  in 
eastern  Virginia,  to  send,  at  least,  some  delegates  to  the 
Convention  who  would  advocate  the  cause  so  ably  and 
eloquently  defended  by  Monroe,  Mercer,  Gordon  and 


6 


Fitzhugh  in  1829;  and  although  their  hopes  hate  not  been 
fully  realized,  I  am  gratified  in  being  able  to  say  they 
have  not  been  wholly  disappointed. 
And  now,  we  are  here  assembled  to  perform  the  most  sol 
emnly  important  functions  freeman  can  delegate  to  repre- 
sentatives.   We  are  here  convened  to  re-organize  every 
department  of  our  government — to  infuse  efficiency  and 
to  create  responsibility  in  all  the  branches  of  our  polity 
— to  build  anew  the  structure  of  our  institutions,  and  to 
render  the  results  of  our  labors  accept  able  to  the  popu- 
lar mind,  so  that  it  may  rest  contented  with  the  organ- 
ic law.    The  executive,  legislative  and  judiciary  depart- 
ments are  to  be  remodeled,  and  improved  by  us — the 
county  court  system,  and  county  organization — the  func- 
tions of  the  justices  of  the  peace — the  cause  of  educa- 
tion— every  power  of  government  from  that  which  from 
the   centre  of  influence  at  the  capital,  pervades  the 
whole  State,  down  to  that  which  comes  home  to  the 
people  in  their  daily  walk, ,  and  intercourse  with  their 
fellows — all  these  subjects  of  reform  are  entrusted  to  our 
hands.    And  who  are  we  ?    It  is  said  we  are  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people — that  this  body  is  the  organ  by 
which  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people  is  to  be  expressed 
in  respect  to  all  these  momentous  concerns.  Would 
that  this  were  such  a  representative  body  !    But  it  is  far 
otherwise.    What   is  the   fact?    There  are  seventy- 
six  delegates   on  this  floor  representing  402,771  and 
and  only  fifty-nine  delegates  representing  494,763  white 
persons.    And  why  is  this  ?    Why  is  it  that  so  small  a 
minority  of  the  people  has  so  large  a  majority  of  power  ? 
Is  the  minority  more  exalted  in  virtue,  in  character  and 
in  wisdom — has  God  impressed  upon  them  the  stamp  of 
superiority,  that  they  should  so  wield  the  power  of  the 
State  ?    Suppose  a  stranger  were  to  appear  in  our  midst 
— one  who  had  read  our  bill  of  rights  and  learned  to  value 
its  sacred  principles — suppose  him  to  question  us  concern- 
ing the  theory  and  practice  of  our  government — How  as- 
tonished would  he  not  be  by  the  contrast  ?  You  declare  he 
would  say  in  your  bill  of  rights  "that  all  men  are  by  nature 
equally  free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inherent 
rights,  of  which  when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society 
they  cannot,  by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their  pos- 
terity ;  namely  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the 
means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  pursuing 
and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety" — Why  should  not 
those  who  are  equally  free  and  independent  and  who  are 
equally  entitled  to  those  inherent  rights  which  are  to  be 
guarded  by  this  government',  who  are  equally  interested 
in  the  preservation  of  those  rights,  be  equally  represented 
here  ?"    Our  answer  to  the  inquiry  would  be  that  all 
the  people  of  this  commonwealth  are  equally  free  and 
independent  and  equally  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of 
life  and  liberty — together  with  the  means  of  acquiring 
and  possessing  property  and  of  pursu  ng  and  obtaining 
happiness — they  are  all  equals  in  right  and  by  going  into 
society  they  cannot  destroy  that  equality — but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  in  1776  the  provis;onal  government  was 
so  organized  as  in  the  course  of  years  to  concentrate  pow- 
er in  the  hands  of  the  minority — that  the  minority  pos 
sesses  at  present  a  greater  amount  of  property  than  the 
majority — that  this  property  is  here  represented  as  well 
as  persons,  and  that  is  the  reason  for  this  apparent,  not  ac- 
tual inequality — in  a  word  that  the  interests  of  society  are 
equally  represented.    Again,  the  perplexed  stranger  in- 
quires "what  means  the  clause  of  your  bill  of  rights 
which  declares  'that  all  power  is  vested  in  and  conse- 
quently derived  from  the  people — that  magistrates  are 
their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at  all  times  amenable  to 
them  ?"    Our  answer  would  be,  "that  in-that  clause,  the 
phrase  'the  people,'  two  words  which  foolish  persons  have 
much  misunderstood,  does  not  mean  the  persons  who  hold 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State,  but  an  association  contrived 
in  the  laboratory  of  political  metaphysics,  compounded 
of  men  and  their  interests  in  money;  and  that  the  re- 
sponsibility of  public  servants  is  to  this  compound  cor- 
poration and  not  "to  the  people"  as  ordinary  persons  un- 
derstand the  term — and  this  is  proven  by  the  use  of  the 
word  'trustee'  in  the  latter  clause ;  because,  as  the  gentle- 


man from  Greensville,  (Mr.  Chambliss,)  has  said,  "why  use 
the  word  'trustee'  unless  there  was  property  to  be  man- 
aged-— funds  to  be  accounted  for  ?" 

But  the  stranger  still  filled  "  with  obstinate  question- 
ings" referring  to  another  clause   in  the  bill  of 
rights  that  "  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  in- 
dubitable,  unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform, 
alter,  or  abolish,"  their  form  of  government,  asks,  ho 
does  it  happen  that  a  "majority  of  the  community"  are 
not  here  by  their  representatives  to  perform  this  highest 
work  of  sovereignty  ?  Our  answer  would  be  "that  out  of 
897,534,  the  whole  white  population  of  the  State,  402,- 
771  do  constitute  a  large  "majority  of  the  community," 
so  large  as  to  entitle  them  to  76  out  of  135  delegates  on 
this  floor  ;  and  the  reason  of  this  is  that  the  word  "  com- 
munity ' '  does  not  mean  "  people  "  just  as  "  people ' '  does 
not  mean  an  aggregate  of  "persons  ;"but  in  truth  means 
"  interests,"  so  that  "  a  majority  of  the  community" 
means  "  a  majority  of  the  interests  of  society."    "  You 
submitted  then,  I  suppose,"  remarks  the  puzzled 
stranger,  "the  question  of  the  call  of  the  Convention  to 
be  decided  by  5  the  majority  of  the  interests  of  society,5 
scaling  the  votes  of  men  so  as  to  make  their  value  cor- 
respond with  the  combined  ratio  of  men  and  money?" 
By  no  means,  is  the  reply.    That  question  was  submit- 
ted to  the  sovereign  people,  and  if  /there  had  been  a  ma- 
jority of  one  against  the  call,  although  all  the  monied 
interests  of  society  had  been  in  its  favor  this  Con ven 
tion  would  never  have  been  organized.    It  is  presumed, 
however,  that  as  "  the  majority  of  interests"  is  to  con- 
trol the  government,  and  as  the  new  Constitution  is  Vital- 
ly to  affect  all  the  interests  in  the  Commonwealth,  you 
will  hardly  submit  to  a  mere  majority  of  numbers  the 
decision  of  a  question  so  momentous  as  the  ratification 
of  the  organic  law  ;  you  will  scale  the  votes  of  the  peo- 
ple so  that  if  the  entire  vote  be  regarded  as  150,  that  of 
the  tidewater  district,  containing  189,314  white  per- 
sons, shall  be  counted  as  41,  that  of  the  Piedmont  dis- 
trict, with  213,457  white  persons,  shall  be  counted  as  41, 
that  of  the  valley,  with  163,177  white  persons,  shall  be 
counted  as  27,  and  that  of  the  trans-Alleghany  district, 
with  331,586  white  persons,  shall  be  counted  as  41  ;  so 
that,  in  any  event,  the  Constitution  may  be  rejected  if 
"  the  interests  of  society"  require  it.    Is  this  the  course 
to  be  pursued  ?    By  no  means,  is  the  reply.    It  is  pro- 
posed to  submit  this  vital  question  also  to  the  majority 
of  numbers,  and  not  to  "the  majority  of  interests." 
To  such  contradictions  are  gentlemen  driven  who  con- 
tend that  "  a  majority  of  interests"  should  govern  soci- 
ety.   They  declare  that  less  than  a  majority  of  those, 
who  under  the  present  constitution  are  entitled  to  ex- 
ercise the  right  of  suffrage,  cannot  authorize  any  change 
in  the  existing  form  of  government,  and  that  less  than 
a  majority  of  those  who  are  hereafter  as  voters  to  pos- 
sess and  exercise  the  sovereign  power  of  the  Common- 
wealth, cannot  accept  the  new  Constitution,  so  as  to 
make  it  binding  on  the  community ;  and.  furthermore, 
that  if  accepted  and  ratified  even  by  a  small  majority, 
and  against  the  voice  of  "  the  majority  of  interests," 
the  Constitution  will  at  once  beceme  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
he  United  States  ;  and  yet  they  argue  that  "  a  majori- 
y  of  the  community"  in  the  bill  of  rights  means  "a 
majority  of  the  interests  of  society,"  and  that  by  anal- 
ogy with  this  principle  as  interpreted  and  explained  by 
themselves  they  are,  justified  in  providing  in  the  legisla- 
tive department  of  the  government  that  "  a  majority  of 
interests"  shall  be  clothed  with  the  power.    They  de- 
mand for  the  minority  a  majority  of  delegates  in  the 
Convention,  and  also  in  the  legislature,  upon  the  ground 
that  "a  majority  of  interests"  should  control  the  gov 
ernment,  deriving  that  doctrine  from  a  principle  in  the 
bill  of  rights,  which  principle  when  applied  in  practice 
by  themselves  they  admit  means  nothing  but  a  majori- 
ty of  the  units  of  sovereignty,  of  voters.    It  is  this  of 
which  I  complain.    It  is  the  inequality  of  our  positions 
on  this  floor.  It  is  the  iron-handed  tyranny  that  forces  me 
here  as  an  inferior,  against  which  my  heart— my  whole 
soul— revolts.    Were  we  equal  representatives,  of  equal 
constituencies— equals  in  virtue,  in  wisdom,  in  loyal 


7 


devotion  to  our  Commonwealth — equals  in  right,  and 
equally  to  be  heard  on  every  question  affecting  the  in- 
terests of  society,  I  could  listen  calmly  as  a  brother 
to  a  brother  to  the  reasonings  of  him  who  would  per- 
suade me  that  the  safety  and  interests  of  society  re- 
quired a  surrender  of  power  by  the  majority  to  the 
minority.  I  would  weigh  his  reasons  ;  give  heed  to  his 
apprehensions  ;  and,  if  convinced  that  it  were  right, 
would  voluntarily  resign  power  for  the  common  good. 
But  such  is  not  my  position.  I  feel  like  one  to  whom 
terms  are  to  be  dictated,  and  who  is  to  be  told  that  he 
must  take  what  the  holders  of  power  choose  to  surren- 
der or  nothing.  The  reins  of  government  are  safe  in 
the  hands  of  the  minority — they  cannot  be  wrested  from 
it  except  by  revolution  or  violence,  and  the  long. suffer- 
ing— patience  and  patriotism  of  western  men  is  relied 
on — and,  it  is  thought,  safely  relied  on — as  a  shield 
against  danger,  or  a  threat  of  danger  from  that  quarter. 

But  we  are  assembled  once  more  in  council  to  consult 
for  the  common  weal,  to  remodel  our  organic  law.  Let 
us  forget,  if  some  of  us  can,  and  lay  aside  all  sense  of  in- 
feriority on  the  one  hand,  and  of  that  natural  self-compla- 
cancy  that  is  inherent  in  him  who  holds  power  on  the  oth- 
er ;  and  let  us  reason  together  as  brethren  ;  we  are  to  build 
the  structure  of  a  free  government— a  government 
which  shall  protect  life  and  liberty,  and  secure  to  the 
people,  equally,  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possessing 
property,  and  of  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and 
safety  ;  we  all  agree  that  these  are  the  great  purposes 
of  government.  The  question  which  first  presents  itself 
is  shall  our  government  fee  founded  on  principles  or  ex- 
pediency— on  the  solid,  rock  foundation  of  fixed  prin- 
ciples to  which  wise  and  patriotic  freemen  have  every 
where  assented — or  on  the  shifting  quicksands  of  expe- 
diency. Expediency!  how  often,  in  religion  and  in  pol- 
itics has  short-sighted  man,  abandoning  the  principles 
of  eternity,  been  led  astray  by  the  expediency  of  the 
moment  ?  The  light  of  expediency  is  that  of  the 
will  o'  the  wisp,  the  ignis-fatuus,  that  beguiles  the  de- 
luded sons  of  men  from  the  ways  of  principle,  of 
truth,  and  of  virtue,  into  devious  paths  of  error, 
falshood  and  crime.  Untold  are  the  evils  it  has 
entailed  upon  the  human  race  ;  and  he  who  surrenders 
himself  to  its  guidance,  who  abandons  the  principles  of 
his  faith  for  the  expediency  of  the  moment,  will  ere 
long  find  the  foundations  of  virtue,  the  props  of  safety, 
and  the  pillars  of  happiness  crumbling  and  giving  way. 
And  the  government  that  is  founded  upon  the  principle 
that  the  people  may  not  be  trusted  with  power  lest 
they  abuse  it,  will  be  found  at  last  to  be  built  on 
a  foundation  of  sand.  The  rain  will  descend;  the 
storm  will  come  ;  that  government  must  fall.  Let  us 
not  rest  our  government  on  the  unstable  foundation  of 
expediency,  but  choose  as  the  bright  corner-stones  the 
solid  principles  quarried  from  the  mines  once  explored 
by  Locke,  Hampden  and  Sydney.  The  gentleman  from 
Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,)  said  a  few  days  ago  that  the 
principles  of  freedom  were  as  well  understood  two  hun- 
dred years  ago  by  the  great  men  I  have  named  as  they 
are  by  us.  Yes,  the  spirit  of  liberty  that  had  given  a 
sturdy  independence  to  the  fathers  of  our  race  in  the  for- 
ests of  Germany,  that  followed  the  Saxon  to  the  Island 
of  Great  Britain,  that  inspired  the  bold  barons  to  wrest 
from  the  hands  of  the  tyrant  John  the  great  charter  of 
freedom  ;  that,  although  oftentimes  almost  extinguished 
beneath  the  pressure  of  arbitrary  power,  ever  and  anon 
burst  jforth  with  a  fitful  glare  to  startle  the  tyrant  from 
bis  selcurity,  shone  forth  in  the  writings  of  Locke,  and 
in  the!  acts  of  Hampden  with  a  lustre  that  has  never 
growri  dim  ;  a  light  which,  having  reached  this  western 
continent,  shall,  at  last,  be  diffused  over  the  world. 
The  great  men  of  1716  did,  indeed,  in  announcing  the 
rights  of  man,  and  the  principles  of  free  government  do 
little  mpre  than  give  vital  energy  to  the  speculations  of 
Locke  and  Hampden.  They  announced  in  the  bill  of 
rights  o  f  Virginia,  the  first  declaration  of  rights  pro- 
mulged  in  America,  those  great  principles  which  I  in- 
voke thils  committee  to  adopt,  and  to  act  upon  as  the  solid 


basis  and  foundation  of  our  government.  First,  that  all 
men  are  equally  free  and  independent,  and  equally  en- 
titled to  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the 
means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property,  and  of 
pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness.  Second,  that  all 
power  is  vested  in  and,  consequently,  derived  from  the 
people ;  and  third,  that  a  majority  of  the  community 
hath  the  right  to  control  its  government.  I  will  not  dis- 
cuss these  propositions  at  large.  I  trust  they  will  be 
elaborated  by  others.  I  will  content  myself  with  re- 
marking that  government  in  its  essence  is  a  compact 
resulting  from  the  consent  of  equals ;  of  men  who,  be- 
fore the  compact,  were  equally  entitled  to  the  natural 
rights  God  had  bestowed  upon  them,  to  the  free  air  and 
Light  of  Heaven,  to  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  the  bles- 
sings of  liberty,  and  to  appropriate  to  their  own  use  the 
bounties  of  nature  for  the  support  of  life,  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness,  free  from  the  control,  and  indepen- 
dent of  the  authority  or  dominion  of  others.  And  in 
entering  into  the  compact  of  government  this  equality 
is  not  destroyed;  the  natural  rights  of  all  are  equally 
restrained,  but  to  the  extent  to  which  they  exist  they 
must  continue  equal,  otherwise  some  of  the  parties  to 
the  compact,  who  were  originally  equals,  have  surren- 
dered more  of  their  natural  rights  than  others,  and  depriv- 
ed and  divested  themselves  and  their  posterity  of  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  those  inherent  rights  to  which  the  bill  of 
rsghts  declares  men  continue,  under  all  circumstances  to 
be  equally  entitled.  I  am  to  some  extent  a  sceptic  in  res- 
pect to  a  state  of  nature.  It  was  Aristotle  who  declared  he 
could  not  imagine  man  disconnected  from  a  -state,  from 
an  association  with  others  by  consent,  But  if  we  may 
argue  from  the  postulate  that  man  was  once  in  a  state 
of  nature,  and  came  out  of  it  into  a  state  of  society  and 
government,  what  may  we  suppose  to  have  been  his 
condition  ?  His  first  apprehensions  must  have  arisen 
from  dangers  to  life  and  liberty,  from  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  ;  separate  property  was  not  essential  to 
the  support  of  life  ;  the  water  that  gushed  from  the 
fountains ;  the  fruits  which  grew  upon  the  trees ;  the 
herbs  and  grain  which  sprung  out  of  the  ground,  were 
the  common  property  of  all,  and  furnished  the  suste- 
nance of  life.  The  hand  of  violence  raised  against  the 
life  of  man,  struck  the  first  blow  at  the  safety  of 
the  state  of  nature ;  the  dominion  of  the  strong 
over  the  weak  leading  to  tyranny  on  the  one  hand,  and 
slavery  on  the  other  spread  a  second  alarm  through  the 
ranks  of  men.  Association— a  combination  of  physical 
forces  for  self-preservation  and  personal  protection  was 
at  first  resorted  to — was  formed  to  guard  rights,  natural, 
inherent  and  readily  understood,  and  the  fear  of  losing 
which  spurng  out  of  the  very  consciousness  of  man's  na- 
ture. I  cannot  but  think  that  society  was  formed  at 
first  to  preserve  men's  lives  from  violence,  their  limbs 
from  torture,  and  their  bodies  from  slavery.  These  are 
emphatically  natural  rights,  to  guard  which  men  com- 
bined in  society.  The  right  of  property,  the  right  of 
one  man  to  claim  as  his  own,  by  separate  title,  any  spe- 
cies of  property,  must  have  had  its  origin  in  the  con- 
sent of  society.  It  was  recognized,  sanctioned  and 
guarded  as  a  personal  right  founded  in  justice,  and  at- 
taching to  him  who  had  worked  for  the  property.  Prior 
to  society  the  world  and  its  fruits  were  the  domain  ^  of 
the  race ;  to  no  one  portion  of  which  could  any  individ- 
ual lay  claim,  and  such  a  separate  claim  or  title  could 
only  become  a  right  by  common  consent,  which  itself 
pre-supposes  the  existence  of  a  consenting  society.  I 
can  easily  imagine  a  society  to  exist  for  many  years 
without  any  separate  right  in  the  individuals  compos- 
ing it  to  any  species  of  property,  and  yet  that  the  means 
of  subsistence  and  of  comfort  should  be  abundant.  The 
water,  air,  fishes,  fowls,  fruits,  and  flesh,  given  by  nature 
for  mans  support,  would  be,  to  such  a  society,  a  com- 
mon stock  out  of  which  the  wants  of  each  member  of  it 
would  be  supplied.  The  right  to  hold  any  of  these 
gifts  of  nature  to  the  separate  use  of  an  individual 
must  have  originated  in  the  consent  of  those  equally 
entitled  to  nature's  bounties.     And,    what  I  ask, 


would  have  been  thought  of  that  man  who,  first 
asking  the  consent  of  society  in  its  earlier  stages 
that  he  might  hold  property  separately  for  his 
own  use,  should  have  turned  round  and  claimed 
as  a  right  a  preponderance  of  power  by  reason  of  that 
property  ?  The  answer  to  such  a  claim  would  have  been 
prompt,  and  to  this  effect :  that  by  the  consent  of  all  it 
had  been  agreed  that  each  should  severally  hold  and 
enjoy  what  he  could  rightfully  acquire  as  property ;  this 
privilege  had  been,  accorded  to  every  member  of 
society.  It  was  supposed  at  the  outset  that  some 
would  accumulate  more  than  others,  but  that  each 
would  acquire  something :  and  it  was  solemnly  agreed 
that  the  right  of  each  to  his  all  should  be  equally  pro- 
tected ;  and  that  the  expense  of  protection  should  be 
borne  in  proportion  to  the  ability  of  each.  How  then 
would  he  who  had,  perhaps,  been  fortunate,  and  had 
grown  rich,  whilst  his  neighbor,  with  equal  virtue  and 
industry,  had  remained  poor,  how  could  he  claim,  not 
only  protection  for  his  property,  which  all  were  willing 
to  give,  but,  in  addition,  the  power  to  dispose  of  his 
neighbor's  property  at  his  pleasure  ?  The  majority  of 
such  an  infant  society  would  have  replied  to  such  a  bold 
demand  for  power,  thus  :  "  You  must  rest  for  the  safety 
of  your  property  upon  the  same  pledges,  the  same 
guaranties  on  which  we  all  rely  for  our  lives,  our  limbs,  our 
liberties,  and  our  property  ;  for  you  must  remem- 
ber we  have  property  as  well  as  you.  All  we  can  say 
is  that  we  will  bind  ourselves  to  deal  with  your  proper- 
ty as  with  our  own ;  with  your  lives  and  liberties  as 
with  our  own;  and  that  you  shall  ever  enjoy  equal 
power  with  us  in  disposing  of  our  common  interests." 
I  think  then  it  must  be  apparent  that  property  in  the 
hands  of  individuals  held  by  separate  titles  did  not  pre- 
cede but  sprung  out  of  society — was  not  an  element  in 
forming  society  but  its  creature.  That  the  right  to  hold 
it  belongs  to  the  class  of  mere  personal  rights  ;  a  right 
recognized  and  sanctioned  by  the  common  consent  of 
society  after  men  had  confederated  to  protect  life  and 
liberty.  And  now  it  is  argued  that  an  institution  which 
originally  owed  its  very  existence  to  the  consent  of 
persons  shall  control  persons ;  that  the  creature  shall  be 
exalted  so  high  as  to  command  the  submission  and  obe- 
dience of  the  creator. 

And  now,  what  in  such  a  society  as  I  have  referred 
to,  would  be  the  rule  of  decision  in  matters  of  common 
concern  ?  I  answer,  the  will  of  the  majority — that  in 
my  opinion  is  the  natural  law  of  eveiy  body  which  has 
adopted  no  other  : — and  no  other  can  be  adopted  except 
by  universal  consent  or  by  the  will  of  a  majority.  It 
would  require  most  cogent  arguments  to  prove  that  by 
universal  consent  the  members  of  society  had  agreed 
that  a  minority  should  govern  the  majority;  and  if  it  is 
argued  that  a  rule  differing  from  that  of  the  majority 
has  been  established  in  certain  cases,  by  the  consent  of 
the  majority,  the  very  exceptions  prove  the  rule  to  be 
as  I  have  indicated.  In  our  State  and  Federal  Consti- 
tutions it  is  no  where  said  that  a  majority  may  do  cer- 
tain acts  :  that  rule  is  not  in  the  lex  scripta  but  belongs, 
to  the  unwritten,  common,  may  I  not  say  ?  natural  law 
of  associated  bodies.  But  when  less  than  a  majority 
may  do  a  certain  act  or  more  than  a  majority  must  be 
required  to  accomplish  a  certain  purpose,  the  particular 
limitations  upon  the  general  rule  are  plainly  set  down — 
because  having  sprung  out  of  the  consent  of  the  ma- 
jority, they  shall  restrain  its  will  only  according  to  that 
consent.  Upon  this  point,  I  beg  leave  to  quote  a  pas- 
sage from  Locke's  Essay  on  Government — an  authority 
so  eloquently  and  emphatically  approved  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Chilton,)  some  days  ago. 
Locke  says :  "  When  any  number  of  men  have,  by  the 
consent  of  every  individual  made  a  community,  they 
have  thereby  made  that  community  one  body,  with  a 
ower  to  act  as  one  body,  which  is  only  by  the  will  and 
etermination  of  the  majority.  For  that  wl  ich  acts  in 
a  community,  being  only  the  consent  of  the  individuals 
of  it,  and  it  being  necessary  to  that  which  is  one  body 
to  move  one  way,  it  is  necessary  the  body  should  move 


that  way  whither  the  greater  force  carries  it,  which  is 
the  consent  of  the  majority :  or  else  it  is  impossible  it 
should  act  or  continue  one  body,  one  community,  which 
the  consent  of  every  one  who  united  in  it  agreed  it  should : 
and  so  every  one  is  bound  by  that  consent  to  be  concluded 
by  the  majority.  And  therefore,  we  see  that  in  assemblies 
empowered  to  act  by  positive  laws,  where  no  number  is 
set  by  that  positive  law  which  empowers  them,  the  act 
of  the  majority  passes  for  the  act  of  the  whole.  And 
thus  every  man,  by  consenting  with  others  to  make  one 
body  politic  under  one  government,  puts  himself  under 
an  obligation  to  every  one  of  that  society  to  submit  to 
the  determination  of  the  majority,  and  to  be  concluded 
by  it."  This  is  the  authority  on  which  our  fathers  de- 
clared that  "a  majority  of  the  community"  hath  the 
right  to  govern :  and  yet  it  is  now  contended  that  the 
rule  of  the  majority  is  the  dominion  of  mere  numbers — 
is  a  tyranny  not  to  be  borne.  It  is  called  sneeringly 
"  king  numbers  " — and  is  regarded  as  an  unrestrained 
oppressor — a  lawless  despot — more  terrible  than  an  ab- 
solute monarch.  It  is  obvious  too  that  the  community  of 
which  we  speak  must  be  regarded  as  one  community,  one 
body,  governed  by  a  preponderating  will :  and  that  will, 
the  aggregate  of  the  wishes  of  a  majority  in  the  communi- 
ty. If  the  community  cannot  be  regarded  as  one— as  homo- 
geneous— of  the  same  kind  of  persons,  (that  is  the  de- 
finition of  "homogeneous") — as  possessing  the  same 
patriotism,  intelligence,  morality  and  virtue — the  argu- 
ment proves  that  the  community  should  not  be  togeth- 
er: but  should  form  such  new  communities  out  of  the 
original  whole  as  would  be  homogeneous.  In  respect  to 
Virginia  I  resist  all  such  arguments  as  tend  to  show 
that  her  people  are  unlike  in  patriotism  or  dissimilar  in 
interest :  I  resist  them  as  at  war  with  my  own  convic- 
tions and  with  the  true  glory  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Let  us  then,  regarding  Virginia  as  one  community, 
proceed  in  detail  to  consider  the  various  propositions 
before  the  committee,  and  the  arguments  for  and  against 
each.  Proposition  A,  (the  original  proposition  before 
the  committee,)  contains  the  mixed  basis  after  the  model 
of  the  South  Carolina  constitution,  and  an  apportion- 
ment in  accordance  with  this  principle.  It  proposes 
that  in  the  House  of  Delegates,  consisting  of  150  dele- 
gates, 75  shall  represent  the  taxes  and  15  the  white  pop- 
ulation of  the  Commonwealth,  thereby  making  taxes  an 
equal  element  with  persons  in  representation.  The 
taxes  so  to  be  estimated  are  all  the  taxes  paid  except 
those  on  merchants'  lincenses,  law  process,  and 
deeds.  In  speaking  in  this  argument  of  the  grand  di- 
visions of  the  Commonwealth,  I  shall  begin  with  the 
tide-water,  as  number  one,  and  proceed  from  east  to 
west,  to  number  four,  the  trans- Alleghany  district.  In- 
cluding the  increased  land  tax  then,  the  white  popula- 
tion and  taxation  of  the  Commonwealth  will  stand  as 


follows : 

1st  district  white  pop.  189,314  Taxes  $179,744.52 

2d       "                "  213,451  -    -  167,742.95 

3d       "                 *  163,177  -    -    -  92,392.05 

4th      "                "  331,586  -    -  94,893.40 


Total.  897,534  $534,172.92 


Upon  the  mixed  or  combined  basis  I  have  said  taxes 
will  send  75  and  white  population  75  delegates.  If  the 
whole  population  be  divided  by  75,  we  will  have  11,967 
as  the  common  ratio  for  a  population  delegate  :  If  the 
whole  taxes  be  divided  by  75,  we  will  have  $7,130-30  as 
the  common  ratio  for  a  tax  delegate  ;  or  blending  them 
together,  each  delegate  should  represent  5,983  white 
persons  who  pay  $3,565.15  taxes.  Apply  these  'ratios 
to  the  population  and  taxation  of  the  four  divisions  and 
the  results  will  be  as  follows  : 
Taxes  give 

1st  dis.  25  2-10  del.  population  15  8-10 — 41  delegates, 
2d    "    23  5-10    "  "       17  8-10—41  3-10  " 

3d    ';     13  "  "       13  7-10—26  7-10  " 

4th  "    13  3-10    "  "       27  7-10 — 41 

76  75     150  / 


9 


In  the  Senate  it  is  proposed  there  shall  he  51  mem- 
bers :  The  ratio  for  a  tax  Senator  will  be  $20,971,  and 
for  a  population  Senator  35,196  white  persons :  in  other 
words,  each  Senator  should  represent  17,598  white  per- 
sons who  pay  $10,485.50 — apply  these  ratios  to  the  east 
and  the  west  and  the  results  will  be  as  follows : 
East :  taxes  give  16.57  Senators  :  pop.  11.43— 28  Sen. 
West:         "         14.05  "       "       8.95—23  " 

It  will  be  observed,  and  I  desire  it  to  be  remembered, 
that  in  the  valley,  the  number  of  delegates  on  taxes  falls 
short  of  that  on  population  only  7-10  of  one  delegate. 

I  will  follow  this  mixed  basis  scheme  in  some  of  its 
details  and  effects  before  I  proceed  to  consider  propo- 
sition B,  and  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, (Mr.  Scott.)  I  will  show  what  number  of  per- 
sons each  delegate  from  the  four  divisions  will  represent 
and  applying  the  smallest  number  as  a  ratio  to  the  other 
divisions,  what  effect  will  be  produced. 
1st  dis.  ratio  for  a  delegate,  4,617  white  persons 
2d    "       "  "  5,206 

3d    "       "  "  6,043 

4th  "       "  "  8,087 

Apply  the  ratio  in  the  1st  district,  4,617,  (being  the 
smallest,)  to  the  four  grand' divisions  :  It  gives  : 
1st  district  41  delegates,  and  leaves  no  excess, 
2d      "      41       "        and  leaves  an  excess  of 

24,160  white  persons 
3d      "       27       "        and  Heaves  an  excess  of 

38, SI'S  white  persons 
4th     "       41       "        and  leaves  an  excess  of 
142,299  white  persons. 


150  204,777 ! 

So  that  if  the  white  persons  in  the  1st  district  have 
only  their  due  weight  in  the  government,  the  citizens  of 
the  other  districts  when  compared  with  them,  fall  greatly 
short  of  a  proper  participation  in  the  legislative  power  : 
and  it  appears  in  fact,  the  inequality  is  so  great  that 
there  are  204,771  out  of  708,220,  (the  whole  white  pop- 
ulation, excluding  that  of  the  1st  district,)  who  may  be 
said  to  be  disfranchised. 

Regard  it  in  another  aspect,  and  it  will  appear  equal- 
ly astounding  in  its  developments.  Apply  5,983,  the 
average  ratio  for  a  delegate,  throughout  the  State,  to 
the  white  population  of  each  of  the  grand  divisions, 
and  it  shows  that  in  allowing  41  delegates  to  the  1st 
district,  representation  is  given  to  55,989  white  persons 
too  many  :  in  allowing  41  delegates  to  the  2d  district, 
representation  is  given  to  31,846  white  persons  too  many, 
making  an  aggregate  of  87,835  white  persons  who  ought 
to  be  in  eastern  Virginia  to  entitle  her  to  82  delegates, 
but  who  are  not  there  :  and  in  applying  the  same  ratio 
to  the  3d  district,  it  will  be  found  that  in  allowing  it  27 
delegates,  there  are  1,636  white  persons  not  represented, 
and  that  in  allowing  the  4th  district  only  41  delegates, 
there  are  86,283  white  persons  not  represented,  making  an 
aggregate  of  87,919  white  persons  more  than  the  number 
which  would  entitle  western  Virginia,  on  principles  of 
equality,  to  68  delegates. 

Proposition  B,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha 
as  a  substitute  to  proposition  A,  declares  first  that  "  as  in- 
dividual suffrage  should  be  equal  without  respect  to  the 
difference  of  individual  wealth,  so  an  equal  number  of 
qualified  voters  shall  be  entitled  to  an  equal  representa- 
tion without  regard  to  their  aggregate  wealth ;  "  and 
second,  "  that  representation  shall  be  equal  and  uniform 
in  this  commonwealth,  and  shall  always  be  regulated  and 
ascertained  by  the  number  of  the  qualified  voters ; "  and 
then  proceeds  to  apportion  representation  as  nearly  in 
accordance  with  this  principle  for  the  present  as  practi- 
cable ;  and  provides  that  in  1855,  and.  every  ten  years 
thereafter,  there  shall  be  an  enumeration  of  the  qualified 
voters,  and  apportionments  made  according  to  their  num- 
ber: This  proposition  begins  with  suffrage,  and  declares 
that  "  the  qualifications  necessary  to  confer  the  right 
shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  commonwealth."  I  un- 
derstand the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  to  agree  to  this 
2 


proposition.  We  begin  the  argument  at  the  same  point 
with  our  opponents,  that  is,  that  the  sovereign  or  elective 
power  should  be  lodged  in  the  hands  of  voters — electors 
— who  are  to  be  qualified  as  we  may  hereafter  prescribe, 
to  wield  the  power  of  the  State.  We  go  a  step  further 
and  say,  the  members  of  this  great  elective  body,  these 
electors — are  to  be  equally  trusted  and  in  equal  propor- 
tions— as  individuals — as  hundreds,  as  thousands.  Our 
opponents  say  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  proportion 
to  their  numbers ;  but  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  and 
taxes  combined.  And  to  test  this  question,  the  gentle- 
man from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  has  offered  a  substitute, 
declaring  that  representation  shall  be  apportioned  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  the  white  inhabitants  contained, 
and  the  amount  of  all  taxes  paid  in  any  election  district, 
deducting  therefrom  taxes  on  licenses  and  law  process,  and 
that  "  in  making  such  apportionment,  there  shall  be  al- 
lowed one  delegate  for  every  part  of  said  inhabi- 
tants, and  one  delegate  for  every  part  of  said 
taxes.  '  The  gentleman's  substitute  does  not  enter  into 
the  perplexing  and  embarrassing  details  of  apportionment 
but  reserves  that  matter  until  the  principle  is  settled. 
Neither  does  it  declare  in  what  proportion  taxes  and 
persons  are  to  be  blended.  I  object  to  the  substitute  for 
this  reason  ;  it  is  calculated  to  deceive,  and  although  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  declares  he  will 
move  to  fill  the  blanks,  so  as  to  give  half  the  delegates 
on  taxes  and  half  on  persons  ;  others  may  not  agree  with 
him,  and  may  hope  to  fill  the  blanks  in  a  different  way. 
Suppose  the  first  blank  be  filled  with  the  word  "tenth" 
and  the  second  with  the  word  "  ninetieth, "'  it  would  be 
equivalent  to  surrendering  the  government  to  the  almost 
unadulterated  principle,  that  power  should  be  graduated 
solely  by  taxation.  BxA,  accepting  the  declaration  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  as  conveying  the  intentions 
and  purposes  of  all  his  friends,  I  come  now  to  the  ques- 
tion first  presented  for  our  determination.  Ought  the 
substitute  to  be  adopted  ?  I  think  not,  and  will  under- 
take to  show  that  it  violates  the  great  principles  I  have 
before  defended,  will  be  unjust  and  oppressive  in  its  op- 
erations, and  is  not  necessary  to  secure  and  will  not  se- 
cure what  gentlemen  desire  by  its  adoption. 

I  declare  at  the  outset  that  the  substitute  must  be  sus- 
tained by  the  arguments  of  its  friends — that  its  justice 
must  be  made  manifest,  and  that  its  necessity  must  be 
proven  to 'our  entire  satisfaction  and  to  that  of  the  coun- 
try, and  that  the  burden  of  showing  these  things  rests  on 
those  who  announce  that  the  majority  ought  not  in  Vir- 
ginia to  be  entrusted  with  the  political  power.  In  1829 
in  a  speech  which  immortalized  his  name,  Mr.  Upshur 
said,  "  I  admit  as  a  general  proposition,  that  in  free  gov- 
ernments power  ought  to  be  given  to  the  majority  ;  and 
why  ?  The  rule  is  founded  in  the  idea  that  there  is  an 
identity,  though  not  an  equality  of  interests  in  the  sev- 
eral members  of  the  body  politic,  in  which  case  the  pre- 
sumption naturally  arises,  that  the  greater  number  pos- 
sesses the  greater  interest."  It  will  not  be  enough  then 
to  show  that  there  are  inequalities  of  interests  in  Vir- 
ginia— those  inequalities  exist  every  where  and  under  all 
the  diversified  circumstances  of  human  fortune.  The 
minority  must  demonstrate  in  such  manner  as  ought  to 
satisfy  the  majority,  that  the  power  to  pass  all  laws  af- 
fecting life,  liberty  and  property — the  property  of  the 
majority  as  well  as  that  of  the  minority — ought  justly 
and  rightfully  to  be  given  up  by  the  many  to  the  few— 
because  there  is  such  a  want  of  identity  of  "interests  in 
the  several  members  "  of  our  body  politic,  as  that  whilst 
we  should  continue  as  one  body,  one  community,  the 
general  safety,  the  common  good  demands  that  the  will 
of  the  smaller  portion  of  the  community  should  control  its 
actions.  And  what  is  the  ground  of  this  claim  of  power  by 
the  minority  ?  It  is  the  protection  of  property.  It  is  ar- 
gued that  persons  and  property  are  the  essential  elements 
of  society — that  without  property  society  cannot  exist — 
that  in  its  welfare  are  involved  all  the  rights  of  persons 
— that  legislation  is  chiefly  concerned  in  making  laws  to 
regulate  property  and  its  interests — that  the  laws  con 
cerning  persons  are  few  and  simple— that  public  opinion 


10 


is  their  best  sanction ;  but  that  the  laws  which  affect 
property  are  various  and  almost  infinitely  ramified ;  and 
the  question  is  then  asked,  ought  not  property  to  enjoy 
a  protection  above  all  suspicion  and  free  from  every  ha- 
zard? Yes,  property  should  eujoy  just  such  protection 
as  gentlemen  ask  for  it- — a  protection  as  sacred  and  as 
sure  as  the  habeas  corpus  affords  to  persons.  But  how 
ought  it  to  be  protected  ?  It  might  be  protected  effi- 
ciently at  the  very  fountain  of  political  power,  by  pre- 
scribing strong  property  qualifications  of  suffrage,  or  by 
graduating  the  value  of  votes'  according  to  the  amount 
of  property  owned  by  the  voter-^so  that  the  intelligent 
self  interest  of  individuals,  ever  alive  to  assaults  upon 
the  rights  of  property,  might  be  armed  with  the  ballot 
box  to  protect  it.  But  gentlemen  shrink  back  with  jus 
horror  from  the  idea  of  establishing  a  moneyed  aristoc- 
racy of  this  sort.  Rich  and  lordly  Mr.  A.  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  thrust  aside  podr  Mr.  B.  from  the  polls  and 
deposite  ten  times  as  many  votes  as  he  !  Oh,  no — ti  e 
very  thought  of  such  inequality  is  revolting  to  their  feel- 
ings. Gentlemen  advocate  enlarged  and  uniform  suffrage  : 
the  poor  men  are  to  be  admitted  to  a  greater  participa- 
tion in  the  conduct  of  affairs,  and  at  the  polls,  are  to  stauu 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  rich  ;  they  hesitate  to  drop 
the  aristocratic  poison  into  the  fountain — they  will  not 
pollute  the  pure  gushing  stream  of  representation  at  its 
spring ;  but  propose  to  turn  into  it  below  its  source  tLe 
turbid  tide  of  taxation,  which  will  ever  after  discolor  its 
beauty  and  destroy  its  health-giving  qualities. 

I  propose  now  to  consider  on  what  grounds  our  oppo- 
nents rest  the  claim  of  property  to  be  equal  with  per- 
sons as  an  element  of  power.  What,  I  ask,  is  it  that 
creates  a  representative  body?  It  is  suffrage.  And 
what  is  suffrage  ?  It  is  the  Expression  of  individual 
will  in  delegating  power  to  a  representative.  Here,  as 
I  have  saiii,  gentlemen  ought  to  begin  their  system  of 
property  protection  if  they  desire  it  to  be  effectual,  by 
giving  A,  who  is  worth  $10,000,  ten  votes,  and  B, 
who  is  worth  $1000,  one  vote.  And  I  will  remark 
that  in  1829,  this  practice  of  double  voting  was  in  vogue 
in  France — the  value  of  men's  votes  was  graduated  by 
the  length  of  their  purses— a  principle  Which  was  re- 
sisted by  La  Fayette,  with  the  same  love  of  liberty  and 
equality  which  brought  him  to  the  side  of  Washington 
in  the  darkest  hour  of  the  revolution.  There  are  some 
things  which  have  been  borrowed  from  aristocratic 
France,  as  well  as  the  ideas  of  proscription,  infidelity, 
licentiousness,  lawless  disregard  of  the  honor  of  God, 
and  the  rights  of  man,  the  mockery  of  justice,  and  the 
glittering  guillotine,  which  gentlemen. would  fain  have 
us  believe  will  be  transferred  to  our  midst  from  repub- 
lican France,  if  we  entrust  power  to  the  people  in 
Virginia.  Our  opponents  borrow  the  principle  but  re- 
ject the  French  mode  of  applying  it  as  odious  and  aris- 
tocratic. But  I  proceed  to  inquire  what  is  representation  ? 
It  is  the  result — the  effect  of  suffrage.  It  is  the  concentra- 
tion of  the  general  will  in  one  body — it  is  the  organ  by 
which  the  public  will  controls  and  directs  public  affairs, 
and  ought  to  be  apportioned  with  a  view  of  f  airly  embody- 
ing that  will.  Under  the  mixed  basis,  the  will  of  one 
portion  of  the  community,  though  expressed  in  suffrage, 
is  palsied  in  representation  by  the  power  of  money 
paid  as  taxes  by  the  other  portion.  And  what 
are  taxes  ?  They  are  contributions  to  the  support  of 
government^  given  in  consideration  of  the  protection  of 
property — and  common  sense  declares  they  should  be 
levied  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  property  to  be 
protected,  that  is,  to  the  ability  to  pay.  The  two 
great  duties  men  owe  their  government  are — first,  the 
payment  of  taxes  in  consideration  of  the  protection  of 
property ;  second,  the  discharge  of  military  duty,  in  return 
for  the  protection  of  persons.  These  are  duties  men 
are  bound  to  discharge.  And  yet  it  is  argued  that  the 
faithful  performance  of  the  duty  of  tax  paying  is  a 
ground  on  which  power  may  be  asserted — that  those 
who  do  their  duty  in  one  particular  shall  have  power  over 
those  who  do  their  duties  equally  well  in  other  respects. 
The  claim  to  power  by  reason  of  peculiar  sanctity  leads 
to  spiritual  despotism.  Rigid  morality  becomes  the 
foundation  for  Pharisaical  domination — wealth  opens 


the  way  to  a  monied  aristocracy — and  the  assumption  of 

extraordinary  talents  or  virtue  results  in  the  formation 
of  an  oligarchy.  God  recognizes  no  power  in  his  crea- 
tures over  their  fellows,  because  they  do  their  duty  to 
him — neither  should  man  be  allowed  power  for  dis- 
charging his  duty  to  his  government.  And,  I  ask,  if 
the  duty  of  tax  paying  gives  title  to  power,  why  not 
the  duties  of  public  defence  and  of  working  on  the  high- 
ways? There  were  reported  the  present  year  to  the 
adjutant  general  123,733  officers  and  privates  belonging 
to  the  militia — and  he  says  in  his  report  that  the  rolls 
are  deficient  by  many  thousands.  This  must  be  so,  be- 
cause I  perceive  there  are  in  the  State  200,958  white 
tithes,  and  I  think  it  fair  to  estimate  the  militia  at 
150,000*  According  to  the  ratio  of  white  population, 
there  would  be  in  the  West  82,688,  and  in  the  East 
67,312  men  subject  to  military  duty,  showing  an  excess 
West  of  15,376.  These  men  are  compelled  to  perform  mil- 
itary duty  three  days  in  a  year.  The  loss  of  time  and  the 
actual  outlay  of  money  in  discharging  this  duty  make 
a  tax  of  at  least  three  dollars  a  year  on  each  officer  and 
private.  Here  then  is  a  total  tax  of  $450,000,  of  which 
the  West  bears  the  greater  burden  by  $46,128.  Why 
not  give— on  the  principle  contended  for — power  to  the 
West,  in  consideration  of  this  discharge  of  duty?  But 
no — the  discharge  of  the  money  duty  entitles  the  few 
to  prescribe  laws  and  duties  to  all  others. 

Abandoning  the  idea  of  protecting  property  by  con- 
ferring the  power  to  do  so  on  those  who  own  it,  gentle- 
men proceed  to  communities  and  propose  to  confer  this 
power  on  the  aggregates  of  individuals,  which  they  deny 
to  individuals.  I  presume  the  scheme  is  founded  on  one 
of  two  ideas,  either  that  the  poor  men  in  the  rich  man's 
neighborhood  know  better  how  to  manage  and  protect 
his  property  than  himself,  or  that  the  rich  man,  by  the 
power  of  his  wealth,  will  so  control  the  opinions  and 
voies  of  his  humbler  neighbors  as  to  make  them  think 
with  and  act  for  him.  What  is  the  argument  ?  Let  me 
illustrate  it :  County  A.  has  five  hundred  voters  and 
pays  $2,000  taxes — county  B  has  five  hundred  voters 
and  pays  $500  taxes.  In  county  A,  one  hundred  of  the 
voters  pay  $1600  and  four  hundred  pay  $400.  The  four 
hundred  in  A,  and  the  five  hundred  in  B,  pay  each  one 
dollar  ;  and  ought  on  any  just  principle  to  have  equal 
weight  in  the  government.  According  to  the  mixed  ba- 
sis, in  a  council  of  ten  delegates,  county  A  would  send 
six  and  a  half  delegates,  and  county  B  would  send  three 
and  a  half  delegates.  Legitimately  th,e  one  hundred 
rich  men  in  A  ought  to  send  three  delegates  on  account 
of  their  taxes  and  a  half  delegate  on  their  own  account 
— but  this  is  not  allowed- — the  one  hundred  rich  men  in 
A  have  no  more  potential  voice  than  the  four  hundred 
poor  men ;  but  the  four  hundred,  because  they  are  near 
the  palaces  of  the  rich,  gazing  at  them  perhaps  with  en-" 
vious  eyes,  are  thereby  converted  into  aristocrats  them- 
selves; and  are  exalted  in  power  above  their  equals  in 
county  B.  This  is  indeed  a  moneyed  aristocracy  on  the 
very  worst  principle— that  of  the  credit  system — the 
poor  borrowing  the  wealth  of  their  rich  neighbors  to  lift 
themselves  above  their  equals  elsewhere. 

As  I  have  before  said  it  is  conceded  as  a  general  rule 
that  the  majority  should  govern,  and  that  this  rule  ought 
not  to  be  departed  from,  except,  to  use  the  language  of 
the  eloquent  gentleman  from  Marion,  (Mr.  Neeson,)  "to 
avert  some  great  mischief,  or  to  promote  some  great 
public  good."  Now,  what  is  the  good  to  be  secured — 
what  the  mischief  to  be  shunned  by  the  mixed  basis  ? 
The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  (Mr.  Scott)  declares  that 
the  mixed  basis  is  necessary  to  secure  good  government, 
to  guard  against  abuses  of  legislative  power,  and  to  pro- 
tect property  as  well  as  persons.  The  dangers  ahead 
then  are  bad  government,  abuse*bf  legislative  power,  and 
the  destruction  of  property.  I  can  imagine  that  gentle- 
man standing  on  the  deck  of  the  gallant  ship  of  State  as 
it  ploughs  its  way  through  the  waters,  guided  by  the 
chart  of  science  and  the  needle  that  ever  points  to  the 
star  of  principle ;  and  as  he  strains  his  eyes  to  gaze 
through  the  mists  ahead  and  fancies  he  hears  the  roar  of 
the  surf  upon  the  rocks,  I  can  hear  his  clear  ringing 


voice  proclaim  "breakers  ahead  !  the  ship  is  in  danger." 
If  the  suffrage  basis  will  result  in  bad  government,  in 
abuses  of  legislative  power,  and  in  the  destruction  of 
property,  we  ought  to  abandon  it  and  to  give  heed  to 
the  warning  cries  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier.  We 
are  here  to  avert  dangers,  to  secure  good  government,  to 
guard  against  public  abuses,  and  to  protect  property  ; 
but  let  us  beware,  lest  in  shunning  imaginary  rocks,  we 
be  not  swallowed  in  a  vortex  of  destruction. 

The  gentleman  from  Fauquier  would  hardly  deny  that 
a  government  based  upon  qualified  voters  might  manage 
the  trifling  concerns  of  life  and  liberty,  and  the  means  of 
pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  ;  he  would  not  contro- 
vert this  proposition  without  at  the  same  time  denying 
a  doctrine  I  know  he  cherishes,  the  doctrine  of  the  ca- 
pacity of  the  people  for  self-government ;  but  I  under- 
stand him  to  say  that  property  would  not  be  safe  with 
such  a  basis  of  representation,  and  that  in  the  interests 
of  property  are  involved  all  other  interests.  Let  us  con- 
sider seriously  and  in  order  the  modes  in  which  property 
may  be  imperilled,  and  calmly  determine  whether  Vir- 
ginia, like  South  Carolina,  is  in  such  a  condition  as  to 
demand  the  adoption  of  that  political  expedient  to  pro- 
tect property — the  mixed  basis.  Dangers  to  property 
are  apprehended  as  the  results  of  legislative  acts ;  one 
would  suppose  that  to  guard  against  such  dangers,  re- 
straints should  be  imposed  on  legislative  power.  This 
is  the  first  suggestion  of  common  sense — of  ordinary  pru- 
dence. Desiring  to  extend  suffrage,  to  make  voters  at  the 
polls  equal,  one  with  another,  having  as  much  confidence 
in  one  portion  of  the  community  as  in  another,  in  respect 
to  virtue,  intelligence  and  patriotism,  one  would  sup- 
pose thai  to  avoid  legislative  acts  which  would  in  any 
way  impair  the  rights  or  value  of  property,  it  would  be 
enough  to  restrain  and  limit  the  legislative  power — the 
power  of  the  agents  of  the  people;  and  if  it  can  be  shown 
that  whatever  principle  of  representation  be  adopted, 
some  limitations  and  restraints  are  necessary,  and  that 
no  more  are  required  to  prevent  abuses  under  the  suf- 
frage than  under  the  mixed  basis,  it  will  follow  that  there 
is  no  political  necessity  for  the  adoption  of  the  latter  prin- 
ciple and  that  it  ought  to  be  discarded.  I  think  this 
conclusion  will  follow  from  the  remarks  I  propose  to 
make.  , 

I  concede  that  property  may  be  imperilled  :  first,  by 
attacking  the  right  to  hold  it;  second,  by  excessive  taxa- 
\  tion  so  as  to  impair  its  value  in  the  hands  of  all  who 
hold  i-  ;  and  third,  by  discriminations  in  laying  taxes  so 
as  to  impose  the  burdens  of  supporting  government  on 
one  sort  of  property  to  the  relief  of  another  sort.  I  wish 
to  meet  the  arguments  fairly  and  to  answer  them  by  such 
reasons  derived  from  principles  and  facts  as  have  satis- 
fied my  mind  that  the  fears  of  eastern  gentlemen  are 
groundless — that  their  conclusions  are  unsound  and  un- 
tenable. First,  do  gentlemen  seriously  fear  that  if  the 
suffrage  basis  be  adopted  the  right  to  hold  property  of 
any  kind  will  be  impaired  ?  Do  they  apprehend  that  a 
western  majority  will  strike  at  the  right  of  any  mem- 
ber of  the  community  to  acquire  property  and  to  hold 
for  his  separate  enjoyment  the  fruits  of  his  own  toil  \ 
Do  not  the  western  people  love  property  ?  Are  they  not 
eager  to  procure- — are  they  not  untiring  in  their  struggles 
to  gather  around  them  the  goods  of  this  life  ?  Is  not  the 
west  like  a  busy  hive  in  which  all  are  industriously  em- 
ployed in  laying  up  stores  for  support  and  enjoyment  in 
the  future  ?  Are  they  not  jealous  of  their  rights — are 
they  not  careful  of  their  interests  in  property — do  they 
not  guard  those  interests  and  defend  those  rights  in 
the  courts  of  justice  with  as  much  resolute  obstinacy  and 
firmness  of  purpose  as  mark  the  conduct  of  eastern  pro- 
perty holders  ?  It  is  true  they  have  not  as  much  as  their 
more  favored  eastern  brethren,  but  they  are  equally  vigi- 
lant in  protecting  it,  equally  anxious  in  increasing  it,  and 
equally  desirous  that  when  acquired  it  shall  continue  to 
be  protected  by  equal  and  uniform  laws.  De  Tocqueville, 
the  distinguished  author  of  "  Democracy  in  America," 
says  that  "  in  no  country  in  the  world  is  the  love  of  pro 


States  ;  nowhere  does  the  majority  display  less  inclina- 
tion for  those  principles  which  threaten  to  alter,  in  what- 
ever manner,  the  laws  of  property."  This  is  a  tribute 
paid  to  our  entire  country ;  and  will  gentlemen  say  it  is 
justly  bestowed  on  all  parts  of  our  Union  but  westen 
Virginia?  De  Tocqueville  says  "the  love  of  property' 
is  "active"— -it  is  earnest  and  untiring  in  the  pursuit ;  it 
is  also  "anxious" — it  is  jealous  and  vigilant  in  guarding 
the  treasure  in  possession  ;  and  it  is  ever  respectful  and 
regardful  of  the  rights  of  others,  because  that  .spirit  alone 
can  protect  its  own  rights.  It  is  the  love  of  freedom  and 
the  love  of  property— the  love  of  liberty,  which  can  only 
be  enjoyed  when  subject  to  law,  and  the  love  of  property 
which  can  only  exist  when  protected  by  law,  that  are 
the  prominent  characteristics  of  the  anglo-saxon  race  ; 
and  it  is  the  blended  influence  of  these  two  principles,' 
creating  as  they  advance  an  all  controling  public  opinion, 
that  on  the  one  hand  will  brook  no  restraints  on  the  so- 
cial, civil  and  political  equality  of  man,  and  on  the  other 
will  frown  down  all  lawless  licentiousness — that  on  the 
one  hand  will  tolerate  no  concentration  of  the  money 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  few  and  of  their  descendants  ; 
and  on  the  o.her  will  crush  to  the  earth  every  effort  to 
invade  the  sacred  rights  of  property— it  is  the  influence 
of  these  principles,  and  of  this  public  opinion  which  is 
destined  to  encircle  the  globe  with  the  institutions  of 
that  race— which  is  destined  to  spread  knowledge,  civili  - 
zation and  Christianity  over  the  world.  Let  it  not  be  said 
that  western  Virginians  are  unworthy  to  participate  in 
ihis  glorious  work. 

Again:  property  may  be  imperiled  by  excessive 
taxation.  It  is  conceded  that  a  taxing  agency  in  the 
shape  of  a  legislature  may  be  organized  so  as  to  impose 
burdens  on  the  entire  property  of  the  State  that  will 
impair  its  value  and  endanger  its  existence.  This  legis 
lature,  organized  on  the  suffrage  basis,  would  be  com- 
posed of  agents  reflecting  the  opinions  and  wishes  of 
equal  numbers  of  tax-payers ;  and  on  the  mixed  basis,  it 
would  consist  of  agents  representing  unequal  numbers 
of  tax-payers — not  in  the  exact  proportion  of  the  amount 
they  were  to  pay,  but  in  a  ratio  approximating  that 
principle — that  is,  in  thfc  proportion  of  the  number  of 
tax-payers  and  the  amount  paid  combined.  And  it  is 
argued  that,  without  any  restraints  on  legislative  power, 
the  representatives  of  the  smaller  number  of  tax-pay- 
ers are  safely  to  be  entrusted  with  the  power  to  pass 
laws  affecting  life  and  liberty,  and  also  to  lax  the  majori- 
ty of  tax-payers  at  their  pleasure,  because  their  respon- 
sibilities to  their  constituents  will  be  such  as  to  secure 
moderate  public  expenditures  and  low  rates  of  taxes  ; 
whereas,  if  the  suffrage  basis  be  adopted,  those  who 
levy  the  taxes  will  not  be  responsible  to  those  who  pay 
them  ;  and  that,  whatever  restraints  may  be  imposed 
on  the  legislative  power,  the  majority  of  the  tax-payers 
will  ultimately  throw  off  those  restraints  and  destroy 
property  by  excessive  taxation.  And  here  allow  me  to 
say  that  I  am  surprised  at  the  sneers  of  eastern  gen- 
tlemen at  "  paper  guaranties,"  as  they  are  pleased  to 
call  all  limitations  on  legislative  power.  And  what,  I 
ask,  is  your  bill  of  rights — declared  by  your  courts  to 
be  a  part  of  the  constitution  ?  What  is  your  constitu- 
tion itself,  with  all  its  fences  against  the  encroachments, 
of  power,  but  "  paper  guaranties  ?"  And  permit  me 
to  say,  that  he  who  succeeds  in  creating  the  impression 
on  the  public  mind  that  there  is  nothing  sacred,  nothing 
enduring  in  the  "  paper  guaranties"  of  the  American  re- 
publics, will  succeed  in  unsettling  the  very  foundation 
of  our  institutions,  which  rest  upon  faith — faith  in  the 
people — faith  in  their  respect  for  the  rights  of  all, 
from  the  humblest  to  the  highest — faith  in  their  capacity 
to  govern  themselves,  and  to  secure  their  own  safety 
and  happiness — to  provide  for  the  greatest  good  of  the 
greatest  number,  and  for  all  possible  good  to  the  small- 
est number.  The  rock  upon  which  American  institu- 
tions rests  is  faith  in  the  people.  The  argus-eyed  guar- 
dian of  the  people's  rights  is  jealousy  of  public  agents. 
But,  it  is  said  that  if  the  legislature  be  restrained  from 


perty  more  active  and  more  anxious  than  in  the  United  |  contracting  a  large  public  debt  by  a  constitutional  limi- 


12 


tations  upon  itsrrpower,  the  wants  of  the  west  are  such 
that  with  a  majority  of  votes  it  will  be  induced,  will 
be  tempted  to  call  another  convention,  for  the  purposes 
of  removing  the  limitations — of  increasing  the  debt — 
of  accumulating  burdens  upon  property  and  rendering 
it  valueless  by  excessive  taxation.  The  evil  to  be 
avoided  is  excessive  taxation  ;  and  reasonable  limitations 
on  the  power  to  create  a  debt,  and  to  oppress  by  heavy 
taxes,  are  to  be  discarded,  not  because  the  public  inter- 
,  est  would  be  unsafe  whilst  the  limitations  exist,  but  be- 
cause the  people  may  hereafter  be  so  eager  to  swell 
then-  public  debt  as  to  throw  off  the  restraints  imposed 
on  their  agents  and  expose  themselves  to  be  borne  down 
by  the  intolerable  weight  of  taxation.  &nd  to  what  do 
gentlemen  invite  us  to  look  as  in  itself  a  perfect  safe- 
guard against  a  public  debt  and  excessh  e  taxes  ?  The 
gentleman  from  Fauquier  says  to  the  mixed  basis :  It 
will  secure  property,  good  government,  and  will  save 
the  people  from  heavy  taxes.  The  danger  of  a  public 
debt  in  connection  with  the  white  basis  was  alluded  to 
in  the  convention  of  1829-'30,  by  several  distinguished 
members  of  that  body — I  remember  the  names  of  Mr. 
Morris,  of  Hanover,  and  of  Judge  Scott — a  man  whose 
genius  we  have  all  been  accustomed  to  admire,  the 
memory  of  whose  virtues  we  will  ever  cherish  and 
revere.  And  it  was  then  argued  that  a  heavy  debt  for 
internal  improvements  would  be  avoided  by  the  mixed 
basis — that  all  other  restraints  were  mere  "paper  guar- 
anties," and  worthless,  but  that  the  white  basis  would 
lead  to  an  enormous  public  debt  and  a  wasteful  expendi- 
ture of  public  money.  Chapman  Johnson,  and  others 
replied,  and  predicted  that  the  compound  or  mixed 
basis  would  produce  the  very  results  which  have  flowed 
from  the  provisions  of  the  existing  constitution,  although 
it  secures  to  the  east  more  power  than  the  mixed  basis. 
They  predicted  (and  their  predictions  have  become  proph- 
ecies fulfilled)  that  the  mixed  basis  would  give  to  the 
v  concert  of  the  western  vote  more  power  in  respect  to 
internal  improvements  than  was  taken  from  their  num- 
bers— that  western  members  would  move  in  solid  pha- 
lanx, and  that,  by  combinations  with  eastern  interests  they 
would  secure  their  own  purposes,  whilst,  at  the  same 
time,  the  public  debt  would  be  much  more  swelled  and 
increased  than  if  they  had  the  power  to  carry  through 
the  State  those  great  schemes  which  would  connect  its 
eastern  and  western  interests  together  and  make  them  one. 
Such  was  the  prophecy.  What  has  been  the  fulfilment? 
Why,  we  have  witnessed,  under  this  unnatural  and  un- 
just apportionment  of  power,  the  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  a  system  of  public  improvement  and  expendi- 
ture well  calculated  to  alarm  the  judicious  and  the 
prudent.  The  condition  of  parties  has  been  this  :  Sev- 
enty-nine delegates  and  nineteen  senators  from  the  east, 
and  fifty-six  delegates  and  thirteen  senators  from  the 
west:  the  western  members  representing  a  majority, 
and  the  eastern  a  minority  of  the  people :  the  western 
members  feeling  no  responsibility  resting  upon  them  for 
the  general  course  of  legislation — remembering  that 
they  were  put  under  the  ban  in  1829,  on  account  of  in- 
ternal improvements,  and  seeing,  for  a  long  time,  in 
the  members  from  eastern  Virginia  an  obstinate  deter- 
mination to  deny  the  west  all  improvements  and  to  close 
their  ears  to  ail  appeals  for  the  development  of  its 
resources.  Thus  situated,  how  natural  was  it  that  the 
fifty-six  votes  of  the  west  should  stand  ready  to  com- 
bine with  any  twelve  members  who  might  desire  an  im- 
provement east  of  the  Blue  Ridge. 

How  natural  that  the  internal  improvement  party 
should  understand  that  in  union  alone  there  was  strength 
— that  they  must  combine  to  carry  their  schemes  against 
the  unyielding  and  united  vote  of  a  large  majority  from 
eastern  Virginia.  The  eastern  internal  improvement 
party  took  its  origin  in  the  Piedmont  district,  and  in 
those  cities  at  the  head  of  tide  water  that  derive  their 
trade  from  the  Piedmont  and  western  districts.  They 
were  led  on  by  such  gallant  leaders  as  the  gentleman 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  whose  clarion  voice  has 
always  been  heard  in  the  front  of  the  battle.  Often 


have  I  heard  him  rallying,  with  cheering  cries,  the 
sometimes  broken  and  scattered  forces  of  tne  internal 
improvement  party  in  the  House  of  Delegates — acting 
then  as  the  bold  leader  of  the  "  plunderers  "  and 
now  as  the  gallant  defender  of  the  saving,  treasury 
protecting,  mixed  basis  faith  !  This  region  of  the  Com- 
monwealth therefore  occupied  the  vantage  ground. 
With  a  united  anti-internal  improvement  vote  in 
the  tide  water  district,  the  Piedmont  vote  could 
defeat  any  western  scheme  ;  and  no  bill  could  pass 
without  its  co-operation.  Occupying  this  position  then 
it  could  dictate  its  own  terms  to  the  west  and  secure 
such  improvements  as  would  best  promote  its  own  in- 
terests. -  And  what  has  been  the  result  of  this  condi- 
tion of  things  ?  Look  abroad  over  the  face  of  Virginia, 
and  you  will  find  the  east  intersected  with  railroads  and 
other  improvements,  most  of  them  tending  towards  the 
west,  but  "  dragging  their  slow  length  along"  with  te- 
dious tardiness,  whilst  beyond  the  Blue  Ridge  there  are 
but  thirty -two  miles  of  railroad,  and  not  yet  has  a  fixed 
policy  of  improvement  marked  the  legislation  of  the 
State.  No  great  thoroughfares  have  been  forced 
through  to  the  Ohio  river  and  the  Tennessee  line.  Such 
I  conscientiously  believe  would  have  been  the  case  had 
power  been  yielded  to  principle  in  1829- '30.  The  im- 
provements,of  the  State  are  impulsive  and  short-sighted, 
and  lead  to  no  grand  results.  From  Richmond  four 
railroads  and  a  canal  diverge  ;  from  Petersburg  three 
railroads  and  a  river  improvement ;  from  Alexandria 
two  railroads  and  a  canals  and  what  are  they  all? 
Mere  sickly  shoots,  starting  from  insufficient  trunks. 
The  public  mind  of  the  State,  east  and  west,  is  now 
becoming  fixed  in  the  opinion  that  the  improvements 
must  be  carried  through  the  State  before  they  cease  to 
be  burdens  on  the  public  treasury.  And  I  ask  eastern 
gentlemen  whether  it  would  not  have  been  better  for 
them,  as  tax  payers  and  as  Virginians,  that  this  had 
been  done  long  ago  ?  The  income  of  these  grand 
works  would  now  have  been  filling  our  treasury,  and 
our  noble  old  State,  with  renewed  energy  and  vigor, 
would  have  been  running  the  race  of  successful  com- 
petition for  the  immense  and  wealth-giving  trade  of 
the  great  west  with  her  bold  and  intrepid  rivals  north 
and  south.  Virginia  feels  the  despondency  of  the 
racer  who  is  thrown  behind  ;  but  still  realizes  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  stimulating  her  exhausted  energies 
to  reach  the  goal.  But,  I  return  to  the  question,  has 
the  mixed  basis  saved  the  State  from  a  public  debt, 
and  from  increased  taxes  ?  And  has  the  principle  that 
they  who  lay  should  be  responsible  to  those  who  pay 
the  taxes  availed  to  protect  tide  water  Virginia,  or  been 
carried  into  pi^ctice  by  Piedmont  Virginia?  By  the 
report  of  the  finance  committee  at  the  present  session 
of  the  general  assembly,  it  appears  that  the  aggregate 
debt  of  the  State  is  $10,516,658,  that  the  productive 
stocks  and  funds  owned  by  the  State  are  $6,708,100, 
leaving  an  apparent  debt  of  $3,808,557  ;  to  which  must 
be  added  $4,632,868  of  certain  liabilities,  and  $4,791,894 
of  contingent  liabilities  in  the  shape  of  guaranties,  &c, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  made  chargeable  on  the 
treasury.  A  convulsion  in  the  money  affairs  of  the 
the  Union  might  throw  upon  the  treasury  the  burden  of 
a  debt  of  $19,097,420.  And  ^11  men  agree  that  the 
taxes  must  be  raised.  This  state  of  things  has  grown 
up  under  the  system  of  combination,  or  log-rolling, 
spoken  of  before.  A  distinguished  member  of  the 
nouse  of  delegates,  (Mr.  Burwell  from  Bedford,)  de- 
scribed this  system  thus  :  Log-rolling  is  a  necessity  in 
the  legislation  of  Virginia.  At  each  session  some  great 
scheme  of  improvement  is  started,  and  around  it  con- 
gregate many  smaller  projects,  all  of  which  are  to  go 
through  or  to  fail  together.  He  likened  the  system. to 
the  progress  of  a  whale  through  a  narrow  frith,  follow- 
ed and  pushed  ahead  by  a  hundred  fishes  of  the  smaller 
tribes  :  if  the  whale  be  stopped,  the  way  becomes 
blocked  up,  and  the  small  followers  of  his  mightiness 
are  stopped  with  him.  I  now  proceed  to  show  that 
"the  whales"  have  generally  been  found  in  the  Pied- 
mont and  upper  tide-water  districts,  and  that  the  prin- 


13 


ciple  that  those  who  lay  ought  to  be  responsible  to 
those  who  pay  the  taxes  has  been  repudiated  in  prac- 
tice by  those  who  now  contend  for  it  as  the  only  safe- 
guard against  oppression  and  the  plundering  of  proper- 
ty. The  following  table  shows  the  amounts  expended  by 
the  State  in  the  four  grand  divisions;  1&J&1V5,123  78; 
2nd.  $7,449,185  77 ;  3rd.  $2,119,363  85,  ancf4th,  $1,504, 
098  60,  making  a  total  of  $11,864,371,  of  which  the  first 
district  has  received  6  7-10  per  cent,  whilst  it  is  now 
paying  at  the  rate  of  33  6-10  per  cent  of  the  public  rev- 
enue ;  2nd  district  has  received  62  7-10  per  cent,  and  is 
paying  31  3-10  per  cent ;  3rd  district  has  received  17  6-10 
per  cent,  and  is'  paying  17  3-10  per  cent,  and  the  4th  dis- 
trict has  received  12  6-10  per  cent,  and  is  paying  17  7-10 
per  cent.  In  addition  to  the  above  amounts  $480,000 
have  been  appropriated  to  the  South  Side  Rail  Road,  and 
$480,000  to  the  Manassa  Gap  Rail  Road,  at  the  present 
session  of  the  General  Assembly— the  one  terminating  in 
Petersburg,  and  the  other  in  Alexandria.  (The  Central 
Railroad  bill,  though  advocated  by  my  friend  from  Fau- 
quier (Mr.  Scott,)  has  failed.  The  waters  beyond  the  Alle- 
ghany are  too  shallow  to  float  such  a  whale.)  Alexandria, 
Heaven  bless  her !  she  is  indeed  a  favored  daughter  of 
the  old  mother— she  was  lost  and  has  been  found— she 
had  wandered  to  a  strange  jurisdiction  and  has  returned 
to  the  bosom  of  her  mother — most  cordially  has  she  been 
welcomed — most  gorgeously  has  she  been  clothed  with 
costly  apparrel !  I  do  not  object  to  her  prosperity  and 
to  the  favoring  smiles  she  has  received.  I  rejoice,  in- 
deed, that  she  is  so  near  the  vantage  ground  of  the  Pied- 
mont district.  It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  the  balance 
on  the  above  exhibit  is  $1,000,000  at  least,  in  favor  of  the 
west — that  the  valley  has  been  kept  to  the  ratio  of  her 
contributions,  whilst  the  trans- Alleghany  district,  filled 
as  it  has  been  said  with  "out-side  barbarians,"  and  always 
crying  "give!  give!"  has  not  by  a  great  deal,  received 
of  the  fund  of  internal  improvement  a  sum  equal  to 
what  she  will  have  to  pay.  I  have  made  this  calcula- 
tion upon  the  basis  of  the  present  rate  of  contribution.  I 
consider  this  fair  because  the  internal  improvements 
have  not  been  paid  for  out  of  the  public  treasury,  but  by 
the  creation  of  a  public  debt  which  is  yet  to  be  paid,  and 
the  youthful  energies  of  the  growing  west  ara  to  be  taxed 
to  pay  for  her  education  and  development ;  and  also  to  re- 
lieve her  mother  from  her  own  burdens  in  a  ratio  greater 
than  the  benefits  the  west  has  received.  Is  it  not  obvious 
too  that  the  practice  of  the  Piedmont  members  in  the  halls 
of  legislation  has  differed  much  from  the  theories  of  some  of 
them  here  ?  A  heavy  amount  of  taxes  has  been  levied  by 
their  votes  on  tidewater  against  the  consent  and  remon- 
strances of  the  delegates  from  that  district,  who  declared 
they  did  not  desire  the  accomplishment  of  these  schemes 
of  improvement,  and  who  protested  against  being 
taxed  for  purposes  in  which  they  had  no  interest — that 
they  were  plundered  of  their  property,  and  that  the 
Piedmont  and  the  west  were  clutching  at  their  purse 
strings.  The/answer  was,  the  majority  must  govern — 
it  is  true  you  have  no  identity  in  interest  with  us  in  re- 
spect to  internal  improvements — but  why  clamor  in  our 
ears  ?  You  are  protected  by  the  mixed  basis,  be  con- 
tent. Every  time  a  Piedmont  delegate  has  voted  a  tax 
for  a  Piedmont  improvement,  he  has  imposed  a  tax  of 
one  dollar  on  his  own  constituents  for  his  own  benefit, 
and  one  dollar  and  ten  cents  on  the  tide  water  district, 
still  for  his  own  benefit  and  against  the  protestations  of 
the  delegate  from-  the  tide  water.  I  say,  that  if  there 
be  any  soundess  in  the  rule,  that  where  there  are  pe- 
culiar interests  in  the  community  not  identified  with  the 
general  interests,  representation  should  be  so  arranged 
as  to  give  those  interests  the  power  of  self-protec- 
tion, in  defiance  of  the  rule  that  the  majority  should 
govern,  then  the  tide  water  district  ought  still  to  con- 
trol the  power  of  the  Stater  I  hold  to  no  such  doc- 
trine. I  am  a  firm  friend  of  internal  improvements, 
and  believe  they  eught  to  be  directed  by  the  will  and  sus- 
tained by  the  purse  of  the  community  ;  and  I  argue  that 
•in  all  fairness  and  justice  it  is  just  as  safe  and  right 
in  respect  to  this  vital  question,  that  the  will  of  the 


majority,  even  if  it  should  be  confined  to  the  valley  and 
the  trans-Alleghany,  should  be  heard  as  against  the 
Piedmont  and  the  tide  water  districts,  as  that  the  will 
of  the  Piedmont  and  of  the  west  combined,  should  be 
enforced  against  the  tide  water  district — that  it  is  just 
as  fair  and  right  that  the  representatives  of  a  majority 
of  the  people  should  assess  and  expend  the  taxes  for 
the  general  benefit,  in  which  Piedmont,  from  her  pe- 
culiar and  advantageous  position,  must  participate,  as 
that  axes  should  be  levied  and  distributed  by  agents 
elected  on  the  mixed  basis  principle,  for  purposes  in 
which  the  tide  water  district  can  feel  no  interest  and 
can  never  participate  so  long  as  power  remains,  where 
it  is.  I  think  it  is  apparent  that  the  mixed  basis  is 
itself  no  guard  against  a  public  debt,  or  high  taxes, 
and  that  it  will  not  alone  secure  a  judicious  adminis- 
tration of  public  affairs.  And  I  think  the  sentiment 
is  becoming  general  throughout  the  east — that  other 
guaranties  must  be  sought  than  that  which  has  here- 
tofore been  relied  on — the  guarantee  of  property  repre- 
sentation. And  now,  if  other  guaranties  are  to  be  in- 
troduced, which  will  limit  legislative  power,  not  ac- 
cording to  the  whim,  caprice,  or  fickle  purpose  of  the 
delegate  authorized  to  act  at  his  discretion,  and  sub- 
ject only  to  the  vague  responsibility  of  the  representa- 
tive to  his  constituents,  (greatly  impaired  often  times 
by  a  temporary  self-interest  in  the  constituent  body,) 
why  may  not  such  wholesome  restraints  be  wholly  re- 
lied on  ?  Act  on  the  principle  that  a  majority  of  the 
people  shall  be  represented  by  a  majority  of  the  dele- 
gates, and  you  throw  upon  the  majority,  in  and  out  of 
your  legislative  halls,  the  full  responsibility  of  public 
affairs.  You  elevate  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their 
responsibilities  ;  you  make  them  watchful  of  the  con- 
duct of  their  public  agents,  and  you  will  develop  and 
carry  out  a  public  policy  approved  by  a  majority,  and 
calculated  (if  mankind  be  capable  of  self-government* 
to  promote  the  general  good.  But,  at  the  same  time 
this  general  will,  by  common  consent  ,  will  be  subject  to 
such  wholesome  limitations  and  restrictions  as  will 
secure  order,  safety,  and  a  general  sense  of  security 
which  the  people  of  this  State,  both  east  and  west, 
have  not  felt  for  the  last  five  years. 

I  proceed  now  to  show  that,  upon  the  ordinary  prin- 
ciples of  human  conduct,  the  State  wTould  be  as  little 
subject  to  excessive  taxation — indeed,  less  liable  to 
it — with  the  suffrage  basis  as  with  the  mixed  basis. 
In  the  first  place,  1  argue  that  the  responsibility  of  the 
representative,  in  voting  an  assessment  of  taxes,  is  pro- 
portioned, not  to  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  his  con- 
stituents, but  to  the  burden  he  is  about  to  impose  on 
them,  which  burden  consists  chiefly  in  the  difficulty 
of  paying  the  tax.  And  I  ask  gentlemen  whether  it 
be  not  a  conceded  truth  that  the  rich  bear  taxes  more 
kindly  and  contentedly  than  the  poor  communities.  I 
refer  not  to  Great  Britain,  who  bears  her  enormous 
public  debt  on  her  shoulders  with  the  apparent  ease 
and  light-heartedness  with  which  a  young  girl  trips 
along  with  the  eider  down  upon  her  neck. 

New  York  city,  with  a  population  of  500,364,  ex- 
pends annually  $2,578,325,  about  three  times  the  ex- 
penditures of  the  entire  State  of  Virginia— an  average  of 
about  $5  ahead.  Boston,  with  a  population  of  145,750, 
expended  during  the  years  1849-- '50,  about  $3,169,850, 
a  large  portion  of  which  was  borrowed  to  supply  her 
people  with  water.  Her  annual  expenditures  amountto 
$1,266,030.  Philadelphia  pays  into  the  public  treasury 
of  Pennsylvania  $602,944,  being  30  per  cent  of  the  whole 
taxes  of  the  State,  besides,  at  least,  three-fourths  of 
$441,000  raised  by  the  State  by  tax  on  corporations, 
auctions,  &c.  The  population  of  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia proper,  excluding  the  suburbs,  is  150,000  ;  her  pub- 
lic debt  is  $4,311,784,  and  her  annual  liabilities  $795,- 
238.  The  population  of  Baltimore  is  167,000.  Balti- 
more pays  more  than  30  per  cent,  of  the  public  reve- 
nue of  IVlaryland.  Out  of  $1,315,439  raised  in  1849  ^ 
$432,650  were  collected  in  Baltimore,  whilst  the  annu- 
al expenditures  of  the  city  were  $819,622.  The  rate 
of  taxation  on  the  $100  worth  of  real  estate  are— it* 


14 


New  York,  #1  1%  Philadelphia,  $1  56;  Baltimore, 

93  cts.;  Boston,  68  cts.  And  in  Virginia,  Norfolk,  with 
a  white  population  of  9,068  has  incurred  a  debt  of 
$270,000.  Portsmouth,  with  a  white  population  of  four 
or  jive  thousand,  has  a  debt  of  35180,000.  Ricnmond  with 
a  white  population  of  15,307,  has  a  debt  of  $1,000,000. 
I  need  not  refer  to  the  heavy  liabilities  assumed  by 
Wheeling,  Lynchburg,  and  other  towns  in  the  State. 
These  liabilities  have  been  voluntarily  assumed,  and  the 
burden  is  cheerfully  born  by  such  rich  communties. 
The  rate  of  tax  on  real  estate,  even  here  in  the  city 
of  Richmond,  imposed  for  city  purposes,  would,  if  ex- 
tended to  the  lands  of  the  State,  produce  an  income  ol 
$1,373,401,  or  the  interest  on  a  debt  of  $23,000,000. 
If  entrusted  with  the  power  it  may  suit  the  purposes  of 
the  richer  portions  of  the  State  to  increase  the  rate  of 
taxes,  and  if  the  ratio  be  uniform  throughout  the  State, 
what  would  be  the  effect  ? — on  whom  would  the  burden 
fall  most  heavily  ? — and  who  would  hold  their  represen 
tatives  to  the  sternest  responsibility  ?  I  ask,  would 
not  the  burden  fall  least  oppressively  on  the  rich,  and 
with  the  most  crushing  weight  on  the  poor  portions  of  the 
State  ?  Go  to  the  coitage  of  the  poor  man,  and  then  to 
the  counting  hquse,  the  farm,  or  the  sumptuous  man- 
sion of  the  rich,  and  ask  which  will  complain  most  of  a 
rateable  increase  of  taxes ;  the  latter  of  their  abundance 
will  cast  into  the  treasury  :  the  former  of  their  penury 
will  cast  in  their  all ;  the  one  will  curtail  his  luxuries, 
perhaps,  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  State  ;  he  does 
not  complain  of  a  scale  of  public  expenditure  propor- 
tioned somewhat  to  his  own  outlays ;  but  the  other, 
stinted  by  penury  in  his  personal  indulgences  to  the 
most  ordinary  comforts,  will  find  the  tax  gatherer  lay- 
ing his  hand  on  those  comforts  ;  aye  !  on  the  very  ne- 
cessaries of  his  wife  and  of  his  children,  to  sustain  the 
extravagances  of  the  government.  Who  will  com- 
plain most  ?  Who  will  go  out  from  his  home  to  the 
polls  most  firmly  resolved  to  question  his  public  ser- 
vants as  to  the  necessity,  the  propriety  of  an  increase 
of  taxes  ?  The  experience  and  common  sense  of  all 
who  hear  me  will  respond  that  the  poor  man,  the  poor 
community,  will  feel  most  heavily,  and  resist  mest 
promptly  the  burden  of  excessive  taxation.  And  I  stand 
here  now  to  demand  power  for  the  moderate  in  cir- 
cumstances, whether  east  or  west,  to  protect  themselves 
from  excessive  taxation,  to  guard  their  humble  means 
from  the  oppression  of  wealth  armed  with  power.  1 
stand  here  to  protest  against  the  assumed  right  of  the 
minority  to  judge  of  the  ability  of  the  majority  to  pay  ; 
to  measure  that  ability  by  the  standard  of  their  own 
abundance,  instead  of  by  the  scale  of  our  poverty.  We 
resist  the  claim  of  eastern  men  who,  upon  the  ground 
that  they  must  have  power  to  protect  their  own  proper- 
ty, seek  a  power  which  may  destroy  ours  ;  who  to 
guard  against  taxes  imposed  by  the  majority,  demand 
the  right  to  tax  that  majority;  who,  rather  than  yield 
their  contributions  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  general  will, 
assert  a  right,  not  only  to  govern  the  majority,  but  to 
tax  the  majority,  and  afterwards  to  dispose  of  the  taxes 
assessed  at  their  discretion.  Such  claims  of  power  are 
enough  to  make  the  blood  of  freemen  boil  with  indig- 
nant resistance  to  its  assumptions;  enough  to  make  the 
young  giant  of  the  west  struggle  to  snap  the  bonds 
which  bind  him.  Poverty  is  a  hard  lot ;  it  is  a  weari- 
some toil,  this  struggle  with  adverse  fortune ;  and 
whether  men  are  regarded  singly  or  in  communities,  the 
doom  of  the  puor  is  cheerless  and  depressed  ;  but  for  the 
humble  poor,  with  equal  love  of  life,  liberty,  property, 
and  happiness,  with  an  unconquerable  yearning  for 
every  birthright  of  freemen,  to  be  oppressed,  put  down, 
degraded,  and  kept  down,  by  the  strong,  the  prosperous, 
and  the  wealthy ;  and  to  be  told  by  the  strong  man, 
armed  with  power,  as  he  stands  over  them,  that  all  this 
is  necessary  for  his  protection,  is  adding  the  bitterness 
of  insult  to  the  wrong  of  injury. 

Here  Mr.  Sheffey,  being  much  exhausted,  gave  way 
to  a  motion  that  the  committee  rise. 


[Mr.  SHEFFEY'8  REMARKS  OF  THURSDAY 
FEBRUARY  20.] 

Mr.  SHSFFEY.  I  regret  very  much  that  indisposi- 
tion under  which  I  have  been  laboring  for  some  days, 
prevented  me  from  concluding  my  remarks  on  yester- 
day. I  shall  hasten  to  the  conclusion  of  what  I  have 
to  say. 

I  was  yesterday  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  mixed 
basis  was,  in  itself,  no  safeguard  against  excessive 
taxes,  and  that  its  friends,  its  peculiar  advocates  on 
this  floor,  who  are  opposed  to  "  paper  guaranties  " 
with  the  suffrage  basis,  cannot  rely  on  the  mixed  basis 
as  a  sufficient  protection  to  property,  without  "  paper 
guaranties  ;"  and  I  argued  to  prove  that  proper  re- 
strictions upon  legislaave  power  might  be  efficient 
in  preventing  abuses,  and  would  prove  to  be  as  neces- 
sary to  the  mixed  as  to  the  suffrage  basis  ;  and,  if  as 
necessary,  then  that  the  mixed  basis,  as  an  all-sufficient 
protection  against  excessive  taxation,  was  not  sustained 
by  such  a  political  necessity  as,  even  in  the  eyes  of 
our  opponents,  would  justify  a  departure  from  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  republican  equality.  I  then 
undertook  to  prove  that  the  suffrage  basis  would  be  as 
safe  without  any  constitutional  restrictions  as  the  mix- 
ed basis,  inasmuch  as  the  responsibility  of  the  repre- 
sentative in  voting  taxes  would  be  measured,  not  by 
the  amount  his  constituents  would  have  to  pay,  but  by 
the  burden  of  the  tax  imposed — by  the  difficulty  of 
paying  it ;  and  that  those  who  possess  most  means  impose 
taxes  on  themselves,  and  others  connected  with  them, 
more  freely  and  with  fewer  complaints,  than  those 
who  are  less  abundantly  blessed  with  the  means  of  con- 
tributing to  the  support  of  government;  and  I  declared 
myself  the  advocate  of  equal  power,  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  government,  for  the  moderate  in  circum- 
stances, as  a  means  of  self-protection  to  those  who 
were  otherwise  powerless.  If  government  be  designed 
for  the  protection  of  one  class  above  another,  it  is  for 
the  protection  of  the  weak  against  the  strong — the 
humble  against  the  great— the  poor  against  the  rich; 
and  whence,  then,  comes  this  claim  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  rich,  the  prosperous,  and  the  great?  What 
is  wealth?  It  is  defined  to  be  "the  power  by  which 
one  man  commands  the  labor  of  another."  By  itself 
it  commands  men — it  controls  and  directs  the  muscles 
and  sinews  of  the  world.  Its  tendency  is  constantly 
to  involve  the  many  in  the  iron  grasp  of  its  power; 
and  it  is  a  cruel  despot  when  it  is  endowed  with  su- 
preme authority.  Shall  we  not  only  protect  it  by  law — 
by  constitutional  guards  from  the  assaults  of  the  many — 
declare  it  to  be  safe,  whilst  we  acknowledge  it  to  be 
strong;  but,  in  addition,  exalting  it  to  the  dignity  of  an 
idol,  clothe  it  with  the  powers  of  government,  and 
surrender  everything  to  its  control?  But  gentlemen 
say  it  is  not  wealth  they  seek  to  have  represented, 
but  "the  interests  and  rights  which  spring  from  the 
possession  of  money,"  and  which  are  impaired  by  ex- 
cessive taxes.  I  reply  that  if  taxes  be  uniform,  the 
interests  of  the  tax-payers  will  be  identical,  and  the 
amount  may  be  safely  left  to  the  will  of  the  major- 
ity— those  who  pay  less  having  less  to  pay  with,  and 
finding  it  harder  to  pay  their  ratable  share  than  the 
rich.  I  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  mixed  basis 
gives  the  majority  of  delegates  to  eastern  Virginia, 
whilst  the  majority  of  tax -payers  reside  west  of  the 
Blue  Ridge.  There  are  very  few  slave  owners  who 
are  not  landholders;  the  exceptions  are  principally 
women  and  minors.  The  following  table  shows  the 
number  of  persons  assessed  with  tax  on  lands,  slaves, 
and  other  property,  in  the  four  divisions  of  the  State  : 


Land. 

Slaves. 

Other  property 

19,425 

28,857 

2  

.  .  . .34,195 

20,513 

35,197 

.   .  ,22,775 

5,993 

24,782 

4....... 

. . . .41,874 

4,169 

47,281  ' 

50,200 

136,117 

From  this  table  it  appears  that,  admitting  every 


15 


?lave  owner  to  be  a  landholder,  there  are  84,364  land- 
holders in  the  Commonwealth  who  are  not  slave  own- 
ers, and  that  the  owners  of  land  and  of  other  property 
east,  are  133,869;  west,  136,712 — showing  a  majority 
of  2,843  in  favor  of  the  west,  The  great  principle  of 
the  Revolution  was,  that  "taxation  and  representation 
were  inseparable — that  taxation  without  representation 
was  tyranny."  I  ask,  when  a  minority  of  tax-payers 
govern  and  tax  the  majority  of  tax-payers,  whether 
this  principle  he  not  violated?  It  never  was  dreamed 
or  thought  of  by  our  fathers,  that  representation  should 
be  in  proportion  to  the  amount  paid,  but  that  no  man, 
however  humble,  should  be  taxed,  however  little,  ex- 
cept by  his  own  consent,  or  that  of  his  representative 
who  should  speak  for  him,  and  possess  the  same  power 
to  protect  him  as  the  represetative  of  any  other  tax- 
payer. And  I  charge  the  minority  with  trampling 
under  foot  this  great  principle  of  the  Revolution — a 
minority  who,  aiming  at  self-protection,  demand  the 
power  to  oppress  the  majority,  who,  whilst  seeking  to 
retain  the  control  of  their  own  property,  require  the 
majority  to  give  up  to  them  theirs  also;  who,  in  order 
to  shield  the  few  who  pay  much,  ask  for  all  power  over 
the  many,  who  pay  as  much  in  proportion  as  God  has 
blessed  them  with  the  means. 

I  proceed  now  to  show  that  if  representation  be  ap- 
portioned according  to  the  number  ot  the  qualified  voters, 
the  legislative  power  will  be  in  the  hands  of  those  whose 
interests  will  forbid  the  imposition  of  excessive  taxes. 
The  basis  of  qualified  voters  would  give  to  the  east  sev- 
enty votes  in  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  six  mem- 
bers ;  to  the  valley  twenty  eight  and  to  the  trans-alle- 
ghany  fifty  eight  votes ;  Jie  valley  and  the  east  com- 
bined would  cast  ninety  eight  votes  against  th:  fifty  eight 
votes  of  the  trans  alleghany  district ;  and  could  protect 
property  if  the  entire  far  west  were  filled  with  plunder- 
ers. I  lay  it  down  as  a  proposition  not  to  be  controvert- 
ed, that  (even  if  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  be  the  crite- 
rion of  safety.) ' power f may  be  safely  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  pav  an  average  amount  of  the  taxes  levied  ; 
and  if  I  show  that  the  valley  is  identified  in  interest  with 
the  east,  measuring  that  interest  by  the  amount  of  her 
contributions  to  the  treasury,  and  that  the  valley  and  the 
east  combined  will  have  the  power  to  protect  property 
from  plunder  or  excessive  taxation,  I  demonstrate  that 
there  is  no  political  necessity  for  the  mixed  basis  and 
that,  according  to  Mr.  Upshur's  admission,  the  rule  of 
free  governments — the  rule  of  the  majority — should  be 
adhered  to.  The  taxes  as  I  have  stated  are  $534,772.82  : 
the  average  to  each  white  person  is  59  cent-  5  milis  ;  1st 
district  94  cents  9  mills:  2nd  district  78  cents  1  mill: 
3rd  district  56  cents  6  mills:  and  4th  district  28  cents  6 
mills.  The  white  population  of  Richmond,  Norfolk,  Pe- 
tersburg and  Alexandria  is  38.248,  and  the  taxes  paid  by 
them  are  $57,169/50.  Exclude  these  towns  and  the  av- 
erage to  each  white  person  in  the  St:tte  is  55  cents,  5 
mills:  1st  district,  81  cents  1  mill:  2d  district,  78  cents 
1  mill :  3d  district  56  cents  6  mills :  4th  district,  28  cents 
6  mills  :  and  in  the  four  tpwns  named,  the  average  is  149 
cents4  mills.  There  are  270,581  persons  charged  with  land 
.and  other  property,  (slaves  excepted)  the  average  to  each 
tax  payer  is  $1  97";  1st  district  $2  78  ;  2nd  district  $2  41  ; 
3rd  district  $1  94  and  4th  district  $1  06.  There  are  134,- 
464  per-ons  chaiged  with  tax  on  lauds  and  lots  ;  the  gen- 
eral average  is  §2  22:  1st  district  $2  56  ;  2nd  district  §2 
36  ;  3rd  district  82  68,  and  4th  district  $1  56 :  there  are 
50,100  persons  charged  with  tax  on  slaves;  the  general 
average  is  §1  62  :  1st  district  81  54  ;  2nd  district  81  91  ; 
3rd  district  81  14,  and  4th  district  81  03  :  there  are  136,- 
117  persons  charged  with  tax  on  property,  other  than 
lands  and  slaves:  the  general  average  is  81  13  : 
1st  district  81  98  ;  2nd  district  81  34 ;  3rd  district 
^8  cents,  and  4th  district  53  cents.  These  general 
averages  show  that  upon  the  entire  tax  the  valley 
falls  short  of  the  average  only  2  cents  9  mills 
to  each  white  person:  that  excluding  the  four  towns 
aamed  before  the  valley  exceeds  the  general  av- 
erage  1  cent  1  mill:  that  in  respect  to  the  tax  on 


lands  and  other  property,  it  falls  short  of  the  av- 
erage 3  cents  to  each  tax  payer  :  that  it  exceeds  the 
average  of  the  land  tax  46  cents,  and  stands  in  the  front 
rank  in  this  regard:  that  it  falls  short  of  the  average 
in  the  slave  tax  only  48  cents  to  each  tax  paver — that 
the  tide  water  district  also  falls  below  this  average,  there 
being  a  remarkable  approximation  to  equality  in  the 
amount  paid  by  the  owners  of  slaves.  I  submit  the  fol- 
lowing statements  further  to  show  that  on  the  score  of 
self-interest,  power  may  be  safely  apportioned  according 
to  the  number  of  qualified  voters :  Lot  tax  :  general  aver- 
a:e  to  each  white  person  in  the  commonwealth  is  7  cents 
3  mills  :  1st  district  22  cents  2  mills  ;  2nd  district  3  cents 
6  mills  ;  3rd  district  3  cents  8  mills,  and  4th  district  2 
cents  8  mills :  Land  tax :  general  average  25  cents  9 
mills ;  1st  district  26  cents  2  mills ;  2nd  district  34  cents 
3  mills ;  3rd  district  33  cents  8  mills,  aud  4th  district  17 
cents  1  mill :  Horse  tax  :  general  average  is  3  cents  5 
mills  :  1st  district  2  cents  8  mills ;  2nd  district  4  cents  4 
mills  ;  3rd  district  4  cents,  and  4th  district  3  cents : 
Watch  tax:  the  general  average  is  1  cent  9  mills:  1st 
district  3  cents  7  mills  ;  2nd  district  2  cents  3  mills ;  3rd 
district  1  cent  7  mills,  and  4th  district  7  mills  :  Clock 
tax :  general  average  is  1  cent  5  mills :  1st  district  1  cent 
5  mills  ;  2nd  district  1  cent  4  mills ;  3rd  district  1  cent 
9  mills,  and  4th  district  1  cent  3  mills.  These  items  in- 
cluding the  slave  tax  already  considered,  yield  a  revenue 
of  $443,597.  I  have  not  alluded  to  the  taxes  on  coaches, 
pianos,  harps,  plate,  gold,  silver,  interest,  income,  attor- 
nies,  physicians  and  collateral  inheritances  which  yield  a 
revenue  of  $82,569.  This  revenue  comes  principally 
from  the  cities  and  from  property  not  diffused  over  the 
east  ;  and  in  respect  to  which  I  suggest  that  the  west  may 
be  as  safely  trusted  as  the  county  delegates  from  the 
the  east,  very  few  of  whom  feel  as  much  interest  in  the 
growth  and  prosperity  of  the  cities  as  the  people  of  the 
valley.  But  even  in  regard  to  this  tax  the  valley  does 
not  fall  very  far  short  of  the  general  average.  To  each 
white  person  the  average  is  nine  cents  six  mills  ;  1st 
district  18  cents,  9  mills  ;  2d  district  15  cents,  4  mills  ; 
3d  district  6  cents,  6  mills  ;  and  4th  district  2  cents. 
There  is  one  tax  in  respect  to  which  the  west  cannot 
hope  and  will  not  desire  to  rival  the  east,  I  allude  to 
the  tax  on  free  negroes — a  tax  which  amounts  to  $8,606, 
and  of  which  $7,363  are  paid  in  the  east;  and  $1,243  in 
the  west — the  difference  in  favor  of  the  east  being  $6,120, 
almost  enough  to  furnish  one  tax  delegate.  This  tax  is 
included  by  the  terms  of  the  substitute  as  well  as  in  the 
actual  apportionments  made  in  proposition  A,  and  gives 
the  east  one  delegate,  making  her  majority  14  instead 
of  12  in  the  house  of  delegates.  It  silences  the  voice  of 
upwards  of  17,000  white  persons  and  confers  power  on 
those  who  imposed  the  burden  on  the  free  negroes  to 
drive  them  from  the  Commonwealth.  I  mention  this 
particularly  to  show  how  uncertain,  fluctuating,  and 
really  unjust  the  mixed  basis  is,  and  how  power  may  be 
retained  by  it  in  the  hands  of  those  who  owe  power 
to  it. 

Before  I  proceed  further  I  will  say  a  few  words  con- 
cerning the  progress  of  wealth  and  population  in  Vir- 
ginia Between  1819  and  1838  the  real  estate  decreased 
in  value  in  the  first  district  $10,792,943,  and  in  the  sec- 
ond district  $9,149,213,  showing  an  aggregate  decrease 
in  eastern  Virginia  of  $19,942,15-6,  whilst  in  the  third 
district  there  was  an  increase  of  $1,818,692,  and  in  the 
fourth  district  of  $23,159,994,  showing  an  aggregate  in- 
crease in  the  west  of  $24,978,686.  The  folloAving  table 
will  show  the  value  of  the  real  estate  in  1850,  the  in- 
crease in  the  districts  since  1838,  and  the  increase  in 
taxes  resulting  therefrom  : 


Districts. 
1st, 
2d, 
3d, 
4th. 


Value . 
$77,964,574 
77,786,477 
59,250,746 
61,527,769 


Increase. 
$17,260,521 
8,769,771 
16,258,542 
22,310,224 


Increase  tax. 
$3,195.05 
5,541.02 
12,915.37 
16,995.05 


Total,     $299,529,566        $64,599,058  $38,646.49 

It  appears  from  this  table  that  whilst  the  real  estate 
east  has  increased  in  value  since  1838  $26,030,292,  the 


16 


taxes  of  the  east  will  be  increased  thereby  only  $8,736.17, 
aad  that  the  real  estate  west*  has  increased  in  value 
$38,568,765,  and  the  taxes  $29,910.42.  The  reason  of 
this  apparent  inconsistency  is,  that  the  value  of  real 
estate  has  increased  chiefly  in  the  towns  in  eastern  Vir- 
ginia— the  town  property  having  been  already  entered 
on  the  commissioners'  books  and  charged  with  taxes. 
The  increase  in  the  value  of  lands  west  over  that  east 
will  be  seen  to  be  $12,537,473  ;  the  increase  in  the  towns 
east  over  that  in  the  towns  west  is  $8,635,778,  whilst  the 
increase  out  of  the  towns  west  over  that  east  is 
$20,274,250.  I  desire  this  fact  to  be  remembered  when 
I  come  to  speak  of  the  mode  in  which  the  substitute 
proposes  to  distribute  the  surplus  population  and  taxes 
of  the  towns. 

I  will  mention  some  additional  facts  which  will  have 
an  important  bearing  on  what  I  have  to  say.  First,  that 
since  1830  the  slave  population  has  decreased  in  eastern 
Virginia  3,580,  whilst  it  has  increased  west  19,797.  Be- 
tween 1840  and  1850  the  slaves  increased  east  17,487, 
and  west  9,497,  showing  a  steady  increase  of  this  sort 
of  property  in  the  west,  an  increase  not  subject  to  those 
fluctuations  that  mark  its  progress  in  eastern  Virginia. 
Between  1830  and  1840  the  white  population  decreased 
east  6,259  and  increased  west  52,925 ;  between  1840 
and  1850  it  increased  east  33,373  and  west  123,193. 
The  following  table  will  show  the  increase  of  revenue 
since  1845,  derived  from  subjects  on  which  the  taxes 
have  not  been  changed,  and  not  including  merchants' 
licenses,  law  process  and  deeds  : 

Per  cent,  increase. 


If 

H 

2 

24 
4* 


Taxes. 

Increase. 

1845 

$431,845  93 

1846 

439,444  04 

$7,598  11 

1847 

452,850  22 

13,406  18 

1848 

461,967  66 

9,117  44 

1849 

472,516  64 

10,548  98 

1850 

495,626  33 

23,109  69 

Increase  in  five  years,    $63,780  40  14f 

This  table  shows  a  steady  increase  in  the  value  and 
amount  of  the  property  of  the  Commonwealth.  If  the 
per  centage  of  the  taxes  paid  respectively  by  the  east 
and  the  west  be  looked  to,  it  will  appear  that  the  ratio 
has  not  been  materially  altered  since  1840;  and  if  the 
explanation  of  this  be  sought,  it  will  be  found  in  the 
prosperity  and  increased  taxes  of  eastern  towns.  I  will 
be  indulged  whilst  I  show  the  per  centage  of  taxes 
paid  by  the  east  and  the  west  since  1840.  In  1840  the 
east  paid  67  9-10  per  cent,  of  all  the  taxes,  and  the 
west  32  1-10  per  cent.  In  1848,  east  67  8-10,  west 
32  2-10  ;  in  1849,  east  67  7-10,  west  32  3-10  ;  in  1850, 
east  68,  west  32,  and  including  the  new  land  tax  the 
ratio  would  now  be,  east  65,  west  35.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  west  lost  ground  in  1850;  that  was  owing  to 
the  free  negro  tax  of  which  I  have  already  spoken. 
The  real  estate,  then,  is  increasing  in  value  more  rapidly 
in  the  west  than  in  the  east,  but  the  capital  and  per- 
sonal property  in  the  east,  when  compared  with  that 
in  the  west,  increases  very  nearly  in  the  ratio  of  two 
to  one.  This  ratio  of  increase  is  not  kept  up  in  the 
east  by  the  land  tax,  by  the  tax  on  slaves  or  horses, 
(subjects  generally  held  by  eastern  property-holders,) 
but,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  tax  on  a  class  of  subjects 
enjoyed  as  luxuries,  or  held  confessedly  by  a  few  per- 
sons, and  in  which  the  people  generally,  either  east  or 
west,  are  not  interested. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that,  upon  any  question  of 
taxes,  if  the  burden  of  the  tax  is  to  be  estimated  by  its 
amount  and  not  by  the  ability  to  pay,  western  counties 
may  be  as  safely  trusted  as  eastern  counties.  The  argu- 
ments urged  on  this  floor  are,  that  danger  is  to  be  ap- 
prehended from  the  west.  The  east  may  be  relied 
on  to  resist  excessive  taxation.  I  propose  to  compare 
a  number  of  western  and  eastern  counties.  In  making 
my  calculations  I  have  used  a  statement  recently  fur- 
nished to  us  by  the  auditor,  because  it  contains  the  new 
land  tax.  This  statement  also  includes  the  tax  on 
law  process  and  notarial  seals,  which  is  not  to  be  in- 


cluded in  making  apportionments  under  the  mixed  basis 
But  these  items  can  make  no  appreciable  difference,  as' 
the  tax  on  them  east  is  $18,445  03,  and  west  $16,718  34. 
According  to  this  statement  the  average  to  each  white 
person  in  the  Commonwealth  is  64  cents  6  mills :  or  ex- 
cluding Richmond,  Norfolk,  Petersburg  and  Alexandria, 
59  cents  2  mills :  1st  district  107  cents,  including  the 
towns  named,  or  excluding  those  towns,  85  cents  5  mills  ; 
2d  district  82  cents  2  mills ;  3d  district  60  cents  6 
mills,  and  4th  31  cents  8  mills,  and  in  the  towns  named 
160  cents  3  mills.  It  will  be  seen,  the  valley  is  still 
above  the  average  excluding  the  towns.  The  per  capita 
contributions  of  the  counties  west  and  east  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

West.  Bast 

€ts.  ms.  Cts.  ms. 

Brooke  49  4  Accomae  ..64  3 

Greenbrier  52  8  Matthews...  44  5 

Kanawha  45  0  Elizabeth  City  72  8 

Ohio  55  5   Gloucester  77  0 

Washington  40  5   Richmond  52  7 

Wythe  44  8   Westmorland  79  6 

Berkeley  70  1   Stafford  61  7 

Jefferson  106  5   Fluvanna  71  3 

Frederick  75  4  Greene  50  2 

Clarke  153  6   Rappahannock  63  5 

Warren  .59  3   Prince  Wm  63  6 

Hardy  48  2   Fairfax  70  7 

Rockingham  58  5   Princess  Ann  58  0 

Augusta  72  7  Norfolk  68  0 

Rockbridge  54  8  Nansemond  66  1 

Botetourt  46  3   Isle  of  Wight/  68  0 

Roanoke  54  0  Pittsylvania  54  1 

Brunswick  .67  7 

Appomatox  .64  6 

Nelson  62  6 

Patrick  24  0 

Henry  42  5 

Franklin  34  4 

Bedford  48  2 

Amherst.  60  8 

I  ask  whether  these  western  counties,  altogether,  may 
not  be  as  safely  confided  in  as  the  eastern  counties  I 
have  named?  It  is  true,  there  are  many  western  coun- 
ties which  fall  far  below  the  average  standard,  but  if 
the  western  counties  named  above  are  willing  to  base 
representation  on  the  qualified  voters,  what  objection 
on  the  score  of  safety  can  the  eastern  counties  urge  ? 
Before  leaving  this  subject  I  will  remark,  that  it  is  a 
striking  fact  that  Pittsylvania,  Bedford,  and  Brunswick, 
which  pay  comparatively  small  per  capita  contributions 
are  large  slave  holding  counties.  Pittsylyania  has  13,- 
228,  Bedford  9,958,  and  Brunswick  7,528  slaves.  The 
argument  derived  from  the  per  capita  contributions 
which  our  opponents  press  upon  us  would  strip  those 
counties  of  power.  But  another  argument  urged  by 
some,  that  where  there  is  a  peculiar  property,  its  owners 
should  possess  legislative  power  to  protect  it,  would  en- 
title the  same  counties  to  a  great  increase  of  power.  I 
will  not  stop  to  reconcile  the  arguments. 

I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  last  danger  to  property, 
the  power  in  the  legislative  body  to  discriminate  in  im- 
posing taxes,  between  one  species  of  property  and  an- 
other. If  I  have  satisfied  any  gentleman  that  there  is 
no  danger  from  excessive  taxation,  but  he  still  dreads 
western  hostility  towards  slave  property,  his  fears  may 
at  once  be  quieted  by  the  ad  valorem  principle  of  taxa- 
tion. Strip  the  public  agents  of  all  power  to  discrimi- 
nate ;  fix  now  the  ratio  of  contribution ;  graduate  it  to 
suit  all  the  great  interests  of  the  State ;  establish  a  scale 
of  taxes  which  may  not  be  changed  ;  let  the  actual  or 
the  annual  value  be  the  test  as  may  be  deemed  best.  In 
my  opinion  the  ad  valorem  mode  of  taxation  is  just, 
equal  and  uniform ;  it  conforms  to  the  principle  that  the 
obligation  to  pay  taxes  is  proportioned  to  the  value  of 
the  property  to  be  protected — to  the  ability  to  pay.  All 
of  us,  I  trust,  desire  to  do  ovir  whole  duty.  None  of  us 
wish  to  contribute  less  than  our  proper  share ;  none  wish 


17 


.others  to  pay  more  than  what  is  just.  Let  us  limit  t,he 
legislative  power  so  as  to  secure  what  is  right  and  dispel 
the  fears  of  all.  But  I  am  met  again  with  the  objection 
that  this  too  is  a  "paper  guarantee"  which  the  majority 
may  at  some  future  day  throw  off  at  pleasure.  What 
temptation  I  ask,  could  there  be  to  remove  such  a  re- 
striction ?  What  could  the  west  gain  by  discarding  a 
just,  an  equal,  a  righteous  system  of  taxation?  Need 
I  say  that  the  spirit  of  the  age,  which  is  marked  by  strong 
distrust  of  pubiic  agents,  is  against  any  such  apprehen- 
sion. But  what  could  the  west  gain  by  annulling  the 
ad  valorem  guarantee  ?  The  gentleman  from  Greens- 
ville intimated  that  we  wanted  power  in  order  that  we 
might  get  the  control  of  the  slave  property  of  the  east;  and 
it  is,  I  suppose,  feared  that  the  ad  valorem  guarantee 
would  be  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  west 
to  burden  slave  property  with  the  greater  portion  of 
taxes.  I  have  already  shown  that  that  species  of  pro- 
perty is  rapidly  increasing  in  the  west — increasing  in  a 
ratio  much  greater  than  in  the  east — that  we  are  every 
year  becoming  more  and  more  identified  with  the  east 
in  this  respect.  In  the  convention  of  1829,  Mr.  Joynes, 
the  distinguished  member  from  Accomac,  announced  it 
as  a  principle  to  be  relied  on,  that  where  the  number  of 
slaves  in  a  county,  when  compared  with  the  whole  popu 
lation,  approximates  to  the  ratio  which  the  slave  proper- 
ty of  the  whole  State  bears  to  the  whole  population 
the  slave  interest  in  that  county  may  be  considered  safe 
Now  the  ratio  between  the  whole  population  in  Virginia 
(excluding  free  negroes)  and  the  slave  population  is  that 
of  one  hundred  to  thirty-three.  Those  counties  then  in 
which  the  number  of  slaves  approximates  thirty-three 
per  cent  of  the  entire  population  are  interested  in  pro 
tecting  slave  property.  The  entire  east,  it  is  said,  is  to 
be  relied  on,  but  the  west  has,  it  is  said,  no  interest  in 
slavery  and  is  not  to  be  trusted.  Permit  me  to  compare 
certain  counties  east  and  west — in  some  of  which  the 
number  of  slaves  exceeds,  and  in  others  it  falls  a  little 
short  of  thirty -three  per  cent  of  the  whole  population. 
I  submit  the  following  table  •: 

West.  Excess. 
Alleghany 
Augusta 
Bath 
Berkeley 
Kanawha 
Botetourt 
Clarke  1136 
Frederick 
Jefferson 
Roanoke 
Wythe 
Rockbridge 
Pulaski 
Warren 
Montgomery 

I  beg  gentlemen  to  consider  this  list  and  then  ask 
themselves  whether  these  western  counties,  which  on 
the  basis  of  qualified  voters  would  cast  22  votes,  enough 
when  added  to  the  71  votes  east,  to  resist  all  assaults 


Deficit, 

East  Excess. 

Deficit. 

iHh 

Franklin 

88 

3148 

Loudoun 

1685 

196 

Patrick 

876 

1968 

Henry 

370 

1974 

Alexandria 

1950 

1232 

Accomac 

966 

Fairfax 

110 

3030 

Henrico 

989 

778 

Isle  of  Wight  278 

312 

Matthews 

690 

1813 

Nansemond 

147 

1150 

Prince  William 

212 

334 

Norfolk  City 

478 

454 

1314 

ers  of  the  west  consent  to  tax  oppressively  the  slaves  * 
they  are  buying  to  work  their  lands  ?  The  answer  is,  to 
relieve  from  taxes  the  lauds  to  be  worked  by  them. 
Search  the  annals  of  civilized  man  and  no  such  instance 
of  stupid  wickedness  can  be  found.  Audit  is  the  fear  of 
such  folly  and  senseless  viciousness  that  deters  eastern 
men  from  trusting  their  western  brethren  ! 

I  now  desire  to  show  what  hereafter  may  be  the  at- 
titude of  parties  in  the  house  of  delegates  if  either 
the  substitute  or  proposition  A  be  adopted.  There  will 
be  sixty-eight  delegates  representing  494,763  white  per- 
sons, paying  according  to  the  last  statement  of  the  au- 
ditor $204,256  taxes  ;  and  82  delegates  representing 
402,771,  paying  §366,236  taxes.  The  votes  of  Lou- 
do  in  and  Richmond  city  added,  upon  any  question,  to 
the  68  western  votes  would  produce  a  tie — 75  to  75  ; 
deduct  the  population  and  taxes  of  Loudoun  and  Rich- 
mond from  the  east  and  add  them  to  the  West,  and  this 
result  will  follow,  that  75  delegates  will  represent 
525,136  white  persons  and  $248,093  taxes,  and  75 
delegates  will  represent  372,398  white  persons  and 
$ 3 22,349  taxes  ;  the  majority  of  white  persons  on  the 
one  hand  being  152,738  and  of  taxes  on  the  other  being 
$68, 975;  that  is  to  say  372,398  white  persons  will  have 
equal  political  power  with  525,136,  because  they  pay 
an  average  tax  of  18  cents  5  mills  each  more  than  the 
525,136,  or  rather  because  a  few  rich  men  amongst  the 
372,398  pay  a  heavy  amount  of  taxes  to  which  the  poor 
amongst  them  become  entitled  by  the  legerdemain  of 
the  mixed  basis.  In  this  profound  political  problem 
the  ratio  between  the  surplus  of  men  and  the  surplus  of 
taxes,  is  that  of  one  to  forty-five  one  hundreths,  that  is 
one  man  is  counted  against  45  cents — a  high  price  in- 
deed does  the  mixed  basis  set  upon  the  heads  of  free- 
men. 

View  the  subject  in  another  aspect  and  the  property 
feature  in  the  mixed  basis  will  appear  equally  offen- 
sive. The  argument  of  gentlemen  is  that  if  the  east 
and  the  west  were  equal  in  population  and  taxes  they 
ought  to  be  equal  in  representation,  but  that  the  mi- 
nority east  paying  the  majority  of  taxes  should  have 
the  greater  power.  The  population  east  is  402,771 
and  the  taxes  west  $204,256".  Now  if  the  population 
west  were  only  402,771,  and  the  taxes  east  only  $204,- 
256,  then  the  two  sections  would  be  equal  and  entitled 
to  an  equal  number  of  delegates,  say  68  each  ;  but  it  is 
found  that  whilst  402,771  exhausts  the  white  popula- 
tion east,  that  number  deducted  from  the  white  popula- 
tionfwest  leaves  a  surplus  of  91,992  ;  and  that  $204,256 
which  exhausts  the  taxes  west,  deducted  from  $366,236, 
the  taxes  paid  by  the  East,  leaves  a  surplus  of  $  161 ,980. 
The  East  and  the  West  then  present  themselves  as 
equals,  with  sixty-eight  delegates — the  West,  however, 
with  a  surplus  of  white  population  amounting  to  91,992, 
and  the  East  with  a  surplus  of  taxes  amounting  to 
$  161,980,  And  how  is  this  surplus  on  each  side  dispo- 
sed of  by  the  mixed  basis?  Why,  it  is  said  to  be  just 
and  right  that  the  West  should  remain  content  with  her 
sixty-eight  delegates,  and  lose  her  surplus  of  popula- 
tion. Nay,  more,  that  the  East  should"  have  fourteen 
additional  delegates.  Thus,  $161,980  in  taxes,  annuls 
the  representative  power  of  91,992  free  white  persons; 


on  the  peculiar  institutions  of  Virginia — and  which  are  I  and  after  accomplishing  this  wholesale  destruction 


so  eagerly  seeking  to  acquire  slave  property,  may  not  be 
trusted  to  resist  either  a  discriminating  tax  or  the  repeal 
of  the  ad  valorem  guarantee  ?  A  discriminating  tax  or 
the  repeal  of  the  ad  valorem  guarantee,  with  a  view  to  a 
discriminating  tax  on  slaves,  would,  in  the  first  place,  be 
an  act  of  gross  injustice,  and  I  respectfully  suggest  that 
western  men  have  some  moral  sense,  can  appreciate 
to  some  extent  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong ; 
but  if  they  did  not,  they  have  intelligence  enough  to  see 
and  understand  that  such  a  mode  of  taxation  would  de- 
stroy the  very  property  which  they  show  such  e  agerness 
to  acquire.    There  are  91  7  slave-owners  in  Augusta,  611 


confers  fourteen  additional  delegates  on  the  East.  Such 
a  process  of  (S  clipping  the  sovereigns"  would  well 
justify  a  prosecution  for  petty  treason  against  the  of- 
fending parties ! 

I  will  now  bring  to  your  notice,  a  provision  in  the 
substitute,  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  calculated  to  work 
a  three-fold  wrong.  I  allude  to  that  clause  which  de- 
clares that  4 '  The  representation  in  no  town  or  city  shall 
at  any  time  exceed  delegates  and 

Senators  ;  but  the  surplus  fractions  thereof,  whether  of 
population  or  taxation,  shall  be  estimated  in  assigning 
representation  to  the  sections  of  the  State  in  which 


in  Rockbridge — most  of  them  voters — and  a  large  por-j  they  are  respectively  situated. "  In  the  first  place,  here 
tion  of  the  voting  population  in  each  of  the  counties  is  a  violation  of  the  principle  on  which  alone  the  mixed 


named,  directly  interested  in  protecting 
erty.    And  for  what  purpose  would  thu 


slave  prop- 
yl.tVe  owu- 


basis  can  be  justified,  that,  the  community  possessing 
wealth  or  property,  which  may  be  injured  by  legisla- 


tive  acts,  ought  to  have  representative  power  to  protect 
its  interests.  This  proviso  of  the  substitute  declares 
that  when  the  wealth  shall  have  increased,  the  property 
shall  have  accumulated,  so  as  to  be  in  truth  a  tempta- 
tion to  plunderers,  the  power  of  protection  shall  be  cut 
short,  and  the  overgrown  mass  of  glittering  pelf  shall 
lie  open  to  the  assaults  of  all  who  may  have  the  "  itch- 
ing palm" — may  feel  a  propensity  to  seize  their  neigh- 
bors' purse-strings.  But  in  the  second  place,  this  pro- 
viso not  only  declares  that  the  inhabitants,  by  whose 
energy  and  enterprize,  the  population  and  wealth  of 
the  cities  have  been  increased,  shall  cease  to  have  the 
power  which  the  payment  of  large  revenues  would  af- 
ford for  self-protection,  but  that  at  a  certain  point  in 
their  progress,  they  themselves  shall  cease  to  be  count- 
ed in  assigning  representation.  However  great  may 
be  the  population,  the  surplus  beyond  a  given  number 
shall  be  silenced,  and  the  freemen  of  the  cities  placed 
upon  a  worse  footing  of  degradation  than  those  even  of 
the  West.  How  pleasant  to  the  people  of  Richmond 
will  it  not  be,  at  some  future  day,  Avhen  suddenly  ar- 
rested by  the  very  prosperity  they  once  sought  to  pro- 
tect, they  find  the  increase  of  population  or  of  wealth 
of  no  avail  to  give  them  power.  How  pleasant  then  to 
reflect  that  they  aided  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the 
mixed  basis — that  but  for  their  own  votes  they  might 
have  stood  upon  an  equal  footing  with  their  fellow- 
citizens  throughout  the  State  !  But  in  the  third  place, 
this  proviso  not  only  disfranchises  the  population,  and 
strips  the  property  of  the  cities  of  the  power  of  self- 
protection,  but  with  an  unheard-of  generosity  gives  the 
surplus  fractions  to  the  sections  in  which  the  cities  are 
respectively  situated.  The  reservoir  of  city  power 
shall  have  a  certain  capacity  and  no  more,  and  the 
bright  waters  that'  flow  into  it,  shall  rise  sparkling  to 
the  brim,  and  then  fall  in  cool  refreshing  currents  on 
the  parched  and  exhausted  regions  around  it!  The 
picture  is  beautiful — the  idea  is  poetical ;  but  is  the 
principle  sound — is  the  thing  itself  just  and  right? — 
What  attracts  population — what  brings  capital  to  your 
cities?  It  is  their  trade — it  is  their  commerce — it  is 
their  back  country  !  Without  the  last,  no  city  can  grow  ; 
with  it,  and  with  ways  opened  to  it,  any  city  will  pros- 
per. And  what  is  the  effect  of  the  proviso?  Not  to 
give  the  back  country  of  a  city — that  country  from 
which  it  derives  its  strength  and  support — the  benefit 
of  its  surplus  population  and  wealth,  but  to  give  it  to 
the  lowlands  beyond  her — who  are  her  enemies  oft- 
times — hostile  to  her  interests,  and  incapable  of  §ym- 
pathizing  with  her  purposes.  Richmond,  whose  inter- 
est and  sympathies,  all  bind  her  to  the  Piedmont  and  the 
West,  is  to  furnish  strength  to  tide-water,  which  trades 
with  Baltimore,  to  crush  all  those  schemes  of  improve- 
ment in  which  she  is  interested !  There  is  a  meaning 
in  this  proposition  which  I  call  on  you  and  the  country 
to  mark.  It  is  put  forth  by  the  far-seeing  and  sagacious 
champion  of  the  mixed  basis,  (Mr.  Scott  of  F.,)  and 
discloses  two  facts  :  First,  that  the  mixed  basis  will 
not  work  as  a  principle — its  friends  are  afraid  to  trust 
it—they  see  the  results  of  following  its  lead — and  they 
are  right.  The  mixed  basis  would  concentrate  immense 
power  in  the  cities.  Did  I  not  tell  you  yesterday  that 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  paid  forty  per  cent,  of  the 
revenues  of  their  respective  States  ?  It  will  not  do  to 
surrender  ourselves  altogether  to  the  money  power. 
The  second  fact  disclosed,  is,  that  although  the  cities 
are  to  be  deprived  of  their  surplus  wealth  and  popula- 
tion, that  surplus  is  still  necessary  to  sustain  the  ascen- 
dancy of  Eastern  power,  and  must  be  so  used.  And 
how  used  ?  To  give  representation  to  people  and  mon- 
ey, (by  a  pleasant  fiction,)  as  belonging  to  Charles  City, 
New  Kent,  Matthews,  Middlesex,  &c,  when,  in  fact, 
they  belong  to  Richmond, — to  give  these  counties  not 
only  the  full  benefit  of  their  own  population  and  wealth, 
but,  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  lest  the  West  might 
overtake  and  beat  them  on  their  own  principles,  the 
declining  energies  of  Eastern  counties  are  to  be  prop- 
ped up  and  sustained  by  the  power  of  the  cities — which 
power  the  cities  have  acquired  by  trading  with  the 
West.    Oh !  humiliating  picture  !    Sad  deoline  of  East- 


ern pride — of  Eastern  independence!  Stop  the  influ- 
ence on  power  of  the  growth  of  the  cities,  and  the  scale 
of  Western  representation  would  rise  rapidly,  even  on 
the  mixed  basis  ;  but  retain  that  influence,  and  I  almost 
despair,  when  I  look  forward  to  the  future  !  I  have  al- 
ready shown  how  rapidly  the  value  of  real  estate  is  in- 
creasing in  the  cities.  I  will  now  show  how  they  have 
grown  in  taxable  property.  In  1840,  the  land  and  pro- 
perty tax  of  Richmond,  Petersburg  and  Norfolk,  was 
§  28,374  22  ;  in  1848,  it  was  $45,124  93  ;  and  in  1850, 
it  was  $53,802  17.  Add  Alexandria  to  the  list,  and 
the  aggregate  for  1848,  is  $50,789  24;  and  for  1850, 
$61,341  24.  The  increase  in  these  four  towns,  in  two 
years,  has  been  upwards  of  $  10,000.  And  what  is  the 
prospect  before  us ?  These  very  towns  are  stretching 
out  their  arms  for  Western  trade— opening  their  mar- 
kets for  Western  products — straining  every  nerve  to  se- 
cure the  wealth-giving  traffic  of  their  back  country ! 
And  what  will  be  the  effect  of  the  system  of  internal 
improvements  Virginia  is  now  executing  ?  Suppose  the 
Central  Road  and  Canal,  or  either  of  them,  extended  to 
the  Ohio  river,  and  the  South-western  road  extended  to 
the  Tennessee  line,  and  there  connecting  with  lines  of 
improvement  reaching  to  Memphis,  where  will  the  fer- 
tilizing and  enriching  streams  of  trade  and  travel,  which 
will  flow  through  these  channels,  be  chiefly  felt?  I  ask 
gentlemen  to  consider  this  matter^  Internal  improve- 
ments can  produce  no  other  effect  on  agriculture  within 
the  State,  than  to  enhance  the  value  of  its  products  in 
proportion  as  the  cost  of  transportation  is  diminished. 
And  hence,  with  equal  fertility  of  soil,  Eastern  agricul- 
ture must  always  be  more  profitable  than  that  of  the 
West,  because  the  tax  on  transportation  must  be  less. 
It  is  true  that  these  improvements  will  develop  the  re- 
sources and  increase  the  wealth  of  the  West ;  but  eve- 
ry increase  of  Western  production  will  proportionally 
increase  Eastern  trade,  manufactures  and  commerce. 
This  would  be  the  case  if  the  lines  of  internal  improve- 
ment should  give  vent  only  to  the  productions  of  our 
own  West ;  but  when  those  lines  are  extended  into  the 
great  vallies  of  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi,  the  two 
broad  and  deep  currents  of  trade  which  will  flow  through 
Virginia,  will  make  their  golden  deposits  on  the  shores 
of  the  East.  Commerce,  based  not  only  upon  the  trade 
of  Western  Virginia,  but  of  a  Western  world,  will  be 
found  in  the  East, — a  commerce  which  will  be  engaged 
in  exporting  the  vast  products  of  two  great  vallies,  wa- 
tered by  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi,  and  likewise  in 
importing  for  the  millions  of  the  West  the  products  and 
manufactures  of  other  climes.  And  what  is  commerce  ? 
She  is  the  receiver  of  heavy  tolls  on  the  products  ot 
labor  ;  and  the  experience  of  the  world  has  shown  that 
these  tolls  are  greater  than  the  profits  of  labor.  Look 
at  New  York  and  Boston.  How  have  the  population 
and  wealth  of  those  cities  risen  or  fallen  according  as 
they  have  felt  or  lost  the  magic  power  of  Western 
trade?  In  1816,  the  real  estate  of  New  York  was 
valued  at  eighty-two  millions  ;  in  1825,  at  one  hun- 
dred millions  ;  (in  1825  the  Erie  Canal  was  opened) 
between  1825  and  1835,  her  population  was  doubled, 
and  her  real  estate  rose  in  value  to  two  hundred  and 
eighteen  millions  ;  from  1835  to  1841,  her  population 
and  wealth  increased  9|  per  cent,  annually  in  despite 
of  the  great  fire  of  1837,  and  the  financial  derange- 
ments of  1836,  '37  and  '38.  In  1841,  the  Great  West- 
ern  railway  was  opened  to  Boston.  Between  1841  and 
1846,  New  York  population  increased  only  1J  percent., 
and  her  wealth  decreased  l|  per  cent.  During  the 
same  period  Boston  increased  in  population  from  93,000 
to  115,000,  and  in  the  value  of  her  real  estate,  from 
ninety -eight  millions  to  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  mil- 
lions. Similar  will  be  the  developments  in  Eastern 
Virgini  a,  if  she  ever  taps  the  great  reservoirs  of  West- 
ern trade.  Manufactures  will  also  spring  up  in  her 
midst  to  supply  the  great  consuming  West.  Capital 
will  be  centred  here  to  give  life  and  energy  to  com- 
merce and  manufactures.  The  agriculture  of  the  East 
will  be  improved—  her  worn  out  soils  will  be  revived 
and  mad  e  productive.  Her  white  population  is  already 
increasing,  and  the  future  will  disclose  a  new,  a  bright- 


II 


er  era  in  Eastern  prosperity.  Such  is  the  prospect 
which  opens  upon  the  fond  vision  of  every  Virginian. 
Our  hearts  leap  up  with  gladness  when  we  contemplate 
the  rising  glories  of  Eastern  prosperity.  It  is  our  ear- 
nest desire  that  the  vision  shall  become  a  reality.  We 
are  identified  with  the  East  in  sympathy  and  feeling — 
we  take  pride  in  her  glorious  memories — we  love  her 
high-toned,  honorable  character — we  cling  with  instinc- 
tive affection  and  veneration  to  Virginia,  the  beneficent 
and  noble  mother  of  us  all !  And  now,  I  ask,  I  appeal 
to  Eastern  gentlemen  to  consider,  to  pause,  before  they 
inflict  this  great  wrong  on  the  West.  They  covet  our 
trade,  and  become  strong  on  the  food  that  grows  in  our 
mountains.  Will  they  use  that  strength  to  bind  us  with 
cords  ?  They  beckon  us  to  come  to  them — to  deal  with 
them — to  advance  their  prosperity.  Will  they  make 
this  very  prosperity  the  means  of  oppressing  us — of  de- 
stroying our  political  equality — of  degrading  us  so  that 
our  freemen  shall  be  stripped  of  political  power  by  the 
hand  of  wealth  we  ourselves  have  fostered?  Shall  the 
Eagle  of  the  West  be  wounded,  and  see  upon  the  arrow 
that  inflicted  the  deadly  wound,  the  feathers  plucked 
from  its  own  wing?  Will  gentlemen  make  our  very 
affections  fetters  to  bind  us  faster?  It  may  be  that  if 
you  smite  us,  we  will  kiss  the  rod  and  submit— that  if 
you  do  us  this  great  wrong  we  will  love  you  still,  but  I 
implore  you  do  not  strain  the  bond  too  much,  lest  you 
snap 


"  —  the  golden  link,  the  silken  tie, 

That  heart  to  heart  and  mind  to  mind, 
In  body  and  in  soul  doth  bind." 


In  the  name  of  Augusta,  the  daughter  of  the  East — 
a  loyal  and  devoted  daughter,  yearning  with  unuttera- 
ble affection  towards  her  mother — I  speak  to  you  this 
day  on  behalf  of  the  great  West,  the  daughter  of  Au- 
gusta !  For  the  sake  of  the  harmony  and  concord  of  a 
common  people,  throw  not  this  apple  of  discord  into 
their  midst.  Bitter  will  be  the  fruits  of  your  acts,  if 
you  alienate  our  affections  from  you, — if  you  make  us 
curse  the  necessity  of  coming  to  your  markets, — if  you 
kindle  in  our  midst  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  Eastern 
wealth  and  Eastern  prosperity.  Let  us,  Oh!  let  us  ra- 
ther stand  together — be  one  people  in  heart  as  well  as 
name — let  us  trust  and  love  one  another,  and  build  now 
upon  solid  principles,  and  with  mutual  confidence,  the 
fabric  of  a  government  which  shall  be  founded  on  equa- 
lity, sustained  by  justice,  and  guarded — yes,  against  a 
world  in  arms — by  patriotism ! 

Here  let  us  "  raise  on  liberty's  broad  base, 
The  structure  of  a  wise  government,  and  rhow, 
In  this,  our  State,  a  glorious  spectacle 
Of  social  order.   Freemen !    Equals  all ! 
Swayed  by  reason — self-governed — self-improv«d ! 
And  the  electric  chain  of  public  good 
Twined  round  the  private  happiness  of  each, 
And  every  heart  thrilled  with  the  patriot  chord 
That  sounds  the  glory  of  Virginia ! 
A  free  Republic !  where,  beneath  the  sway 
Of  mild  and  equal  laws,  framed  by  themselves, 
One  people  dwell,  and  own  no  Lord  but  God ! " 


\ 


SPEECH 


GEORGE  W.  PUEKINS,  ESQ.,  OF  HALIFAX, 


IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE, 


THE    BASIS  QUESTION, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE 


VIRGINIA    REFORM  CONVENTION, 


G2f 


Friday,  February  21,  1851. 


EICHM-OID,  YA. 

[WILLIAM  G.  BISHOP,  OFFICIAL  REPORTER.] 

PRINTED  BY  R.  H.  GALLAHER — REPUBLICAN  OFFICE 
1851, 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  PURKINS.  I  shall  offer  no  apology  for  addressing 
the  committee  upon  a  question  of  such  vast  importance 
to  the  people  of  Virgiuia,  as  the  one  now  under  discus- 
sion. I  am  here  in  the  discharge  of  a  high  and  important 
duty,  a  duty  entrusted  to  me  by  a  generous  constituen- 
cy, to  whom  I  may  truly  say,  I  am  almost  a  stranger. 
For  the  compliment  thus  conferred  upon  me,  I  trust  I 
feel  sufficient  gratitude ;  and  I  know  that  the  responsi- 
bility of  my  situation  is  deeply  felt  by  me.  If  I  offer  no 
apology  for  an  attempt  faithfully  to  disch  irge  that  re- 
sponsibility, I  hope  I  may  be  at  least  permiited  to  follow 
the  example  of  almost  all  the  gentlemen  who  have  pre- 
ceded me  in  discussion,  by  expressing  to  the  committee 
that  it  is  with  great  diffidence  and  embarrassment 
I  take  part,  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  an  important  subject  before  a  deliberative 
body. 

I  regret  much  that  there  is  not  a  greater  concurrence 
of  opinion  as  to  what  are  the  great  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  government,  in  an  enlightened  assembly  like  the 
one  here  convened.  I  regret,  too,  to  see  that  there  is  an 
impression  pervading  this  assembly  that  the  calling  of  a 
Convention  by  apolitical  community  "  to  alter,  amend,  or 
to  abolish  the  existing  constitution,  and  substitute  a  new 
one  therefor,  necessarily  resolves  that  community  into 
the  original  elements  which  compose  society,  and  that  it 
consequently  follows  that  in  considering  and  deciding 
upon  propositions  proposed  to  be  engrafted  upon  the  or- 
ganic law,  the  body  upon  whom  that  duty  devolves, 
must  be  guided  in  their  investigations  and  decisions,  by 
the  principles  of  natural  law,  rather  than  by  those  true 
governmental  principles  which  ought  to  prevail  in  the 
formation  of  a  social  compact.  We  are  not  in  a  state  of 
nature.  The  ratification  by  the  people,  of  the  act 
by  which  this  Convention  was  called  to  amend  the  or- 
ganic law  of  the  State,  did  not  abolish  the  existing  state 
of  things,  for  the  government  under  which  we  have 
lived  for  twenty  years,  both  in  i  3  primary  organic 
law  and  the  secondary  and  ordinary  laws  of  the  legisla- 
ture, is  just  as  obligatory  upon  the  people  of  Virginia  at 
this  day  as  though  we  had  not  assembled  in  this  hall. 
Then,  I  assert,  we  are  to  be  governed  in  the  decision  of 
this  question,  and  in  the  decision  of  all  other  questions 
that  may  come  before  us.  more  by  those  true  principles 
of  governmental  policy  which  ought  to  dictate  to  us 
the  true  basis  upon  which  to  found  the  constitution  of 
this  State,  than  by  any  speculative  theories  as  to 
what  are  the  laws  of  nature.  I  had  supposed,  and  not- 
withstanding all  I  have  heard  to  the  contrary,  my  mind 
is  unchanged  in  that  particular,  that,  when  a  communi- 
ty has  assembled  or  appointed  representatives,  to  per- 
form the  duty  of  organisir  g  a  social  con, pact  or  form  of 
government,  no  individual  interest  in  that  commu- 
nity should  obtain  all  the  influence  of  the  government  in 
its  behalf — that  no  individual  interest  should  claim  the 
entire  control  of  the  pow.er  of  that  government,  but  that 
the  government  should  be  so  formed  as  that  it  would 
seek  to  advance  all  the  varied  interests  over  which  its 
influence  would  be  felt ;  and  th  .t  in  pursuance  of  that 
principle  in  the  bill  of  rights,  to  which  allusion  has  so 
often  been  made,  that  government  should  be  so  framed 
as  that  every  one  of  those  interests  would  be  amply  se- 
cured and  protected  under  its  administration. 


Let  us  briefly  examine  this  bill  of  rights.  In  the 
first  section  of  that  instrument,  and  I  will  read  the 
whole  section,  iu  order  to  a  correct  understanding 
of  its  merits,  it  is  declsred  that  all  men  by  nature 
are  equal  and  have  certain  inherent  rights  which, 
when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society  they  cannot 
be  deprived,  nor  can  these  rights  be  divested  from 
their  posterity.  What  are  those  inherent  rights  ? 
Why,  the  gentleman  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,) 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  the 
gentleman  from  Preston,  (Mr.  Brown,)  unite  in  say- 
ing that  they  are  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness and  safety.  But  are  these  the  only,  the  exclusive 
purposes  ?  Look  at  the  latter  clause  of  the  section  and 
you  will  find  it  says  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty 
with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  property, 
and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety. 

"1.  That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  inde- 
pendent, and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which, 
when  they  enter  society,  they  cannot,  by  any  compact, 
deprive  or  divest  their  posterity ;  namely,  the  enjoyment 
of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  pos- 
sessing property,  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness 
and  safety." 

Here,  then,  we  have  it  laid  down  in  the  very  chart 
that  is  to  direct  us  in  our  political  voyage,  and  it  is  in- 
scribed on  the  mast-head  of  our  ship  of  State — that  to 
give  security  in  the  acquisition  and  possession  of  prop- 
erty is  one  of  the  chief,  the  principil  objects  of  a  social 
government ;  that  it  is  one  of  tho»e  inherent  rights  of 
which,  when  we  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  we  can 
neither  divest  ourselves  nor  our  posterity.  But  it  does 
not  stop  there.  It  goes  further,  as  if  vigilant  lest  it  be 
misconstrued,  or  misunderstood, — as  if  fearful  that  the 
principle  would  not  be  sufficiently  explicit  or  rightly 
comprehended.  In  the  third  section  of  the  article,  it  is 
declared  that  governments  are  and  ought  to  be  insti- 
tuted for  the  common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of 
the  people,  nation  or  community,  and  for  the  exercise 
of  all  those  influences  which  are  calculated  to  produce 
the  greatest  happiness  and  security  of  the  people  for 
whom  it  is  instituted :  "  That  government  is,  or  ought 
to  be,  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  protection,  and 
security  of  the  people,  nation  or  community  :  of  all  the 
various  modes  and  forms  of  government,  that  is  best, 
which  is  capable  of  producing  the  greatest  degree  of  hap- 
piness and  safety ,  and  is  most  effectually  secured  against 
the  danger  of  mal-administration  ;  and  that,  when  any 
government  shall  be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to 
these  purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  in- 
dubitable., unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform, 
alter  or  abolish  it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most 
conducive  to  the  public  weal." 

And  that  they  should  guard  most  effectually  against 
any  mal  administration  in  carrying  out  its  purposes. 
What  purposes  ?  The  security  of  life  and  liberty  '(  Are 
these  the  only  purposes  of  government  ? — the  only  in- 
terests it  was  framed  to  protect  ?  Certainly  not.  One 
of  its  purposes  is  the  protection  of  the  community — of 
a  majority  of  the  community,  (not  a  majority  of  the  in- 
habitants composing  it) — but  of  a  majority  of  a  political 
community,  in  the  right  to  acquire  and  possess  property. 
The  word  community,  as  used  in  the  first  section  of  this 


4 


bill  of  rights,  is  used  in  an  apposite  sense,  with  the  words 
nation  and  people,  as  they  are  generally  understood. 
Who  are  the  people,  by  which  this  community  is  con- 
stituted ?  A  political  people ;  and  that  is  the  commu- 
nity of  which  this  bill  speaks  ;  and  consequently  1  will 
prove — if  my  strength  does  not  fail  me  before  I  yield 
the  floor — that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  stultifies  itself,  and  in  effect 
gives  up  the  whole  question — and  that  when  a  majority 
is  spoken  of  as  having  the  power  to  influence  the  action 
of  government,  it  is  a  majority  of  a  political  com- 
munity and  not  of  the  whole  people,  which  possesses 
an  indubitable,  unalienable,  aud  indefeasible  right  tore- 
form,  alter  or  abolish,  any  laws  affecting  the  public 
weal.  Let  us  look  turther  into  the  terms  of  this  instru- 
ment. Still  wary  of  the  great  interests  about  to  be  com- 
mitted into  the  hands  of  government,  it  proceeds  to  spe- 
cify who  are  to  have  tbe  control  of  these  interests.  The 
sixth  section  provides  that  all  men  who  have  a  permanent 
common  interest  in,  and  an  attachment  to,  the  community, 
shall  have  the  right  of  suffrage,  <fcc.  Not,  a  mere  perma- 
nent interest,  but  a  common  interest,  in  the  community. 
But  it  does  not  stop  even  here.  It  goesjurther  still.  The. 
eleventh  section  of  this  bill  of  rights  makes  particular  re- 
ference to  the  protection  of  the  interests  of  property,  for  it 
says  that  in  any  controversy  respecting  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty, or  affectiug  the  interests  existing  between  man  and 
man.  the  ancient  system  of  trial  by  jury  is  preferable  to 
any  other  mode  of  settlement,  and  should  therefore  be 
held  sacred.  Here,  then,  we  find  pervading  this  entire 
instrument,  the  one  idea — the  fixed,  unchangeable  prin- 
ciple, that  social  government  is  not,  as  in  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  instituted  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  persons  and  personal  interests, 
but  for  other  important  purposes.  If  the  protection  of 
life  and  personal  liberty  were  the  only  objects  of  gov- 
ernment, then  those  two  interests  should  have  the  en- 
tire control  of  government.  No  other  interest  should 
influence  the  action  of  government,  if  this  principle  is 
correct  and  carried  out;  but  as  soon  as  you  assume  this 
position,  you  abandon  the  only  just  basis  upon  which  all 
government  should  be  founded. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY,  (in  his  seat.)    No,  sir  ;  we  do  not. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  The  gentleman  from  Augusta  says 
no.  "Property,"  says  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr. 
Wise,)  must  have  adequate,  ample,  conservative  and 
radical  protection.  Now,  how  are  we  to  arrive  at  this 
result  ?  "  Oh,"  says  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  (Mr. 
Brown,)  "  we  are  not  contending  for  power  without  prin- 
ciple ;  we  are  in  favor  of  regulating  the  action  of  indi- 
viduals and  of  the  community  by  giving  the  majority 
the  right  to  rule,  but  you  do  not  want  paper  guarantees ; 
you  say  paper  guarantees  will  not  afford  you  gentlemen 
of  the  east  adequate  protection.  I'll  tell  you  what  we 
will  give  you,  for  mind  you,  we  are  not  contending  for 
power  without  principle  ;  we  will  yield  the  principle 
th  it  the  majority  shall  govern,  and  engraft  a  provision 
in  the  constitution  which  shall  authorize  the  majority  to 
give  power  into  the  hands  of  a  small  minority  by  the 
two-thirds  rule,  whereby  they  may  be  authorized  to  say 
when  the  governmeut  shall  be  changed."  Now,  this  is 
power  with  principle,  with  a  vengeance  ;  this  is  a  major- 
ity principle  of  a  most  uncommon  species.  We  do  not 
choose  to  abandon  our  position  by  reason  of  such  soph- 
istry. 

I  will  notice  in  this  connection  another  remark  of  the 
gentleman  from  Preston.  He  says  that  we  have  scouted 
the  idea  of  paper  guarantees,  and  have  said  that  we  had 
no  security  that  would  last;  that  western  Virginia  might 
call  a  convention  at  any  time  and  remove  these  guaran- 
tees from  the  constitution  ;  and  the  gentleman,  in  a  tri- 
umphant tone,  as  if  he  had  settled  the  question,  proceeds 
to  ask  what  we  have  now  but  paper  guarantees.  I'll 
tell  you  what  we  have.  We  have  the  guarantees  con- 
tained in  "the  bill  of  rights,  in  the  present  constitution, 
and  we  have  the  power  by  a  majority  of  representation, 
to  maintain  them.  We  have  the  legislative  power  of 
government  given  to  us,  and  if  gentlemen  of  the  west 


will  give  us  these  guarantees  and  permit  us  to  retain  this 
power,  we  will  settle  the  question  at  once  ;  for,  however 
gentlemen  may  disguise  the  issue,  intentionally  or  un- 
intentionally, the  fact  is,  the  struggle  here,  on  the  part 
of  the  west,  is  for  power — naked  power.  The  whole 
tenor  of  debate  thus  far  has  proved  that  when  they  come 
to  talk  about  principle,  if  that  principle  leads  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  power,  it  is  good  ;  but  if  power  does  not  ac- 
company the  principle,  it  is  a  bad  one,  and  must  be  dis- 
carded and  abandoned.  And  for  what  purpose  do  they 
assume  the  position  they  occupy  ?  In  order  that  they 
may  obtain  the  power  which  will  enable  them  in  the 
future  to  destroy  this  very  principle. 

It  does  seem  to  me  a  little  strange  that  gentlemen 
should  deny  that  contributions  given  to  the  support  of 
government  are  nothing  more  than  the  fulfilment  of  a 
duty  imposed  upon  the  people,  and  that  where  you  find 
one  interest  which  contributes  more  than  all  other  inter- 
ests to  the  support  and  maintenance  of  government, 
they  allege  that  no  influence  should  be  accorded  to 
that  interest  on  account  of  such  contribution ;  that  no 
power  should  be  given  it  because  of  its  faithful  discharge 
of  so  important  a  duty,  a  duty  which  we  as  subjects  (say 
they)  owe  to  the  government,  and  not  as  free  citizena 
voluntarily  give  it.  It  is  said  that,  when  we  have  dis- 
charged that  duty,  there  the  matter  ends,  and  that 
no  influenca  or  power  should  be  granted  to  the  particu- 
lar interest  which  contributed  most  largely  to  the  sup- 
port of  government.  Sir,  I  have  not  been  taught  in  that 
school  of  political  ethics.  The  gentleman  from  Augus- 
ta, in  speaking  upon  this  topic,  referred  to  a  higher  law 
principle,  and  said  that  when  we  had  discharged  our 
whole  duty  on  earth  even  to  our  Maker,  and  went  knock- 
ing at  the  gate  of  Heaven  for  admission,  we  could  not 
claim  entrance  on  the  score  of  discharged  duty.  Now, 
I  am  aware  that  we  must  attribute  all  the  glory  to  the 
Almighty ;  but  I  know  also  that  one  of  His  inspired 
writers  has  told  us,  that  if  we  appear  before  Him,  hav- 
ing discharged  our  duty,  He  will  say  unto  us — "  Well 
done  thou  good  and  faithful  servant,"  and  give  us  our 
reward.  Here,  however,  it  is  said,  when  contributing  so 
largely  from  our  particular  interest  in  eastern  Virginia, 
that  we  ought  to  pay,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a  discharge 
of  obligation.  Gentlemen  from  the  west  tell  us  we  must 
pay  as  long  as  we  are  able,  and  yet  receive  no  reward  in 
the  way  of  power  for  that  discharge  of  duty  ;  and  doubt- 
less when  they  get  the  power  they  will  say  to  us  we 
mean  to  tax  you  as  long  as  you  will  bear  it.  I  shall  not 
say  any  thing  discourteous.  I  do  n<  t  desire  to  deal  in 
harsh  epithets,  and  if  the*y  have  escaped  me,  certainly  I 
have  not  so  intended  ;  but  I  was  simply  about  to  remark 
that  they  will  tax  us  and  we  will  pay  until  the  burden 
becomes  too  intolerable  to  be  borne;  that  is  the  pi  tin 
truth  of  the  matter.  The  eastern  part  of  Virginia  will 
thus  be  injuriously  controlled  and  oppressed  by  this 
transfer  of  power.  Now,  the  bill  of  rights  declares  that 
to  give  safety  is  one  of  the  great  objects  of  government, 
and  in  truth  it  is  its  primary  object.  But  we  are  met  by 
gentlemen  who  tell  us  that  this  safety  refers  to  the  se- 
curity of  people  in  their  lives  and  personal  liberty.  Is 
this  correct  ?  Is  this  the  true  meaning  of  this  instrument  ? 
Do  gentlemen  really  believe  that  it  has  not  a  more  com- 
prehensive signification  ?  Does  it  not  include  with  life 
and  personal  liberty,  property,  with  all  its  incidents  and 
enjoyments?  How  are  you  to  possess  happiness  and 
safety  without  property  ?  How  are  you  to  acquire  hap- 
piness and  safety  without  the  means  which  property  af- 
fords ? 

Digressing  for  a  moment,  allow  me  to  turn  your  at- 
tention to  this  higher  law  principle  for  which  gentlemen 
contend.  Grant  that  we  are  reduced  to  the  original  ele- 
ments of  society — that  nature 'and  natural  laws  are  to 
prevail  in  the  construction  of  the  social  compact,  and 
gen.lemen  will  find  that  the  highest  authority  to  which 
they  can  appeal,  is  in  favor  of  the  principle  which  we 
of  the  east  advocate — protection  to  property.  They  will 
find  that  pr<  perty  is  not  the  creature  of  government.  It 
is  not  a  thing  which  government  makes ;  it  is  a  thing 


5 


which  government  distributes,  protects  and  regulates. 
It  will  be  found  that  the  Creator  of  all  that  is  valuable 
■ — of  life  and  liberty,  and  every  earthly  enjoyment — 
when  about  to  finish  his  great  work  of  creation,  said 
unto  our  first  parent,  "  T  give  you  dominion  over  the 
fowls  of  the  ah,  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  every  living 
thing  that  cieepeth  on  the  face  of  the  earth."  Here  then 
we  see  that  property  was  a  special  gift,  not  a  gift  of  na- 
ture— but  a  gift  from  a  higher  source — from  nature's 
God.  Revert  then,  gentlemen,  to  your  own  principles. 
Go  back  to  the  very  origin  of  things — to  the  original 
elements  of  society — and  you  will  find  there,  that  man. 
when  first  created,  possessed  and  sought  to  acquire  prop- 
erty. The  very  first  gift  to  man,  after  life,  and  before 
liberty,  was  the  control  and  enjoyment  of  property. 
Life  and  liberty  are  the  gifts  of  God,  but  property  is 
one  of  the  creations  of  man.  says  the  gentleman  from 
Augusta ,  although  originally  its  possession  and  enjoyment 
came  from  the  hands  of  God.  If  I  chose  so  to  do,  l"might 
argue  at  length,  to  show  that  life  and  liberty  are  not  worth 
having,  unless  combined  with  the  right  to  acquire,  pos- 
sess and  enjoy  property  ;  and  I  might  show,  that  from 
the  time  this  world  was  brought  into  existence,  that  it 
has  primarilv  been  considered  entit'ed  to  the  protection 
of  government,  and  that,  in  point  of  fact,  government 
could  hot  exist  without  it.  I  shall  not,  however,  pursue 
that  train  of  argument  any  further. 

I  have  not  heard  that  it  was  considered  presump- 
tuous on  the  part  of  my  friend  from  Westmoreland, 
(Mr.  Beale,)  and  I  trust  it  will  not  be  so  considered i 
with  regard  to  myself,  to  express  a  partial  dissatis- 
faction with  reference  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fauquier,  for  I  think  that  property 
should  not  only  be  entitled  to  the  protection  of  govern- 
ment, but  should  influence  representation,  and,  if  it  be 
necessary  to  its  protection,  should  be  entitled  to  con- 
trol, absolutely  control  all  othrr  interests.  Odious  as  this 
thought  may  appear  to  the  gentleman  from  Fau- 
quier, I  understood  him  aud  the  gentleman  from  Lou- 
doun (Mr.  Jaxxey)  to  repeat,  in  substance,  the  same 
sentiment,  that^  this  might  be  absolutely  necessary, 
in  order  to  the  full  protection  of  property.  Abhorrent 
as  the  doctrine  may  be  to  gentlemen,  "[  declare  it  as 
my  solemn  and  deliberate  conviction,  that  not  only  that 
interest,  but  every  other  interest — life,  personal  'liber- 
ty— all  that  may  be  imagit.ed,  or  of  which  we  can 
speak,  demands  that  if  the  entire  representation  and 
power  of  government  is  necessary  to  protect  the  inter- 
ests of  property,  it  is  entitled  to  it.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  any  oth^r  interest.  I  am  in  the  habit  of  speak- 
ing pla.nly.  I  never  learned  the  art  of  concealing  ideas 
by  iauguage.  I  learned  language  to  express  ideas  ;  and 
if  i  entertain  an  opinion,  there  is  not  that  power  upon 
earth,  I  care  not  from  what  source  it  may  emanate,  that 
could  prevent  me,  under  prudeut  circumstances,  from  ex- 
pressiag  it.  Now,  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  necessary  or 
proper  to  give  property  the  entire  representation  of  the 
State  of  Viiginia,  in  order  to  ensure  its  protection  ;  and 
here  I  would  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta  '  why  do  you  not  commence  at  the  foun- 
tain instead  of  down  stream  ?  "  I  answer,  because  it  is 
not  necessary  as  regards  our  particular  interest  ;  we 
can  take  the  stream  after  it  has  flowed  from  the  foun- 
tain ;  if  it  w.re  necessary  to  trace  it  to  its  first  gush  from 
the  earih,  we  might  go  even  back  to  its  origin  and  there 
sectie  the  principle.  I  would  repeat  again,  that  unless 
we  can  ensure  its  full,  ample,  adequate,  providential, 
conservative  and  radical  protection  (to  use  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Accoraac)  by  beginning  lower 
down  the  stream,  weou^ht  to  begin  at  the  fountain. 

The  gentleman  from  Greenbrier  (Mr.  Smith,)  made  a 
very  unfortunate  reference  to  a  period  in  the  history  of 
this  confederation  of  States,  in  support  of  the  principle 
of  the  white  basis,  f  allude  to  the  period  when  the 
struggle  between  this  couitry  and  the  mother  country 
took  place.  If  I  have  read  the  history  of  that  struggle 
with  any  sort  of  profit  to  myself,  it  greVout  of  this  very 
principle  of  protection — protection  against  enormous  and 
oppressive  taxation,  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  taxes 


were  imposed  by  those  who  did  not  represent  them,  upon 
those  who  did  not  consent.  The  duty  upon  tea  and 
stamps  was  but  a  mere  trifle.  Our  pilgrim  fathers  did  not 
staks  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honors 
upon  the  mere  payment  of  so  trifling  a  tax,  but  entered 
into  the  revolutionary  struggle  because  their  interests 
and  their  property  did  not  receive  the  requisite  and 
necessary  protection  at  the  hands  of  the  British  govern- 
ment. This  was  the  cause  that  gave  rise  to  the  struggle 
between  the  United  colonies  and  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  and  which  resulted  in  the  freedom  of  America. 
I  regretted  very  much  that  the  gentleman  from  Green- 
brier should  have  repeated  what  has  been  so  often  and 
incessantly  repeated  in  the  ears  of  eastern  Virginia,  in 
regard  to  the  patriotism  and  gallantry  which,  upon  one 
single  occasion,  western  Virginia  manifested  in  defence 
of  eastern  rights.  Are  we  never  to  hear  the  last  of  this  ? 
Do  western  gentlemen  remember  that  eastern  blood  has 
flowed,  in  Indian  warfare,  from  the  veins  of  eastern  men, 
for  their  protection  ?  Do  they  remember  that,  at  the 
very  time  to  which  we  allude,  when  their  soldiers  were 
i  encamped  at  Norfolk,  and  were  suffering  from  the  in- 
|  clemencies  of  the  season,  that  the  aid  they  received 
came  from  eastern  men  r  Is  this  the  extent  of  west- 
ern patriotism  \  Was  that  patriotism  exhausted  in  one 
single  struggle  ?  I  love  and  admire  western  Virginia 
and  her  people,  and  I  do  not  believe  they  designed 
to  so  restrict  their  patriotism.  They  did  not  act 
[there  merely  in  defence  of  Norfolk  and  its  contiguous 
territory,  but  they  were  linked,  in  one  common  destiny, 
j  with  eastern  Virginia,  and  had  that  struggle  resulted  in 
jour  defeat,  western  Virginia  would  have  fallen  with  us. 

But,  to  return  to  the  issue  ;  absolute, individual, polit- 
ical equality , in  a  political  community , is  a  perfect  absurd- 
ity. You  cannot  effect  equality  ;  inequality  must  exist ;  it 
always  has  existed  and  always  will  exist.  It  exists 
in  every  community — in  every  nation  in  the  world. 
You  have  in  society  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  weak  and 
the  powerful,  and  these  different  grades  of  necessity 
must  continue  to  be.  I  am  sure  that  no  gentleman  on 
this  floor  would  advocate  a  system  that  would  destroy 
this  inequality.  I  am  sure  the  time  has  not  arrived 
when,  in  Virginia,  infinitely  radical  as  some  of  her 
sons  maybe,  agrarianism,  socialism,  and  Fourierism  are 
to  prevail.  There  is  a  mutual  dependence  of  one  class 
!in  society  upon  the  other.  The  poor  man  contributes, 
j  by  daily  toil  and  hard  labor,  to  the  comforts  of  the  rich , 
and  the  rich  man.  of  hi<  substance,  remunerates  that  poor 
mm  for  his  labor.  This  political  and  social  inequality  is 
a  matter  of  nece>s;ty.  You  cannot  organize  a  good  gov- 
ernment wi'hou:  this  inequality  existing.  You  must  have 
t  lis  inequa  i  y  as  well  political,  natural  and  socia1. 

For  what  purpose,  I  would  inquire,  does  western 
Virginia  desire  the  supremacy  of  power  in  our  State 
[government?  I  think  1  have  shown  (and the  gentleman 
from  Preston  admitted)  that  they  did  not  want  it  merely 
because  it  was  principle  for  which  they  contended. 
He  admitted  that  he  did  not  want  power  without 
principle  ;  and  that  that  principle  consisted  in  giving 
the  eastern  part  of  Virginia  a  paper  guaran.ee  th^t  i  o 
change  should  be  made  in  the  Constitution  so  as  to  af- 
fect its  interests,  without  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  BROWN.  My  position  was,  that  the  power  of 
government  should  be  exerted  in  giving  to  the  east  full 
aud  sufficient  protection  to  its  rights  of  property.  Of 
course  such  an  obligation  should  be  sacred  and  binding. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  The  gentleman's  explanation  does 
not  affect  the  issue  at  all.  I  understand  him  not  to  ask 
for  power  without  principle.  And  he  further  said,  that 
we  were  unwilling  to  accept  paper  guarantees,  because 
we  said  they  could  be  erased  from  the  constitution  at 
will ;  but  this  defect,  if  it  was  a  defect,  he  said  could 
be  remedied  by  incorporating  into  the  constitution  a  pro- 
vision which  would  prevent  the  calling  of  another  Con- 
vention, unless  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of 
tr©  members  of  the  legislature.  It  is  not  then  for  the 
preservation  of  principle  that  the  gentleman  from  Pres- 
ton wants  the  power,  for  he  is  willing  to  yield  the  pnn- 


6 


ciple  that  the  majority  should  rule,  because  political  in- 
equality must  exist,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  pow- 
er. What  does  he  want  with  this  power  then?  Unless 
it  is  wanted  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  us  by  taxa- 
tion and  plundering  us  at  pleasure,  this  desire  for  pow- 
er must  surely  originate  in  a  mere  lust  for  its  exercise. 
Whenever  power  has  been  exercised  from  a  mere  love 
of  it,  all  historical  experience  proves  that  it  has  been 
abused.  I  do  not  charge  western  gentlemen  with  having 
any  such  object  in  view,  but  I  do  say  it  is  hard  for  met 
to  know  themselves.  I  do  not  charge  it  upon  you  that 
you  are  seeking  to  wrest  this  power  from  us,  in  order 
to  oppress  u?,  but  I  tell  you  plainly  gentlemen,  that  you 
do  not  understand  yourselves.  Yon  have  not  examined 
your  own  feelings  as  you  should.  You  do  notknow  what 
position  you  may  occupy.  If  you  desire  to  attain  pow- 
er, of  course  you  must  have  Some  object  in  view  by  it' 
altainment  ;and  that  object  in  too  many  instances,  leads 
to  abuse  in  the  exercise  of  that  power.  I  tell  you  gen- 
tlemen we  had  rather  remove  temptation  from  you  by 
not  entrusting  this  power  in  your  hands.  We  do  not 
wish  to  give  you  even  the  opportunity  of  abusing  the 
exercise  of  power. 

Mr.  GOODE.  Inasmuch  as  there  has  been  between 
two  and  three  hours  speaking,  and  as  the  gentleman  who 
has  occupied  the  floor  for  the  last  hour  appears  obvious- 
ly to  be  greatly  fatigued,  I  move  that  the  committee  do 
now  rise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  accord- 
ingly rose. 

The  Convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  11  o'clock. 


MONDAY,  February  24,  1851. 
THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION,  &c. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  PENDLETON,  the  committee  re- 
sumed the  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
(Mr.  Miller  in  the  chair)  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Basis  and  Apportionment  of  Representation. 

The  CHAIR  stated  the  question  to  be  on  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott.) 
Mr.  PURK1NS  being  entitled  to  the  floor- 
Mr.  BROWN.  Will  my  friend  from  Halifax  permit 
me  to  make  a  remark  in  explanation  ? 
Mr.  PURKINS.  Certainly  sir. 
Mr.  BROWN.  On  Friday  last  the  gentleman  put 
some  interrogatories  to  me,  which,  in  the  confusion  of 
the  moment,  I  did  not  apprehend,  and  my  answer  was 
not  to  the  point.  I  desire  this  morning  to  answer  the 
gentleman,  that  he  may,  before  he  proceeds,  have  the 
advantage  of  making  any  commentary  upon  them  that 
he  may  desire.  In  my  reply  to  the  remarks  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  that  consti- 
tutional guarantees  were  worth  nothing,  I  endeavored  to 
show  that  all  our  rights,  of  persons  and  of  property, 
were  now  secured,  resting  alone  upon  guarantees  of  that 
kind.  And  in  answer  to  the  objection  which  that  gen- 
tleman raised,  that  although  guarantees  might  now  be 
given  in  good  faith;  and  observed  by  those  giving  them, 
yet  another  race  of  people,  another  generation  might 
call  a  convention  and  repeal  them.  I  observed  that 
that  was  a  very  far-fetched  idea,  but  that  even  it  proba- 
bly might  be  guarded  against,  to  some  extent.  I  said, 
that  while  the  right  in  the  majority  of  the  community 
to  alter  or  abolish  their  fundamental  laws  was  indubi- 
table, unalienable  and  indefeasible,  yet  it  is  competent 
for  this  Convention  to  lay  restraints  upon  the  legisla- 
ture,  in  passing  laws  facilitating  such  call,  or  invitirg 
such  calls.  While  we  could  not  take  from  the  majori- 
ty of  the  community  their  unalienable,  indefeasible 
rights,  we  could  lay  prohibitions  upon  the  legislature  to 
pass  laws  inviting  a  call  for  the  purpose  of  changing  the 
fundamental  law. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  When  the  committee  rose  upon 
Friday  last,  I  was  addressing  myself  to  the  particular 
point  upon  which  my  friend  from  Preston  (Mr.  Brown) 
now  tenders  an  explanation,  and  in  all  candor  I  must 
say  to  that  gentleman,  that  his  explanation,  in  my  hum- 


ble opinion,  does  not  place  him  in  any  better  position 
than  he  occupied  when  he  first  stated  his  proposition. 
The  point  which  I  was  endeavoring  to  impress  upon  the 
mind  of  the  committee  was  this  :  that  the  west  came 
upon  this  floor,  insisting  that  a  majority  of  the  people 
had  a  right  to  govern,  and  that  the  east  should  sub- 
scribe to  this  proposition.  But  the  question  arises  just 
here  who  are  the  people  ?  I  insisted  that  they  formed 
a  political  community,  created  by  constitutional  pro- 
vision and  governmental  arrangement,  and  that  the  ma- 
jority of  that  political  community  was  of  right  to  be  re- 
garded the  majority  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
State,  and  that  in  that  majority  the  political  power 
should  be  vested,  and  that  a  tender  of  guarantees  on  the 
part  of  the  west,  in  whatever  form  they  might  be  pre- 
sented, were  designed  to  transfer  political  power  from 
a  majority  to  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  commu- 
nity, if  it  is  to  be  effectual,  and  if  they  choose  to  regard 
that  community  as  consisting  of  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  State,  it  was  a  total  abandonment  of  the  principle 
upon  which  they  had  declared  they  designed  fixing  their 
basis  of  representation.  The  gentleman  from  Preston 
is  not  alone  in  this  tender  of  guarantees.  Distinguished 
gentlemen  in  this  body,  advocating  the  same  principle 
he  contends  for,  have,  upon  more  than  one  occasion  in 
discussions  that  have  taken  place  heretofore,  here  and 
elsewhere,  proffered  such  guarantees  and  limitations  of 
legislative  power  as  would  secure  and  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  secure  in  all  governmental  institutions, 
the  protection  to  property.  If  they  admit  that  proper- 
ty requires  protection  from  government,  and  they  gen- 
erally do  admit  this  fact,  for  the  gentleman  from  Au- 
gusta, as  well  as  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  more 
than  once  have  admitted  the  principle  that  property  is 
entitled  to  protection — I  wish  to  inquire  of  them  what 
those  means  of  protection  are,  and  what  are  those  guar- 
antees of  which  they  speak  ?  Unless  they  can  show 
that  they  can  tender  us  such  protection  as  will  be  ade- 
quate to,  and  fully  commensurate  with,  the  attainment 
of  the  end  we  have  in  view,  and  that  these  guarantees 
are  not  the  only  means,  it  is  clear  that  these  guarantees 
which  are  tendered  us  by  the  gentleman  from  Preston 
and  others,  being  the  only  security  they  can  give  us  for 
the  protection  of  our  property,  every  gentleman  on  this 
floor  who  advocates  the  white  basis,  must  come  up  and 
back  the  gentleman  from  Preston,  in  the  tender  of  these 
guarantees,  and  in  support  of  his  proposition  to  require 
a  vote  of  two-thirds  to  change  the  government. 

I  desire,  before  proceeding  further  upon  this  point, 
to  say,  that,  upon  reflecting  on  what  I  said  to  the 
committee  on  Friday  last,  it  has  occurred  to  me,  that, 
probably  in  the  heat  of  discussion,  1  may  have  uttered 
some  expression  that  has  sounded  harshly  in  the  ears  of 
my  western  brethren  ;  if  so,  I  entirely  disclaim  any  de- 
sign of  saying  anything  offensive.  I  do  not  mean  to  call 
you  plunderers,  but  I  mean  simply  this  :  that,  in  fram- 
ing a  government  and  in  creating  institutions  under 
which  we  are  to  live — (and  I  would  here  remark  that 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta  admits  that  security  must 
be  given  against  the  abuse  of  power) — it  is  a  cor- 
rect principle,  and  wise  counsels  will  suggest  tha*  we 
should  have  an  eye  to  the  security  of  the  government 
against  all  abuse  of  power,  and  I  shall  show  that,  unless 
we  do  adopt  some  such  principle,  there  must  be 
an  abuse  of  power,  of  a  kind  that  will  practically  tend 
to  plunder  us  of  our  rights.  This  is  what  I  mean  when 
I  use  the  word  plunder,  and  I  design,  without  meaning 
any  offence,  throughout  this  discussion,  to  continue  to 
call  things  by  their  right  names,  and  deal  with  them  as 
I  think  proper. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Preston  went  further  than 
merely  to  tender  to  his  eastern  brethren  guarantees  in 
the  constitution.  He  says  that  the  west  must  also  have 
guarantees  for  the  protection  of  their  property  as  well  as 
ourselves.  Now,  if  they  distrust  their  own  exercise  of 
power,  I  hope  they  will  not  complain  that  we  do  not  feel 
fully  satisfied  to  place  ourselves  under  their  power  If 
you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  guarantees  in  the  present 
constitution  you  must  not  fall  out  with  us  who  are  for 


7 


not  being  dissatisfied  with  them.  But  we  will  Dot  take 
those  guarantees  alone,  and  we  trust  we  may  be  permit- 
ted the  privilege  of  suggesting  to  you  such  guarantees 
as  will  secure  us  against  any  abuse  of  the  power  you 
desire  to  have.  Your  proposition  now  is  to  base  the 
representation  of  the  State  upon  all  the  qualified  electors 
or  inhabitants  of  the  State.  Let  us  look  upon  this  pro- 
position, and  consider  it  practically.  In  the  first  place, 
I  would  ask,  how  will  you  be  able  to  apportion  represen- 
tation upon  the  qualified  electors  of  the  State  ?  It  may 
be  by  this  plan  approximated  to,  but  it  cannot,  without 
difficulty,  be  ascertained  accurately.  Take  the  popular 
vote  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this  ccmmonweaith  in 
1848 — the  vote  at  a  county  election  would  not  be  a  fair 
criterion,  because  it  is  often  the  case  that  there  are  no 
opposition  candidates  in  the  field,  and  reasons  operate 
to  keep  the  voters  from  the  polls,  besides  the  number 
of  double  votes  given — the  Presidential  election,  how- 
ever, affords  a  good  guide,  as  to  the  number  of  qualified 
voters,  at  the  election  in  1848,  91,710  votes  were  cast 
in  this  State.  This  was  the  united  vote  for  Taylor  and 
Cass.  Ths  entire  white  population  of  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia numbered  899,134.  I  would  here  state  that  the 
increase  of  votes  under  the  constitution  we  are  about 
to  adopt— if  we  extend  the  right  of  suffrage— will,  ma- 
king a  liberal  estimate,  amount  to  about  60,000 — an  over 
estimate  rather  than  an  under  one.  If  the  proposed 
extension  of  suffrage,  then,  had  been  made  in  1848,  the 
entire  popular  vote  would  have  amounted  to  151,710. 
Deduct  that  vote  from  the  entire  number  of  the  white 
population,  and  you  have  remaining  747,424.  Now,  by 
your  principle  laid  down  in  proposition  B,  representa- 
tion mu?t  be  based  upon  the  white  population.  The 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  whom  I  sorry  to  see  is  not 
now  in  his  seat,  denounced  proposition  A  with  great 
force,  declaring  that  it  disfranchised  200,000  of  the  free 
people  of  Virginia,  at  the  same  time  forgetting  that 
proposition  B,  which  he  advocated  with  so  much  zeal, 
disfranchised  nearly  800,000  of  the  white  population  of 
the  State.  Here  then,  is  another  total  abandonment  of 
your  principles. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  instances  in  which  you 
abandon  your  principles.  Your  proposition,  as  it  af- 
fects representation,  does  not  base  it,  in  regard  to  the 
legislature,  upon  the  qualified  electors  of  the  State  nu- 
merically considered.  Else  why  restrict  it  to  county 
limits  ?  If  your  intention  is  to  carry  your  principle  prac- 
tically into  operation,  why  do  you  not  take  the  whole 
qualified  electors  in  the  State  and  divide  it  by  the  number 
of  representatives  of  which  you  propose  to  compose  the 
legislative  department  of  government,  and  thus,  without 
regard  to  county  boundaries,  give  representatives  to  all 
the  qualified  electors  of  the  State  ? 

A  MEMBER,  (in  his  seat.)  That  would  be  the  true 
way. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  That  would  be  the  true  way,  if  you 
do  not  design  abandoning  principle  for  power,  in  this  in- 
stance. And,  in  view  of  this  abandonment  when  there 
is  no  necessity  for  it,  can  you  blame  us  for  insisting  upon 
the  adoption  of  a  principle  which  will  work  good  results  ? 
This  is  the  dilemma  into  which  this  abandonment  of  their 
principle  will  throw  them,  and  arguments,  though 
strong  and  powerful,  and  appeals,  though  warm 
and  generous,  cannot  extricate  them  from  it.  It  is 
that  when  they  thus  attempt  to  evade  the  necessa- 
ry result  of  the  position  they  have  assumed,  they 
will  carry  the  fraction  of  excess  in  voters  from  one  coun- 
try to  another,  and  thus  increase  the  representation  of 
the  smaller  counties,  while  the  larger  counties  will  be 
curtailed  of  their  just  proportion  of  representation. 
Here,  then,  are  several  instances  of  the  utter  abandon- 
ment, on  the  part  of  western  Virginia,  of  their  own  sa- 
cred and  revered  principles,  for  which  they  have  clam- 
ored so  loudly,  from  the  year  1815  up  to  the  present 
time.  Can  the  west— ought  it — to  take  any  exception, 
if  I  tell  them  that  this  is  a  struggle  upon  one  side  for 
power — naked  power — while  upon  the  other  it  is  a  con- 
test for  self-preservation,  a  contest  in  which  we  desire 
to  show  that,  in  order  to  self-preservation,  we  must  have 


power.    Sir,  the  principle  for  which  they  contend  can- 
not be  carried  out  ;  it  is  practically  impossible  for  every 
man,  in  a  political  community,  to  have  equal  political 
power.  There  never  has  been  a  government  established 
upon  the  face  of  the  globe,  nor  can  there  be  one  estab- 
lished— I  care  not  what  its  form  may  be — where  equal 
political  power  can  be  vested  in  every  political  individ- 
ual, and  practically  carried  out.    This  has  never  been 
the  case  in  Virginia,  or  in  any  other  State  in  this  con- 
federation. It  has  been  the  result  heretofore,  mainly 'of 
party  conflict,  where  the  successful  party — the  one  hav- 
ing the  majority — has  had  in  its  possession  all  political 
power,  from  the  exercise  of  which  the  minority  has  been 
excluded.    Take,  for  instance,  this  State.  Unfortunate- 
ly, it  may  be,  since  I  have  had  my  residence  in  the 
county  which  I  in  part  represent  on  this  floor,  I  have 
belonged  to  a  party  which  has  been  in  the  minority — 
always  deprived  of  political  power  in  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation ;  that  has  had  no  equality  whatever  with  the  ma- 
jority power  ;  while  my  friend  (Mr.  Edmunds)  from 
the  same  county,  has,  owing  to  his  being  connected  with 
the  majority  party,  been  in  the  exercise  of  power  all  the 
time.    And  you  cannot  produce  such  a  state  of  things, 
do  what  you  may,  as  will  give  to  each  voter  in  this 
State  equal  political  power.    This  State,  in  the  last 
three  or  four  presidential  elections,  has  shown  nearly 
an  equilibrium  in  the  number  of  votes  cast  by  each  par- 
ty ;  the  average  majority  of  the  successful  party  has  not 
exceeded  two  or  three  thousand  votes  during  the  last 
twelve  years.    Yet,  during  that  time,  the  democratic 
party  have  almost  invariably  had,  in  the  legislature  of 
Virginia,  a  majority  of  some  thirty  or  forty  members  = 
Under  this  stafes  of  affairs,  was  the  whig  party  repre- 
sented, or  did  it  have  equal  political  power  in  the  legis- 
lature with  the  democratic  party?  Still,  they  had  equal 
rights  and  freedom.    You  cannot  show  it;  and,  there- 
fore, gentlemen  of  the  west,  you  do  right  in  abandoning 
a  principle  which  cannot  be  carried  out,  and  serve  the 
purposes  you  desire. 

But  gentlemen  argue  that  the  right  of  suffrage  being 
the  groundwork  of  representation,  every  individual  who 
is  entitled  to  exercise  that  right,  ought  to  have  equal 
political  weight  in  the  affairs  of  government.  I  never 
so  understood  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  This 
right,  if  I  understand  it,  is  a  practical  incident  of  citizen- 
ship, and  the  exercise  of  it  is  only  one  of  the  elements 
of  representation  of  which  power  is  a  part.  The  right 
of  suffrage  alone,  does  not  give  power.  It  is  the  exer- 
cise of  a  political  right  incident  to  citizenship  ;  but  it  is 
not  the  only  means  by  which  political  power  is  created ; 
it  may  be  called  an  active  agent  in  giving  effect  to  pow- 
er. There  a,re  other  means  through  which  it  is  created, 
as  I  shall  show  before  I  conclude  my  remarks. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey)  stated  on 
Wednesday,  I  think,  that  the  east  was  entitled  to  pro- 
tection, and  that  if  we  transferred  the  political  power  to 
western  Virginia  by  the  adoption  of  proposition  B,  that 
there  was  a  possibility  that  that  power  would  be  abused 
and  our  interests  imperiled.  Then,  I  say,  we  ought  to 
adopt  the  system  of  a  mixed  basis  if  that  will  alone  se- 
cure us  in  our  rights.  But  will  no  danger  result  to  our 
interests  by  adopting  the  principle  contained  in  propo- 
sition B  ?  May  we  not  be  oppressively  taxed  ?  Is  there 
no  danger  of  a  discrimination  being  made  against  the  in- 
terests of  eastern  Virginia  aHd  in  favor  of  the  interests 
of  western  Virginia  if  this  plan  (proposition  B)  be 
adopted  ?    But  he  says  there  is  no  great  peril — 

"  These  are  mere  phantasies — 
There  is  no  peril ; " 
and  then,  like  Sardanapalus,  he  goes  on  to  prepare  the 
funeral  pile  and  collect  the  faggots  with  which  our  in- 
terests and  his  own  are  to  be  consumed. 

I  will  endeavor  briefly  to  show  how  our  interests  may 
be  imperiled.  Of  the  ordinary  interests  from  which  the 
revenues  of  this  State  are  derived,  eastern  Virginia  has 
the  largest  share,  and  consequently  pays  a  greater 
amount  of  taxes  upon  them,  than  western  Virginia,  with 
the  exception  of  four  only.    And  the  entire  amount  of 


8 


taxation  upon  those  four  items  will  not  make  more  than 
one-sixth,  about,  in  truth,  one-eighth  of  th*  revenue  of 
the  State.  The  four  are  horses,  metalic  clocks,  stages, 
and  houses  of  private  entertainment.  They  beat  us  in 
keeping  time  with  brass  metal ;  we  beat  them,  I  ihink, 
on  gold  watches.  And  in  regard  to  the  number  of  mu- 
sical instruments  we  are  a  long  way  ahead  of  them.  In 
the  whole  of  western  Virginia  there  are  but  two  harps  : 
and  I  would  here  take  the  liberty  of  giving  that  section 
a  little  advice  and  that  is  that  they 

"  Hang  those  harps  upon  the  willows.'' 

A  MEMBER.  How  many  have  you  in  eastern  Vir- 
ginia ? 

Mr.  PURKINS.  In  eastern  Virginia  there  some  thir- 
ty harps,  the  exact  number  I  do  not  recollect. 

A  MEMBER  (in  his  seat.)  You  had  better  hang  those 
up  too. 

Mr.  PURKLNTS.  That  would  make  the  air  too  musical. 
[A  laugh.]  Well,  of  all  the  sources  from  which  revenue 
is  derived,  western  Virginia  exceeds  us  in  the  payment 
of  taxes  upon  but  four,  while  in  every  other  class  of  tax- 
able property  we  are  ahead  of  them.  Are  not  these 
taxable  interests  of  ours  impeiiled  then  by  entrusting 
the  highest  power  in  government,  the  taxing  power,  in- 
to the  hands  of  those  who  have  no  similar  interests  to 
tax  ?  Self-interest  in  government  is  the  motive  princi 
pie  with  men,  as  is  often  the  case  in  private  life.  I  do 
not  know  that  to  act  from  self-interest  is  a  moral  prin 
ciple.  It  may  be  wrong  and  even  detestable  so  to  act 
in  private  life ;  but  for  one,  I  believe  that  it  is  the  very 
safest  and  most  prudent  principle  that  we  can  adopt  in 
political  government.  Not  that  narrow  self-interest 
that  confines  itself  to  the  advancement  of  certain  indi- 
viduals, but  which  stretches  its  arms  wide  to  embrace 
the  entire  community  whose  protection  from  injury 
ought  to  be  the  object  of  its  peculiar  care.  And  if  this 
be  the  principle  which  is  governing  the  west,  as  I  think 
I  have  shown  it  to  be  in  this  contest  for  power,  and 
when  her  interests  and  then  advancement  demand  that 
our  interests  should  be  oppressed  and  destroyed,  it  be- 
comes us,  while  we  have  the  power,  so  to  guard  as,  that  in 
entering  into  a  social  compact  with  them  we  will  make 
such  arrangements  as  will  afford  us  beyond  all  doubt 
adequate  security.  » 

1  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  western  Virginia  may  im- 
peril our  interests  first  by  oppressive  taxation,  and  sec- 
ondly by  discriminating  upon  the  various  subjects  of 
taxation  in  her  own  favor.  Give  her  the  power  and  she 
might  divert  taxation  from  her  own  taxable  interests, 
and  increase  it  upon  ours.  She  might  not  do  it,  but  the 
gentleman  from  Augusta,  whom  I  am  happy  to  see  now 
in  his  seat,  has  quoted  to  us  from  a  very  celebrated  au- 
thor, De  Tocqueville,  to  the  effect,  that  the  love  of  pro- 
perty is  the  predominant  feeling  in  the  American 
bosom  

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  I  said  that  respect  for  the  rights  of 
property  was  the  predominant  feeling. 

Mr.  PURKINS.  Precisely;  and  your  quotation  went 
en  to  say  the  lore  of  property  itself.  If  this,  then,  be  the 
predominant  feeling  in  the  bosom  of  the  people  of  Vir- 
ginia, I  take  it  that  it  is  as  powerful  in  the  bosoms  of 
western  men  as  of  eastern  men  ;  and  if  it  is,  then  there 
is  a  struggle  on  the  part  ©f  eastern  gentlemen  to  retain 
the  control  of  their  own  property,  and  on  the  part  of 
western  gentlemen  to  wrest  that  control  from  our  hands, 
and  I  am  aware  of  no  worse  despotism  than  might  fol- 
low. They  act  upon  the  presumption  that  we  are  in 
capable  of  attending  to  our  own  concerns,  and  regard 
us  as  not  only  in  the  minority,  but  as  minors,  utterly 
unqualified  to  take  care  of  our  own  property. 

There  is  another  ground  upon  which  they  are  wholly 
unable  to  prevent  our  interests  from  being  imperiled. 
I  assert  that  some  of  our  interests  are  different  from  the 
interests  of  western  Virginia,  and  that  the  west  is  inca- 
pable of  attending  to  them  in  the  manner  which  alone 
can  prevent  them  from  being  injured  and  oppressed. 
Give  the  power  into  the  hands  of  the  west,  and  when- 
ever a  supposed  necessity  arises,  we  will  be  made  to 


feel  that  there  is  no  community  of  interests  between  us 
in  this  particular,  in  consequence  of  the  increased 
weight  of  the  burdens  imposed  upon  our  interests.  An- 
other reason  why  this  win  he  the  case,  arises  from  the 
extt  nt  of  our  public  debt.  The  public  debt  of  Virginia, 
including  the  appropriations  by  the  present  legisla- 
ture— and  all  the  liabilities  of  the  State — amounts  to  be- 
tween twenty  and  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  The  inter- 
est on  that  debt  has  to  be  paid  annually,  and  where  is  it 
to  be  raised  ?  The  effort  of  the  west  may  be,  if  the 
power  is  given  in  her  hands,  to  make  eastern  Virginia 
pay  it  and  relieve,  to  as  great  an  extent  as  practicable, 
western  Virginia  from  the  burden  of  the  debt.  We 
are  willing  to  pay  our  proportion  of  the  tax  ;  but  we  de- 
sire to  have  the  right  of  saying  how  it  shall  be  paid, 
and  in  what  manner  the  taxes  shall  be  imposed  upon 
the  subjects  of  taxation.  The  public  debt — in  process 
of  time — must  be  redeemed,  and  how  is  it  to  be  ?  Sup- 
pose such  i  state  of  things  should  arise  as  that  its  re- 
demption should  be  demanded  immediately  upon  its 
coming  due.  I  ask  if  this  self-interest  might  not  force 
you  to  impose  the  burden  of  its  payment  upon  the  east, 
to  the  entire  relief  of  yourselves  ?  In  view  of  these 
things,  I  ask  my  friend  from  Augusta,  if  there  is  not 
good  reason  why  this  abuse  may  arise,  and  if  therefore 
an  abuse  of  power  ought  not  to  be  guarded  against  ?  It 
may  be  replied  that  the  east  may  pursue  the  same 
course  in  regard  to  western  Virginia  ;  but  I  assert  that 
from  the  state  of  facts  to  which  I  have  already  directed 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  this  cannot  possibly  take 
place.  The  history  of  the  political  action  of  Virginia 
during  the  last  seventy  years,  plainly  shows  that  hither- 
to they  have  not  done  it.  You  have  security  in  the  fu- 
ture, from  the  fact  that  eastern  Virginia  has  a  majority 
of  the  interests  which  are  subject  to  taxation,  and  she 
cannot  adopt  a  system  of  taxation,  even  if  she  desired 
so  to  do,  without  oppressing  her  own  interests.  Thus, 
our  feelings  would  be  directly  opposed  to  any  system  of 
oppressive  taxation. 

Suppose,  gentlemen  of  the  west,  that  you  obtain  the 
ascendancy  in  political  power.  You  are  great  sticklers 
for  the  bill  of  rights,  and  the  jus  majoris.  That  is  your 
magna  charta  as  well  as  palladium  of  political  liberty  ; 
yet' you  will,  by  pursuing  the  course  you  propose,  strike 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  temple  of  liberty  in  which 
you  say  you  desire  to  worship,  for  you  design  destroy- 
ing one  of  the  great  principles  of  republicanism,  viz  : 
the  enjoyment  of  property  involving  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness. But  to  this  point  I  simply  direct  the  attention 
of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  as  I  do  not  think  it  ne- 
cessary to  pursue  it  further. 

I  was  struck  with  the  declaration  of  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta,  which  was  made  in  a  different  form  by 
my  venerable  friend  from  Greenbrier,  (Mr.  Smith,)  that 
if  eastern  Virginia  did  not  yield  to  the  west  the  princi- 
ple she  was  contending  for,  there  would  arise  a  clamor 
from  ninety  thousand  western  freemen  which  would 
continue  to  tingle  in  eastern  ears  until  it  was  appeased 
by  their  yielding  up  the  principle  and  the  power.  If  a 
clamor  of  this  kind  is  to  be  raised  in  favor  of  a  princi- 
ple which  would,  if  adopted,  destroy  the  equilibrium  of 
government,  I  tell  gentlemen  of  the  west  that  the  voices 
of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  freemen  would 
come  up  in  opposition  from  the  beautiful  tide-water  re- 
gion of  the  State,  and  uniting  with  thousands  of  similar 
voices  from  Piedmont,  travel  on  towards  the  Valley, 
and  the  sound  would  swell  in  volume  even  to  the  sum- 
mit of  the  Alleghanies,  and  it  would  echo  and  reverbe- 
rate over  mountain  and  through  valley  until  your  ears 
would  not  only  practically  tingle  with  the  sound,  but 
every  habitation  of  the  west  would  quake  and  trembly 
at  the  voices  of  the  east  falling  upon  the  ear  as  if  the 
thunders  of  heaven  itself  were  roaring.  Do  gentlemen, 
by  their  declarations,  mean  to  intimidate  us  ?  And 
yet  their  language  will  bear  that  construction,  and  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  within  the  last 
few  days  resolutions  have  been  received  from  the  west- 
ern counties  declaring  that  unless  the  east  yield  the 
power  asked  for  by  western  delegates  in  this  body,  that 


SPEECH 


OF 


JAMES  BARBOUR,  ESQ.,  OF  CULPEPER, 


IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE, 


ON 


THE    BASIS  QUESTION, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE 


VIRGINIA    REFORM  CONVENTION, 


ON 


THURSDAY,  February  27,  1851. 


RICHMOND,  VA. 
PRINTED  BY  R.  H.  GALLAHER- 

1851. 


SPEECH 


Mr.  BARBOUR  said- 
Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  that  my  course,  since  I 
have  been  a  member  of  this  body,  gives  a  stronger  as- 
surance of  the  diffidence  and  reluctance  with  which  I 
obtrude  myself  upon  the  attention  of  the  Convention, 
than  any  form  of  words  which  I  could  employ.  As  one 
of  the  youngest — perhaps  the  youngest — member  upon 
this  floor,  I  have  felt  that  it  was  due  to  the  Convention, 
and  due  to  myself,  that  I  should  not  press  myself  upon 
its  notice,  except  when  impelled  to  do  so  by  a  sense  of 
duty.  But,  like  other  gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  I  have 
duties  to  discharge  ;  and,  if  those  who  sent  me  here 
had  have  apprehended  that  I  would  permit  con- 
siderations of  personal  delicacy  and  diffidence  to  em- 
barrass me  in  the  discharge  of  those  duties,  that  full- 
measured  confidence  by  authority  of  which  I  am  here, 
would  have  been  withheld,  and  properly  withheld,  from 
me.  I  cannot,  therefore,  shrink  from  the  task  that  is 
before  me.  I  must,  however,  in  the  outset,  invoke  the 
indulgence  of  the  committee.  I  am,  for  the  first  time 
in  my  life,  addressing  a  deliberative  assembly,  and  am 
very  well  aware  that  I  may  not  be  able  to  adapt  my 
style  to  the  proprieties  of  this  new  position.  The  com- 
mittee must,  therefore,  pardon  me  if  I  use,  upon  this 
occasion,  the  same  unreserve  of  manner,  the  same  free- 
dom of  speech,  that  I  would  do  were  I  addressing  my 
friends  and  neighbors  from  the  galleries  of  my  own 
court-house,  or  upon  the  jury  bench  in  my  own  county. 
I  will  add,  that  I  desire  to  say  nothing  that  is  offensive 
to  any  gentleman,  or  any  collection  of  gentlemen  here. 
And  if  any  remark  shall  fall  from  me  that  may  seem  to 
bear  such  a  construction,  1  ask  that  it  may  be  attributed 
rather  to  inadvertence,  arising  out  of  the  excitement  of 
the  moment,  than  to  any  purpose  to  wound  the  sensi- 
bilities of  gentlemen. 

In  discussing  this  subject,  I  shall  endeavor  to  view  it 
fairly  in  each  of  the  two  aspects  in  which  it  has  been 
considered  by  most  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  prece- 
ded me  in  the  debate — first  as  an  abstract  question,  and 
next  as  one  involving  the  gravest  considerations  of  pub- 
lic liberty  and  public  safety.  One  party  upon  this  floor 
contends  that  what  they  denominate  the  suffrage  basis 
of  representation  is  the  only  basis  consistent  with  pop- 
ular rights,  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  liberty, 
as  they  are  asserted  in  our  own  bill  of  rights.  If  their 
position  is  a  sound  one,  then  there  is  an  end  to  the  dis- 
cussion. I  acknowledge  that  there  would  then  be  no 
occasion  for  further  argument,  and  we  should  be  bound 
to  go  along  with  them.  If,  however,  this  question  of 
abstract  right  is  not  with  them,  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  free  government  do  not  require  us  to 
adopt  the  basis  for  which  they  contend,  then  we  must 
give  ourselves  over  to  the  guidance  of  those  considera- 
tions of  public  policy  and  safety  that  apply  to  the  actual 
condition  of  the  country  for  which  we  are  organizing  a 
government. 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  main  part  of  this  argument, 
I  shall  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  one  or 
two  points  that  have  already  been  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion by  other  gentlemen,  and  have  a  more  or  less 
direct  connection  with  it.  I  have  been  surprised  and 
amused  at  the  superior  purity  of  motive,  and  devotion 
to  principle,  which  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  seem 
disposed  to  assume  for  themselves.  We  are  informed 
that  with  them  it  is  a  contest  for  principle,  and  for 


principle  alone.  They  profess  to  prosecute  this  contest 
for  principle  with  a  white-handed,  pure-hearted  faith 
that  would  contemn  any  association  with  views  of  in- 
terest. The  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey) 
even  tells  us  that  when,  on  one  occasion  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  subject  before  his  constituents,  arguments 
were  addressed  to  them  founded  on  considerations  of 
their  own  interests,  a  ground-swell  of  indignation  re- 
buked the  unseemly  assault  upon  their  virtuous  devotion 
to  principle.  That  gentleman  permitted  his  fancy  to 
range  in  delighted  vision  throughout  western  Virginia, 
everywhere  beholding  nothing  but  this  disinterested 
and  ardent  enthusiasm  in  behalf  of  the  great  principles 
of  which  he  is  the  champion.  But  the  moment  that  he 
crosses  the  mountain  that  interposes  between  the  Val- 
ley and  the  Piedmont,  this  appearance  changes,  and 
the  gentleman's  sensibilities  are  shocked  at  the  odious 
coincidence  which  he  thinks  he  perceives  between  the 
principles  and  the  interests  of  the  people  in  that  quar- 
ter of  the  State.  And,  by  way  of  chastising  this  repre- 
hensible dereliction,  the  Piedmont  is  to  be  made  the 
subject  and  the  victim  of  the  prejudices  of  this  Conven- 
tion. Other  gentlemen  have  equally  indulged  in  a 
strain  of  applause  at  the  peculiar  and  exclusive  enthu- 
siasm for  principle  which  inspires  them  and  their  con- 
stituents in  this  contest.  I  understood  the  gentleman 
from  Preston  (Mr.  Brown)  to  go  so  far  as  to  intimate 
that  he  would  still  adhere  to  his  principle,  even  did 
the  experience  of  the  other  States  in  the  confederacy 
demonstrate  its  impolicy.  But  the  gentleman  who  oc- 
cupied the  attention  of  the  committee  on  yesterday 
(Mr.  Lucas)  went  further  on  this  point  than  any  one 
has  yet  gone  ;  for  I  understood  him  to  congratulate 
himself  that  the  ardor  of  this  attachment  to  their  prin- 
ciples had  placed  him  and  his  constituents  in  a  position 
actuallv  in  conflict  with  their  interests.  This  fact  he 
seemed  to  think  ought  to  give  peculiar  force  and  influ- 
ence to  the  views  and  advice  which  his  constituents 
might  address  to  the  practical  and  intelligent  people 
who  live  on  this  side  of  the  mountain.  This  gentleman 
entertained  us  at  length  with  a  beautiful  eulogy  upon 
the  happy  condition  of  public  sentiment  in  his  county. 
I  was  delighted  with  the  eloquence  of  the  gentleman, 
and  permitted  myself  for  a  time  to  be  lost  in  admira- 
tion of  the  holy  ardor  and  enthusiasm  for  principle  that 
prevailed  in  that  end  of  the  Valley.  The  gentleman  'a 
voice  was  occasionally  inaudible  where  I  sat,  and  it 
was  in  the  midst  of  one  of  those  bursts  of  eulogy  that  I 
lost  the  connection  ;  and  when  he  again,  in  a  few  mo- 
ments, became  audible  to  me,  I  was  astonished  to  find 
him  now  dilating  with  the  same  fervor  upon  the  policy 
and  equity  of  getting  some  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  upon 
his  side  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  I  must  confess  that  I  was 
entirely  at  a  loss  to  perceive  any  particular  connection 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  free  government,  and 
the  natural  rights  of  men,  with  the  idea  of  getting  some 
of  the  loaves  and  fishes  over  the  mountain.  This  tran- 
sition from  principle  to  interest  was  accomplished  with 
a  grace  and  rapidity  which  the  gentleman  from  Augusta 
even  would  hardly  expect  to  see  surpassed  in  the 
Piedmont.  If  the  subject  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  had 
been  introduced  into  this  discussion  by  one  of  the  rep- 
resentatives from  Piedmont,  it  might  have  seemed  to 
some  onlv  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  general  charac- 
ter which  it  has  pleased  certain  gentlemen  to  attribute 
to  that  section.    But,  coming  from  the  quarter  that  it 


4 


did,  and  in  the  connection  in  which  it  was  introduced, 
I  must  again  repeat  the  expression  of  my  profound 
amazement. 

"  The  thing  itself  was  neither  rich  nor  rare, 
The  only  wonder  is,  how  the  d — 1  it  got  there." 

In  reply  to  all  this  assumed  disregard  of  interest,  I 
might  simply  ask  gentlemen  if  they  do  not  think  that 
the  interests  of  their  constituents  will  be  promoted  by 
the  suffrage  basis  ?  If  such  is  your  own  view  of  your 
own  interests,  do  you  not  yourselves  present  that  very 
coincidence  between  your  interests  and  your  principles, 
as  you  regard  them,  which  is  imputed  as  an  offence  to 
the  Piedmont  people.  But  I  propose  to  prosecute,  a 
little  further,  the  investigation  which  such  assumption 
justifies  and  invites. 

The  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas,)  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  have  both  presented 
somewhat  at  length,  the  history  of  parties  on  this  basis 
question.  I  propose  very  briefly  to  follow  these  gentle- 
men through  a  portion  of  that  history,  and  correct  some 
of  their  facts.  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  the  party  to 
which  these  gentlemen  are  attached  has  always  been 
controlled  by  that  exclusive  and  disinterested  devotion 
to  principle  which  is  claimed  for  them.  I  think  that 
by  the  time  I  have  gone  through  with  this  portion  of 
my  subject,  it  will  be  found  that  there  are  other  sections 
besides  the  Piedmont  which  sometimes  consult  their  own 
interests. 

The  gentlemen  inform  us,  that  in  the  arrangement  of 
senatorial  districts  in  1816,  the  white  basis  party  ob- 
tained such  a  recognition  of  their  principles  as  was  sat- 
isfactory to  them.  They  derive  this  assertion,  I  know, 
from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Doddridge  in  the  last  convention. 
But  they  have  entirely  overlooked  the  correction  of  Mr. 
Doddridge's  statement,  that  was  made  shortly  after- 
wards, in  the  same  body  by  Mr.  Tazewell.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  the  debates  of  that  convention.  At  the  close  of 
his  speech  on  the  basis  question,  Mr.  Tazewell  refers  to 
the  history  of  that  senatorial  re-apportionment  in  1816. 
He  says  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that 
brought  in  that .  re-apportionment  bill,  and  was,  of 
course,  cognizant  of  all  its  proceedings.  He  informs  us 
that  those  districts  were  arranged,  not  on  the  white 
population  basis — certainly  not  on  the  suffrage  basis — 
but  upon  a  compound  basis  of  taxation,  federal  num 
bers,  and  white  population.  In  connection  with  the 
fact  which  I  have  just  presented,  I  ask  attention  to  an- 
other fact,  also  stated  by  Mr.  Tazewell.  He  says  that 
the  west  was  satisfied  with  the  apportionment  then 
made.  Mr.  Doddridge  likewise  states,  that  after  this  sen- 
atorial apportionment,  the  western  people  took  a  breath- 
ing spell,  and  agitation  was  suspended  until  1824.  That 
re  apportionment  gave  the  west  nine  senators.  Pre- 
viously they  had  but  four.  It  will  be  observed  that 
this  re-apportionment  gave  to  this  party  of  devotees  to 
principle,  a  large  accession  of  power,  but  no  recognition 
of  their  principle.  They  hugged  the  power  to  their  bo 
soms,  and  smiled  over  its  possession,  but,  they  forgot  to 
shed  one  tear,  or  utter  one  word  in  melancholy  com- 
memoration of  their  abandoned  principle.  The  gentle- 
man from  Augusta  told  us  with  an  air  of  triumph  that 
the  mixed  basis  was  not  heard  of  in  1816.  I  have 
shown  that  it  was  the  very  basis  that  then  prevailed.  I 
wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  a  princi- 
ple of  basis  that  really  was  not  heard  of  in  the  re-ap- 
portionment of  1816.  The  suffrage  basis  was  not  then 
demanded.  It  was  the  whole  white  population  that  was 
then  urged  as  the  basis  by  the  ardent  and  enthusiastic 
devotees  of  the  rights  of  man  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  liberty  asserted  in  the  bill  of  rights.  Such 
likewise  was  the  basis  demanded  by  this  party  in  the 
Staunton  convention  in  1816,  and  in  1825.  So  far,  if 
my  information  be  correct,  this  party  planted  itself  upon 
the  white  population  basis,  and  not  the  suffrage  basis. 
We  come  now  to  the  convention  of  1829,  where  the  en- 
tire sentiment  of  this  party  in  the  State  was  organized 
and  represented  In  that  convention  this1  suffrage  basis, 
now  presented  as  the  only  basis  consistent  with  the 


rights  of  men  and  the  principles  of  liberty,  had  but  two 
advocates  !  One  of  these  was  R.  B,  Taylor,  whose  pow- 
ers were  revoked  at  an  early  period  of  the  session.  The 
other  was  Chapman  Johnson,  and  the  fact  that  he  stood 
alone  on  that  question  is  strikingly  significant  of  the 
feeling  with  which  this  suffrage  basis  was  then  regarded. 
The  gentleman  from  Augusta,  the  other  day,  described 
Philip  Doddridge,  in  1829,  as  standing,  like  an  eagle- 
eyed  sentinel  on  the  crest  of  the  Alleghany,  to  guard  the 
western  interest  from  the  approach  of  open  and  secret 
foe.  This  eagle-eyed  sentinel  did  not  hesitate  to  chal- 
lenge even  Chapman  Johnson,  and  when  he  gave  the 
suffrage  basis  as  the  countersign,  Philip  Doddridge  would 
not  admit  him  into  the  camp.  Yes,  in  the  convention 
of  1829,  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  white  basis  party, 
Mr.  Doddridge  told  Chapman  Johnson  that  he  was  the 
only  one  of  that  party  who  was  in  favor  of  the  suffrage 
basis.  I  trust  the  committee  will  give  their  attention  to 
two  short  extracts,  which  I  will  venture  to  read  from 
the  debates  of  the  last  convention : 

"Mr.  Doddridge  rose  to  notice  a  remark  of  Mr. 
Scott  on  what  had  fallen  from  Mr.  Johnson.  He  under- 
stood Mr.  Johnson  to  have  stated  it  as  his  understand- 
ing of  the  first  proposition  in  the  report  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Committee,  that  representation  was  to  be  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  of  qualified  voters  ;  and  he  hsid 
added  that  he  supposed  this  to  have  been  the  intention 
of  the  mover  of  that  resolution  in  the  Legislative  Com- 
mittee. Now,  Mr.  Doddridge  said  that  he  had  himself 
been  the  mover  of  it,  and  such  an  interpretation  was 
certainly  very  far  from  his  purpose.  He  had  never  in- 
tended any  such  thing ;  nor,  so  far  as  he  knew,  had  such 
an  interpretation  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  Legis- 
lative Committee.  His  doctrine  and  his  desire  was 
that  representation  was  to  be  apportioned  according 
to  the  entire  white  population. — Debates,  p.  342. 

At  a  later  period  of  the  session  he  again  repudiates 
the  suffrage  basis  in  behalf  of  all  his  associates  in  the 
Convention. 

"Mr.  Doddridge,  in  explanation  to  Mr.  Stanard,  dis- 
claimed any  opinion  on  the  part  of  his  friends,  that  rep- 
resentation was  to  be  based  on  votes  alone ;  none  of  them 
hold  it  but  Mr.  Johnson." — Debates,  p.  342. 

There  is  what  Mr.  Doddridge  said,  uncontradicted 
from  any  quarter.  Ami  not  then  fully  authorized  to  say 
that  the  suffrage  basis  was  rejected  by  the  able  men 
who  represented  western  interests  in  the  convention  of 
1829  ?  That  the  principle  involved  in  this  suffrage 
basis  was  not  regarded  by  those  men  as  one  consistent 
with  the  principles  upon  which  they  then  planted  their 
party?  A  change  is  now  brought  about,  and  that  which 
was  rejected  of  the  builders  in  1829,  is  made  the  corner- 
stone of  the  edifice.  Here  we  find  this  party  changing 
position  in  1851.  Let  us  direct  our  attention  back 
again  for  a  few  moments,  and  inquire  whether  there 
has  been  any  change  of  interest  coincident  with  this 
change  of  principle.  The  Committee  will  remember 
that  in  1816  the  freehold  suffrage  was  in  force.  In 
1829  it  was  understood  that  the  right  of  suffrage  would 
be  extended  to  housekeepers  who  were  tax  payers. 
Mr.  Johnson,  in  the  Convention  of  1829,  submitted  es- 
timates of  the  result  of  the  white  population  basis,  and 
of  the  suffrage  basis,  as  the  suffrage  qualifications  then 
stood,  and  also  as  it  was  proposed  to  extend  it.  White 
population  basis  gave  the  west  fifty-six  members  in  a 
house  of  one  hundred  and  twenty.  The  suffrage  basis, 
if  the  right  of  suffrage  was  not  extended,  would  give 
the  west  forty-seven  members ;  and  if  the  right  of  suf- 
frage should  be  extended  as  was  then  expected  to  tax 
paying  housekeepers,  the  suffrage  basis  would  give  the 
west  fifty  members.  [Debates,  p.  270.]  Thus  the  white 
population  basis  gave  the  west  nine  members  more 
than  the  suffrage  basis,  as  the  right  of  suffrage  then 
was  and  had  beeu  in  1816  ;  and  it  gave  six  more  than 
the  suffrage  basis  after  the  contemplated  extension  of 
the  right  of  suffrage.  In  that  condition  of  affairs,  wes- 
tern gentlemen,  with  almost  unbroken  unanimity,  came 


I 


to  the  conclusion  that  the  white  population  basis  was 
the  only  basis  consistent  with  the  rights  of  man  and 
democratic  principles.  How  is  it  now  ?  Why,  it  is 
generally  anticipated  that  the  right  of  suffrage  will  be 
extended  to  all  the  adult  males  in  the  State.  It  is  well 
known  that  in  an  immigrating  community  the  number 
of  adult  males  is  larger  in  proportion  to  the  whole  pop- 
ulation than  it  is  in  an  emigrating  community.  Eas- 
tern Virginia  is  an  emigrating  country,  western  Vir- 
ginia is  an  immigrating  country,  so  that  after  the  con- 
templated extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  the  suf- 
frage basis  will  probably  give  western  Virginia  more 
power  than  white  population  basis.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances we  find  gentlemen  repudiating  the  white 
population  basis  with  the  same  unanimity  with  which 
they  formerly  repudiated  the  suffrage  basis,  and  now 
vehemently  contending  that  the  latter  basis  is  the  one 
whose  principle  meets  the  full  requirements  of  the  bill 
of  rights !  Here,  then,  I  point  to  a  change  of  position 
and  of  principle,  and  coincident  with  it  a  change  of  in- 
terest. I  find  that  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  these  gentle- 
men to  rGason  themselves  into  the  adoption  of  the  par- 
ticular principle  that  gives  them  the  most  power. 
Let  my  western  friends  not  misunderstand  me.  I  do 
not  charge  them  with  seeking  power  for  improper  pur- 
poses. You  no  doubt  think  that  when  you  have  obtain- 
ed power  you  will  use  it  wisely  and  well.  But  I  think 
that  I  have  detected  the  unnoticed  and  pervading  in- 
fluence of  the  desire  for  power  that  has  shaped  and 
fashioned  their  principles.  In  view  of  the  facts  which 
I  have  recited,  I  feel  authorized  to  deny  their  assump- 
tion of  supeiior  and  disinterested  devotion  to  principle, 
and  to  tell  them  freely  and  boldly  that  on  their  side 
the  love  of  power  mingles  with  the  love  of  principle. 

But  I  have  not  contented  myself  with  an  investigation 
of  the  past ;  I  have  extended  my  inquiries  to  the  course 
of  gentlemen  in  this  Convention,  upon  this  subject.  I 
ask  you  to  go  along  with  me  and  review  the  course  of 
gentlemen  who  represent  western  views  upon  this  floor, 
and  see  if  there  is  not  that  same  coincidence  even  here 
between  their  interest  and  their  practical  application  of 
their  own  principle  ?  I  particularly  invite  the  attention 
of  all  my  western  friends  to  what  I  am  now  going  to 
present  to  the  Committee.  "We  are  persuaded  that  the 
fires  of  indignation  are  always  ready  to  kindle  in  the 
bosom  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  (Mr.  Sheffey,) 
as  well  as  in  the  bosoms  of  his  virtuous  constituents,  at 
the  bare  thought  of  sacrificing  principle  to  interest. 
Let  that  gentleman  prepare  one  of  his  ground-swells 
of  indignation  now — for  he  has  himself  been  an  active 
participant  in  what  I  am  about  to  expose.  In  order 
that  there  may  be  no  misapprehension  on  my  part  of 
the  position  of  western  gentlemen,  I  will  state  it  as 
I  understand  it.  If  I  state  it  inaccurately,  I  ask  as  a 
favor  that  some  gentleman  on  that  side  will  correct  me. 
They  contend  that  a  majority  of  the  voters  in  the  State 
ought  to  control  the  legislation  of  the  State.  They 
take  for  the  present  the  number  of  white  population 
as  the  measure  of  the  number  of  voters,  and  profess  that 
in  arranging  and  distributing  representation  among  the 
counties  and  election  districts,  those  counties  and  elec 
tion  districts  which  contain  a  majority  of  the  white 
population  shall  always  be  enabled  to  elect  a  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  legislature.  Have  I  stated  your 
doctrine  correctly  ?  Now  let  us  see  what  is  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  this  principle,  as  it  is  exhibited  in  the 
report  of  the  western  portion  of  the  Basis  Committee  ? 
Twelve  of  the  most  distinguished  gentlemen  from  wes- 
tern Virginia,  constitute  one  half  of  the  Basis  Com- 
mittee. Without  interference  or  hindrance  from  our 
side,  these  gentlemen  have  leisurelv  and  deliberately 
matured  their  own  application  of  their  own  principle. 
The  result  of  their  labor  is  presented  as  the  scheme  of 
representation  which  gives  practical  operation  to  the 
principles  for  which  they  contend, and  which,  therefore, 
t\  fcy  wish  to  incorporate  as  a  part  (if  the  new  eonsti- 

\ion.  This  report  was  presented  some  weeks  ago, 
&>  \  been  printed  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  every  mem- 


ber of  the  Convention.  No  proposition  to  amend — no 
complaint  of  its  imperfection  has  yet  come  from  a  sin- 
gle member  on  the  other  side.  I  take  it,  therefore,  that 
this  proposition  meets  the  general  approval  of  western 
gentlemen,  and  fully  accomplishes  their  views  and 
purposes. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  tabular  statement — I  do  not  in- 
tend to  trouble  the  committee  by  reading  it,  but  as  soon 
as  I  am  done  referring  to  it,  any  gentleman  will  be  at 
liberty  to  take  it  and  examine  it  at  his  leisure — showing 
that  sixty-two  counties  and  election  districts,  embracing 
395,618  white  population,  will  be  authorized,  upon  this 
plan,  to  elect  seventy-nine  out  of  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  members  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  while  the  rest 
of  the  counties,  embracing  about  500,000  inhabitants,  are 
authorized  to  elect  but  seventy-seven  members.  Yet 
worse,  by  adding  five  other  counties  to  the  list,  we  have 
sixty -seven  counties,  containing 437,000  population,  elect- 
ing eighty  six  delegates,  while  the  other  counties,  con- 
taining 458,000  population,  sent  but  seventy  delegates. 
Thus,  a  minority  by  some  twenty  thousand," have  a  ma- 
jority of  sixteen  in  the  House  of  Delegates,  by  a  plan 
whose  professed  purpose  is  to  give  the  control  of  the 
legislature  exclusively  to  the  numerical  majority.  The 
same  remarkable  inconsistencies  are  observed  in  then- 
senatorial  apportionment.  I  have  not  gone  to  the 
trouble  of  preparing  a  tabular  statement  in  reference 
to  the  Senate.  But  I  have  marked  here  on  the  face  of 
the  printed  report,  nineteen  districts,  embracing  in  round 
numbers,  about  437,000  population,  which  are  authorized 
upon  the  plan,  to  elect  nineteen  senators  out  of  thirty- 
six.  The  other  districts  including  about  458,000  popu- 
lation, elect  but  seventeen  senators.  A  minority  by 
twenty  thousaud  thus  control  the  senate  on  the  majority 
plan  !  Here  is  devotion  to  principle  for  you  with  a 
vengeance.  The  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (-Mr.  Lucas) 
told  us  that  it  was  not  merely  a  sectional  majority,  east 
or  west,  but  a  majority  scattered  all  over  the  State, 
into  whose  hands  he  would  pass  the  government.  Yet 
upon  the  very  plan  that  he  advocates  as  the  embodiment 
of  his  own  principles,  here  will  be  a  minority  of  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  people  scattered  ail  over  the 
State,  from  Accomac  to  Brooke,  and  from  Accomac  to 
Russell,  that  will  elect  a  majority  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates. In  the  face  of  this  strange  exhibition  of  their 
own  application  of  their  own  principles,  I  think  I  can 
hear  the  mild-toned,  musical  accents  of  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Preston,  (Mr.  Brown,)  still  singing  in  my 
ears,  that  in  supporting  this  report  he  was  only  following 
his  principles.  Gentlemen  have  followed  their  vaunted 
principles,  until  they  have  transported  the  sceptre  over 
Rockfish  gap,  and  while  embracing  the  power  that  is 
brought  to  them,  they  cease  to  pay  any  further  regard 
to  the  principle.  The  only  majority  to  which  this  report 
is  sedulous  to  secure  the  control  of  the  legislature,  is  the 
sectional  majority  lying  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  moun- 
tain. Professing  to  be  content  with  nothing  but  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  numerical  majority,  gentlemen  are  here 
pressing  the  adoption  of  a  system  that  gives  the  control 
of  the  house  of  delegates  to  a  minority  of  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand.  Yet  the  gentleman  from  Preston 
assures  us  that  they  are  only  following  their  principles. 
Well,  I  always  thought,  for  reasons  which  I  will  explain 
before  I  resume  my  seat,  that  in  attempting  to  follow 
the  principles  professed  by  these  gentlemen,  they  were 
following  a  very  unpractical,  unsafe  and  unreliable  guide. 
I  thought  that  they  were  following  a  will-'o-the-wisp. 
But  I  hardly  expected  that  they  would  be  enticed  into 
such  a  quagmire  as  that  in  which  they  are  now  flounder- 
ing. The  gentleman  must  excuse  me.  He  does  not  find 
his  principles  in  this  reported  plan.  If  he  wants  to  fol- 
low them,  he  must  begin  his  travels  anew.  I  am  sorry  I 
cannot  tell  him  how  and  where  he  will  overtake  them. 
Perhaps  they  have  taken  refuge  among  the  virtuous  and 
enthusiastic  constituents  of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta 
(Mr.  Sheffey)  and  are  now  preparing  that  ground-swell 
of  indignation  which  surely  must  overwhelm  the  gentle- 
man when  he  returns  to  those  constituents,  after  having 


6 


been  a  chief  agent  in  preparing  a  plan  of  constitutional 
organization  by  which  power  was  secured  to  them,  while 
their  beloved  principles  were  prostrated  and  abandoned. 
Or  perhaps  they  have  crossed  over  to  Monongalia,  and 
are  now  .kindling  the  fires  of  that  volcano,  which  the 
gentleman  from  that  county  (Mr.  Willey)  informed  us 
would  burst  in  destructive  eruptions  upon  the  heads  of 
all  those  who  support  any  scheme  by  which  the  hands 
of  a  minority  control  the  government.  I  am  very  fearful 
that  the  gentleman  will  fall  the  first  victim  of  his  own 
volcano.  For  he  has  made  an  eloquent  speech  in  favor 
of  this  report. 

The  great  outcry  that  has  been  raised  here  against  the 
mixed  basis  report,  is  alleged  to  have  been  occasioned 
by  its  giving  a  minority  of  ninety-one  thousand  the  con- 
trol of  the  legislative  department,  and  putting  money  in 
the  scale  against  men.  Gentlemen  have  exhausted  the 
language  of  invective  in  denouncing  a  proposition  (and 
such  they  declare  ours  to  be)  which  weighs  dollars  against 
men — money  against  moral  and  sentient  beings.  The 
English  language  has  not  been  adequate  to  express  the 
abhorrence  with  which  gentlemen  regard  this  proposi- 
tion. The  gentlemen  from  Augusta  and  Accomac  (Mr. 
Sheffey  and  Mr.  Wise)  have  re-enforced  language  with 
the  most  significant  gesture,  in  the  effort  to  give  full 
expression  to  their  emotions  on  the  subject.  It  was  not 
until  I  had  witnessed  those  displays  of  the  gentlemen 
that  I  fully  appreciated  Shakspeare's  description  of 
Hamlet  in  the  play,  as  bearing  the  appearance  of  one 

"  Just  let  loose  from  hell  to  speak  of  horrors." 
"When  gentlemen  come  to  study  their  own  plan,  I  must 
look  for  them  to  go  off  in  hysterical  convulsions.  For 
that  gives  the  control  of  a  majority  of  the  delegates  to 
a  minority  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand.  That 
does  not  even  put  money  in  the  scale,  but  with  uncere- 
monious hands  sweeps  off  a  hundred  thousand  or  so  of 
people,  as  the  worthless  dust  that  encumbers  the  balance. 
The  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  seemed  to 
think  that  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier 
(Mr.  Scott)  proposed  a  sort  of  auction  of  white  men,  and 
intimated  that  his  indignation  might  be  somewhat  re- 
lieved, or  at  least  its  agony  rendered  less  intense,  if  that 
substitute  would  value  men  at  one  dollar  apiece,  instead 
of  forty-two  cents,  the  price  at  which  they  are  estimated 
in  the  mixed  basis  report,  according  to  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta.  Here,  in  your  own  scheme,  are  one  hun- 
dred thousand  men  valued  not  at  one  dollar,  or  forty- 
two  cents,  or  even  one  cent  apiece,  but  just  at  nothing 
at  all-r-knocked  off  for  want  of  a  bidder.  Your  auction 
seems  to  be  doing  more  of  a  wholesale  business  than 
ours. 

Here,  then,  is  the  proposition  of  these  devoted  advo- 
cates of  the  majority  rule.  Let  no  gentleman  plead 
haste  or  inadvertance  as  an  excuse  for  this  startling  de- 
parture from  principle.  The  report  was  cautiously  and 
deliberately  matured  by  twelve  of  the  ablest  and  most 
zealous  western  men  on  this  floor — yes,  twelve  learned 
doctors  sent  out  to  exorcise  and  drive  out  of  the  consti- 
tution this  devil  of  a  spirit  that  a  minority  should  rule. 
If  this  western  proposition  becomes  part  of  our  consti- 
tution, I  fear  that  gentlemen  will  find  that  the  old  spirit 
has  not  only  returned  to  his  swept  and  garnished  house, 
but  has  brought  along  with  him  others  more  wicked  than 
himself,  and  made  its  latter  condition  even  worse  than 
the  former.  But  I  forbear  to  press  gentlemen  further  on 
this  subject.  They  are  in  a  difficulty  from  which  they 
will  find  it  hard  to  extricate  themselves.  They  seem  to 
me  at  the  very  first  move  to  have  put  their  king  in 
check.  I  put  it  home  to  gentleman  who  are  devoted  to 
the  principle  that  the  majority  ought  to  govern  at 
all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  if  they  can 
bring  themselves  to  support  the  plan  of  this  western 
report  ? 

I  will  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
main  question  under  discussion,  as  I  stated  it  in  my 
opening  remarks.  I  assert  that  there  is  no  principle  an- 
nounced in  our  bill,  of  rights  that  requires  us  to  adopt  the 


suffrage  basis,  or  to  reject  the  mixed  basis,  in  the  appor- 
tionment of  representation.  I  propose  briefly  to  examine 
the  clauses  in  the  bill  of  rights  which  have  been  relied 
upon  in  this  debate  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  I 
shall  do  so  as  briefly  as  possible,  contenting  myself  where 
I  can  do  so  with  justice  to  the  subject,  with  a  simple 
statement  of  my  views,  without  argument.  For  before 
the  attention  of  the  committee  is  wearied,  I  wish  to 
address  myself  to  the  more  practical  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  submit  some  considerations  of  public  liberty  and 
safety,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  to  control  our  action. 
For  convenience  of  arrangement,  I  shall  comment  on  the 
clauses  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the  bill  of 
rights.  There  are  three  clauses  upon  which  gentlemen 
rely.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  all  three  of 
these  refer  to  the  existence*  of  men  prior  to  constitu- 
tional organization,  while  a  clause  which  really  does 
refer  to  the  subject  under  discussion  has  been  entirely 
overlooked.  I  shall  refer  to  them  all  before  I  close. 
Here  is  the  first  clause  : 

"  All  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independ- 
ent, and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which,  when 
they  enter  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot  by  any  com- 
pact deprive  or  divest  their  posterity."  ? 

Now  this,  in  its  very  terms,  applies  to  the  natural  con- 
dition of  men  before  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society. 
But  admitting  that  all  men  are,  or  ought  to  be  equally 
free  after  they  have  entered  society,  is  there  any  justice 
in  the  inferences  which  these  gentlemen  draw  from  that 
declaration  ?  Because  all  men  are  equally  free,  all  men 
ought  to  exercise  equal  political  power,  according  to  the 
reasoning  of  these  gentlemen.  Power  is  not  liberty,, 
and  the  exercise  of  power  is  not  the  enjoyment  of  lib- 
erty. You  confound  the  means  with  the  end.  Power 
is  the  means  by  which  liberty  is  preserved.  And  if  you 
so  organize  power  in  the  government  as  to  preserve 
liberty,  you  accomplish  all  the  purpose  of  a  free  gov- 
ernment. 

Gentlemen  associate  with  the  idea  of  freedom,  the  idea 
of  power  ;  and  contend  that  in  order  to  make  men  free  you 
must  give  them  power.  Were  we  in  that  happy,  angelic 
condition  in  which  each,  of  his  own  free  will,  would  re- 
spect all  the  rights  of  others,  we  might  dissolve  gov- 
ernments, and  locate  power  nowhere.  Will  gentlemen 
tell  us  that  men  in  such  circumstances  would  not  be 
free  because  they  were  not  exercising  power?  Yet, 
here  their  rights  would  be  protected,  their  liberties  pre- 
served without  any  agency  of  theirs.  But  why  do  gen- 
tlemen content  themselves  with  claiming  upon  this  prin- 
ciple an  equality  of  political  power  ?  I  find  no  special  limi- 
tation of  the  term  in  the  bill  of  rights.  Why  not-claim, 
too,  an  equality  of  social  power  ?  Wealth  is  power — so- 
cial power.  Physical  strength,  intellectual  endowments 
constitute  power.  Upon  the  interpretation  which  gen- 
tlemen give  to  the  bill  of  rights,  all  men  are  by  nature 
entitled  to  equality  in  these  respects.  For  we  are  told 
that  without  equality  of  power  there  is  no  equality  of 
freedom.  Gentlemen  impressed  with  this  view  should 
not  stop  at  a  re-organization  of  our  political  system ; 
they  should  re-organize  the  social  system;  they  should 
lift  their  view  still  higher,  and  address  their  morning 
and  evening  supplication  to  High  Heaven  that  the 
system  of  nature  itself  should  be  organized  on  a  prin- 
ciple different  from  that  applied  to  it  by  infinite  wis- 
dom. But  if  men  who  have  not  an  equality  of  power, 
have  not  an  equality  of  freedom,  then  it  seems  neces- 
sarily to  follow  that  those  who  exercise  no  power  have 
no  freedom ;  so  that  upon  this  theory,  freedom  is  con- 
fined to  the  qualified  voters,  and  that  equality  of  free- 
dom asserted  in  the  bill  of  rights  and  its  concomitant 
equality  of  power  is  the  exclusive  right  of  qualified i 
voters.  If  this  party  should  prevail  in  this  Convention, 
I  shall  look  for  a  proposition  from  them  to  amend  the 
bill  of  rights  so  as  to  express  their  views  more  pre- 
cisely. Thev  ought,  upon  this  theory,  to  make  it  reijd. 
"all  qualified  voters  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  -  i- 
dependent,"    If  the  free-hold  qualification  should  f  e- 


1 


rail,  then  your  bill  of  rights  might  assert  that  all  men  sure,  and  but  little  more  than  one  thousand  in  favor  of 
who  own  twenty-five  dollars  worth  of  land  are  naturally  it.  Yet  the  two  thousand,  in  consequence  of  their  local 
free  and  equal.  It  is  well  known  that  there  is  a  party  situation,  elect  one  delegate,  and  the  one  thousand  elect 
on  this  floor,  embracing  gentlemen  from  both  sides  of  two  delegates?  A  few  more  than  one  thousand  voters 
thejnountain  who  will  endeavor  to  make  the  payment  thus  exercising  twice  as  much  legislative  power  as  but 


of  State  and  county  taxes  a  qualification  of  suffrage 
Your  bill  of  rights,  if  the  interpretation  1  am  now  com- 
bating be  correct,  would  then  declare  that  all  men  are 
by  nature  equally  free  ;  provided,  always,  that  they  had 
paid  the  county  levy.  Upon  this  theory  if  to-day  I 
chance  not  to  have  settled  my  tax-bills.  I  am  not  a  free- 
man entitled  to  enjoy  all  the  natural  rights  of  men. 
No,  the  sheriff  has  my  liberties  in  his  saddle-bags  in 
the  ungainly  shape  of  a  fax -bill.  To-morrow  I  settle 
the  account,  and  I  immediately  am  invested  with  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  a  freeman,  and  by  a  fiction, 
like  those  of  the  common  law,  these  rights  relate  back, 
I  must  suppose,  to  the  day  of  my  birth,  for  I  am 
now  become  by  nature  equally  free.  The  receipt 
which  the  sheriff  endorses  upon  the  tax  bill  thus  con- 
stitutes the  great  charter  of  the  liberies  of  the  citi- 
zen. If  such  be  the  case,  provision  ought  to  be  made  by 
law  for  preserving  in  public  custody  and  at  public  ex- 
pense, those  interesting  documents,  those  invaluable  mu- 
niments of  title  to  equal  freedom  and  the  rights  of  men. 

Well,  now  let  us  follow  these  gentlemen  through  ano- 
ther stage  of  their  singular  mode  of  argument  and  de- 
duction.   They  first  infer  from  the  bill  of  rights  impro- 
perly, as  I  think  that  I  have  shown,  that  every  man  is 
entitled  to  exercise  an  equal  share  of  political  power, 
and  from  that,  by  some  curious  art  of  logical  legerde- 
main, jump  to  the  conclusion  that  the  majority  have  the 
natural  right  to  exercise  all  power,  and  the  minority 
have  no  right  to  exercise  any  power  at  all.    A  trifle 
more  than  one-half  of  the  community  are  thus  invested 
with  absolute  power,  and  a  trifle  less  than  one-half  to 
be  stripped  of  every  semblance  of  power !    This,  too,  is 
accomplished  by  the  advocates  of  the  theory  that  no 
man  is  free,  unless  he  exercises  just  as  much  political 
power  as  any  other  man  in  the  community.    The  only 
political  organization  that  I  have  ever  heard  or  read  of, 
in  which  this  principle  of  equality,  in  the  exercise  of 
power,  was  practically  admitted,  was  the  old  Polish 
constitution,  under  which,  not  a  majority,  but  unanimi- 
ty was  required,  in  the  passage  of  laws.    There,  under 
the  pressure  of  necessity,  the  sword  overruled  the  libe- 
rum  veto,  and  the  life  of  the  citizen  was  sacrificed  while 
his  right  to  equal  political  power  was  respected.  Sup- 
pose we  examine  now  the  practical  application  which 
gentlemen  propose  to  give  to  this  principle,  and  see 
whether  even  their  own  purposes  are  in  any  degree  ac 
complished.    I  am  not  now  going  to  make  any  further 
criticism  upon  their  report.    I  am  going  to  suppose  for 
{he  moment  that  they  have  made  a  theoretically  perfect 
application  of  their  principle,  and  that  they  have  divi- 
ded the  State  into  election  districts,  each  one  of  which 
embrace  precisely  the  same  number  of  votes.    I  concede 
this  for  the  sake  of  argument,  though  I  know  that  in 
practice  it  can  never  be  accomplished.    If  you  could  so 
arrange  districts  this  morning,  the  equality  of  the  dis 
tribution  would  be  disturbed  before  the  sun  would  go 
down  to-morrow  evening.    But  even  in  that  imaginary 
condition  will  you  then  have  this  desired  equality  of 
political  power  ?    Will  not  the  location  of  the  suffragan 
in  many  instances  determine  the  degree  of  influence 
which  his  will  may  exercise  upon  the  action  of  the  le- 
gislative departments?    Most  assuredly  it  will.  Let 
me  give  an  illustration  that  will  more  clearly  express, 
at  the  same  time  that  it  enforces,  my  view.    I  will  take 
three  of  your  election  districts,  and  suppose  that  each 
includes  a  thousand  voters,  and  each  elects  one  delegate 
to  the  Legislature.    A  proposition  is  to  come  before  the 
Legislature,  and  elections  are  made  with  reference  to 
that  subject.    One  of  these  election  districts  is  unani- 
mous against  the  proposed  measure.    A  trifling  majori- 
ty in  each  of  the  other  two  districts  are  in  favor  of  it. 
How  does  the  account  stand.    In  the  three  districts 
there  are  nearly  two  thousand  voters  against  the  mea- 


a  few  less  than  two  thousand  voters.    That  is  your  pa- 
tent-right plan  for  securing  to  each  voter  precise  equal- 
ity of  power !    I  perceive  that  the  committee  com- 
prehend the  view  that  I  am  now  presenting.    Allow  me 
to  enforce  it  with  another  illustration.    I  trust  that  I  do 
nothing  improper  in  referring  for  illustration  to  the  pre- 
sent division  of  parties  in  the  State.    It  is  well  known 
that  members  of  the  Legislature  are  now  elected  with 
reference  to  parties,  and  will  probably  continue  to  be  so 
for  years  to  come.    The  county  of  Shenandoah  and  the 
county  of  Fauquier  are  each  entitled  to  two  delegates 
by  the  suffrage  basis  report.   In  Fauquier,  parties  are 
closely  divided.    In  Shenandoah,  they  are  nearly  unan- 
imous.   Eight  hundred  Whigs  in  Fauquier  send  two  de- 
legates to  the  Legislature,  while  fifteen  hundred  Demo- 
crats in  Shenandoah  send  but  two.    Thus  eight  hun- 
dred Whigs  in  Fauquier  have  as  much  weight  in  the 
Legislature,  as  the  fifteen  hundred  Democrats  in  She- 
nandoah, and  the  seven  hundred  Democratic  minority 
in  Fauquier  combined.    Eight  hundred  thus  balance 
twenty-two  hundred.    May  I  be  excused  for  yet  another 
illustration !    I  shall  refer  to  an  existing  state  of  things 
in  two  counties  of  my  own  district — Culpeper  and  Ma- 
dison.   I  cannot  name  those  counties  here  without  emo- 
tion.   The  gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  yes- 
terday eulogized  the  historic  recollections  of  his  own 
county.    I  too,  if  I  chose  to  decorate  my  position  here 
by  such  allusions,  could  refer  to  the  historic  glories 
that  cluster  about  the  reminiscences  connected  with  my 
own  county,  including,  as  she  once  did,  that  county  of 
Madison.    But  I  forbear,  and  proceed  to  the  illustra- 
tion that  I  have  in  view.    The  county  of  Culpeper  is 
nearly  equally  divided  in  politics,  a  few  votes  either 
way  determining  its  political  character.     The  coun- 
ty of  Madison  is  nearly  unanimous.    Near  the  Hue 
dividing  these  counties,  live  a  number  of  gentle- 
men,  whose   farms    extend  in  both    counties,  but 
whose  residences  are  in  Madison.    Suppose,  after  this 
Convention  has  confined  the  right  of  suffrage  to  resi- 
dents of  counties,  that  some  dozen  of  those  gentle- 
men have  their  dwellings  removed  from  the  Madison 
to  the  Culpeper  side  of  their  farms.     Probably  they 
fix  the  political  complexion  of  Culpeper,  while  they 
do  not  at  all  change  that  of  Madison.    They  thus  secure 
for  th,eir  views  two  votes  in  the  legislature,  which,  oth- 
erwise, would  exactly  balance  aud  nullify  each  other. 
Do  you  ask  me  to  believe  that  the  suffrage  of  these 
voters  avails  as  much  in  the  one  county  as  it  does  in  the 
other  ?    I  shall  not  multiply  arguments  upon  this  point. 
Gentlemen  must  themselves  perceive  in  what  incon- 
sistencies they  are  involved  when  they  attempt  to  or- 
ganize a  representative  system  upon  the  principles  which 
they  contend  to  be  the  principles  exclusively  appropri- 
ate to  it. 

I  pass  to  the  next  clause  referred  to  by  the  other 
side : 

All  power  is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived 
from,  the  people."  This  has  little  or  no  application  to 
the  subject.  I  might  admit  all  that  is  contended  for, 
that  power  is  derived  from  a  majority  of  the  people  and, 
yet  the  question,  in  what  form  shall  that  power  be  or- 
ganized, in  whose  hands  entrusted,  would  still  remain 
unsettled.  But  I  choose  to  state  my  own  view  ©f  this 
principle  in  the  bill  of  rights ;  gentlemen  can  take  it 
for  what  it  is  worth.  Whence  is  power  really  derived  ? 
Is  it  not  derived  from  the  parties  to  the  social  compact  ? 
And  who  are  those  parties  ?  The  individuals  who  con- 
stitute the  community  as  people,  and  it  is  in  this  sens© 
that  all  power  is  derived  from  the  people.  On  entering 
the  social  compact,  each  individual  surrenders  a  portion 
of  his  natural  rights  and  privileges,  and  from  these  indi- 
vidual sources  is  derived  a  fund  of  power,  to  be  employed 
for  the  good  of  the  whole.    It  is  only  these  derived 


8 


powers  that  any  human  agency  has  any  just  right  to 
exercise.  I  deny  that  there  are  any  prerogative  power 
here.  I  do  not  use  the  word  prerogative  in  the  narrow 
sense  of  the  English  common  law,  but  in  the  more  en- 
larged meaning  ascribed  to  it  by  public  writers.  Pre 
rogative  power  is  the  opposite  of  derived  power.  It  is 
not  derived  from  compacts,  constitutions,  or  laws,  but 
is  above  them,  and  is  claimed  as  inherent  in  the  party 
exercising  it.  It  is  power  having  its  foundation,  not  in 
the  gift  of  men,  but  in  Divine  right.  I  understand  gen 
tlemen  to  contend  that  there  are  such  prerogative  powers 
here,  and  that  they  belong  to  the  majority  of  the  com 
munity.  I  deny  that  any  man,  or  set  of  men,  have  the 
right  to  exercise  any  power  over  an  individual,  which  is 
not  derived  from  the  grant  of  that  individual  directly 
or  indirectly.  By  entering  into  the  social  compact  he 
confers  upon  the  community  thus  formed  the  powers 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  the  social  com- 
pact, the  formation  of  the  government,  the  establish 
ment  of  a  constitutional  compact  that  supersedes  the 
social  compact.  'Whjle  the  community  are  engaged  in 
accomplishing  the  great  object  of  the  social  compact 
the  establishment  of  a  government,  the  community  act 
as  an  assembly,  and  of  course  are  subject  to  the  rule 
of  necessity  applying  to  ail  assemblies,  that  the  will  of 
the  majority  shall  represent  the  will  of  the  whole.  This 
is  a  power  derived  from  the  parties  to  the  social  com 
pact  by  the  conditions  of  the  compact,  and  ceases  to 
exist  the  moment  that  the  social  compact  accomplishes 
its  object,  and  is  merged  into  a  constitutional  compact. 
After  that,  no  portion  of  them  have  a  right  to  any  power 
not  granted  and  delegated  in  the  constitution.  So  long 
as  the  constitution  has  a  valid  obligatory  existence,  the 
majority  have  a  right  to  just  what  powers  the  constitu 
tion  gives  them,  and  no  more.  This  view  brings  us  to 
the  last  clause  in  the  bill  of  rights,  which  gentlemen  have 
recited  in  support  of  their  position : 

"  Government  is,  or  ought  to  be,  instituted  for  the 
common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of  the  people 
nation,  or  community ;  of  all  the  various  modes  and 
forms  of  government,  that  is  best  which  is  capable  of 
producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety, 
and  is  most  effectually  secured  against  the  danger  of 
mal-administration,  and  that  when  any  government  shall 
be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these  purposes,  a 
majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubitable,  unalien- 
able, and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish 
it  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to 
the  public  weal." 

This  clause  states  the  proper  objects  of  government, 
the  conditions  on  which  the  constitutional  compact 
is  entered  into,  and  asserts  that  when  these  condi- 
tions are  violated,  the  constitution  is  no  longer  of  valid 
obligation,  and  the  community  are  released  from  obedi- 
ence to  it,  and  reverted  back  to  their  rights  under  the 
social  compact,  prior  to  the  institution  of  government. 
It  asserts  no  power  of  the  majority  over  the  constitution 
so  long  as  it  accomplishes  the  objects  for  which  it  was 
established,  asid  upon  the  continued  performance  of 
which  the  obligation  of  the  people  to  support  'it  de- 
pends. The  power  of  the  majority  does  not  exist  under 
the  constitution,  but  springs  up  only  a\  hen  the  valid  ex- 
istence of  the  constitutional  compact  has  ceased,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  violations  of  the  conditions  upon  which 
it  was  entered  into.  The  community,  I  repeat,  are  then, 
and  not  until  then,  restored  to  the  condition  of  the 
social  compact,  and  must  act  as  one  assembly  to  accom- 
plish anew  the  object  of  the  social  compact — the  insti- 
tution of  government.  The  majority  here  have  that  au- 
thority which  the  general  rule  of  all  assemblies  gives  to 
the  majority.  Even  after  this  the  minority  are  not 
bound  in  allegiance  to  the  new  government  unless  they 
express  their  submission  to  it  by  continuing  within  its 
jurisdiction.  I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  to  remark  here 
that  the  authority  of  the  majority  of  an  assembly  to 
represent  the  whole  is  not  peculiar  to  democratic 
assemblies.  It  is  the  rule  of  necessity  which  the 
general  consent  of  mankind  applies  to  assemblies 


generally.  It  was  as  much  the  rule  of  the  Grecian 
councils  as  of  their  popular  assemblies,  as  much  the 
rule  of  the  Patrician  senate  at  Rome  as  of  their  popu- 
lar comitia,  as  much  the  rule  of  the  English  House 
of  Lords  as  of  the  House  of  Commons.  It  is  only  of 
more  frequent  operation  in  democracies,  because  such 
are  essentially  governments  by  assemblies.  The  author- 
ity of  the  numerical  majority  of  the  whole  community 
only  comes  into  existence  when  the  community  acts  as 
one  assembly.  I  respectfully  submit  that  the  right  of 
the  majority  to  represent  the  community  upon  such  oc- 
casions was  not  the  leading  principle  intended  to  be  sol- 
emnly asserted  in  this  clause  of  the  bill  ot  rights.  The 
right  intended  to  be  preserved  and  consecrated  there 
was  the  right  of  the  community  to  withdraw  its  alle 
giance  from  the  government  that  had  violated  its  trusts, 
and  to  substitute  a  new  government  for  it.  It  was  the 
right  which  our  ancestors  had  exercised  in  the  days  of 
the  Commonwealth,  an*d  again  in  1688,  and  which  the 
people  of  Virginia  were  exercising  at  the  very  time  that 
the  bill  of  rights  was  framed.  I  have  looked  at  the 
declarations  of  rights  prefixed  about  that  time  to  their 
constitutions  by  otl  er  States,  and  find  that  none  use  the 
precise  expression  of  the  Virginia  bill  of  rights,  but  all 
assert  this  right  to  belong  in  general  terms  to  the  "  peo- 
ple," "  society,"  "  community." 

I  ask  gentlemen  whether  a  cotemporaneous  exposi- 
tion is  not  the  be.-t  exposition  in  law.  I  ask  you  if  those 
men  who  formed  this  bill  of  rights,  who  inserted  this 
assertion  of  a  great  fundamental  principle  in  it,  did  not 
understand  what  they  meant  quite  as  well  as  you  un- 
derstand what  they  meant  ?  Did  not  George  Mason, 
the  author  of  the  bill  of  rights,  understand  it  as  well  as 
you  ?  Did  not  the  men  who  lived  in  his  day  un- 
derstand that  doctrine  as  well  as  you  who  live  at  this 
day  ?  Was  not  public  attention  at  the  time  peculiarly 
attracted  to  this  particular  doctrine,  the  right  of  the 
community  to  reform  the  government  ?  Why,  that  was 
the  very  right  which  they  had  just  exercised  in  each 
one  of  the  thirteen  States  of  the  confederacy.  It  was 
a  right  for  which  they  had  been  willing  to  sacrifice 
life,  fortune,  and  the  establishment  of  which,  after 
passing  through  many  scenes  of  trial  and  bloodshed, 
they  finally  accomplished.  There  may  be  other  princi- 
ples which  were  not  understood  at  that  day,  but  I  re- 
peat that  this  great  fundamental  doctrine  had  been  as. 
serted  and  exercised  in  England  at  a  period  not  very 
long  anterior  to  that,  and  was  well  understood  at  that 
day  by  all  American  politicians  and  statesmen.  I  ask 
you  to  look  at  the  constitutions  throughout  the  country, 
formed  by  the  men  of  that  day,  and  I  assert  that  you 
will  not  find  one  solitary  American  constitution  that 
attempts  to  carry  into  practical  operation  this  doctrine, 
that  a  majority  of  the  legislature  should  be  elected  by 
counties  containing  a  majority  of  the  people.  Here  is 
the  book,  name  one  constitution  which  does  this,  and  I 
will  dispute  it  with  the  record.  There  is  not  one  in 
which  this  great  principle  for  which  gentlemen  are  now 
ready  to  convulse  society,  is  to  be  found  practically  en- 
forced. Well,  did  the  Virginia  constitution  carry  it 
out^-and  it  was  formed  by  the  very  men  who  formed 
this  bill  of  rights  ?  Why,  they  gave  Warwick,  with  a 
population  of  some  five  hundred,  the  same  representa- 
tion, the  same  control  over  the  legislature,  that  they 
gave  to  Culpeper,  to  Berkeley,  and  to  Loudoun  coun- 
ties, each  containing  from  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand 
population.  Will  gentlemen  tell  me  that  that  consti- 
tution was  but  a  temporary  expedient  ?  If  they  will, 
1  say  that  the  declaration  is  at  war  with  the  character 
of  the  constitution  itself;  it  contains  a  provision  look- 
ing to  the  indefinite  future  operation  of  that  very 
principle  of  representation.  Why,  they  provide  in  that 
constitution  that  if  at  any  future  time,  any  city  shall  so 
decrease  in  population  as  not  to  contain  an  amount  of 
population  equal  to  that  of  one  half  the  smallest  county 
in  the  State,  it  shall  have  its  representative.  Thus, 
here  was  a  provision  under  the  hands  of  these  great  men 
who  asserted  and  fully  understood  the  principles  of  the 


9 


bill  of  rights,  authorizing  a  city  to  send  half  as  many  re- 
presentatives as  Culpeper,  even  when  the  population  of 
that  city  should  have  decreased  as  low  as  two  hundred 
and  fifty,  and  yet  I  am  told  that  these  men  asserted 
and  advocated  the  very  principles  now  asserted  and 
advocated  by  the  friends  of  the  suffrage  basis  !  The 
gentleman  from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  yesterday  en- 
deavored to  prove  that  they  themselves  had  departed 
from  their  own  principles,  and  that  this  great  funda- 
mental principle,  to  carry  out  which  he  tells  us  the 
west  may  in  a  certain  state  of  things  be  willing  to  revo- 
lutionize fche  State  and  society  itself,  was  prostrated 
and  broken  down  by  the  very  men  who  had  toiled  and 
suffered  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and  free  principles.  It 
was  an  awkward  compliment  to  those  men  to  say  that 
they  had  not  only  violated  the  principles  of  liberty  and 
popular  rights,  but  had  recorded  their  own  shame  by 
prefixing  the  most  solemn  and  authentic  declaration  of 
those  principles  to  the  very  constitution  which  violated 
and  annulled  them.  George  Mason  was  the  author  of 
the  bill  of  rights.  Did  he  understand  what  he  was 
writing  ?  And  yet  when  a  member  of  the  convention 
that  framed  the  federal  constitution,  did  he  not  support, 
as  his  first  choice,  the  federal  basis,  which  was  essen- 
tially a  property  basis  ?  Certainly  one  would  suppose 
that  the  very  authors  of  the  bill  of  rights  ought  to  be 
presumed  to'  understand  what  they  meant  as  well  as  any 
person  at  this  day.  Mr.  Mason  supported  the  federal 
basis  of  representation,  and  thus  repudiated  this  white 
or  suffrage  basis.  I  think,  therefore,  that  gentlemen 
mu-t  fail  in  the  attempt  to  draw  any  aid  from  these 
clauses  of  the  bill  of  rights  in  support  of  their  view  of 
a  proper  organization  of  the  legislative  department. 

I  have  no  particular  desire  to  go  in  search  of  abstract 
principles,  or  to  explore  this  bill  of  rights  for  one. 
Such  principles  must  yield  to  practical  limitations  when 
you  come  to  apply  them  But  there  is  one  clause  in  the 
bill  of  rights  which  does  refer  to  this  subject  of  legisla- 
tive power,  and  how  and  by  whom  it  is  to  be  exercised, 
which  gentlemen  have  thought  proper  entirely  to  over- 
look in  their  arguments :  "All  men,"  says  the  bill  of 
rights,  "having  sufficient  evidence  of  permanent  com- 
mon interest  with  and  attachment  to  the  community, 
have  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  cannot  be  taxed  or  de- 
prived of  their  property  for  public  use,  without  theii 
own  consent,  or  that  of  their  representatives  (freely) 
elected."  No  man,  none  of  us,  can  be  taxed  without  our 
own  consent.  It  is  not  a  right  which  spreads  over  the 
majority  as  a  majority,  but  it  is  one  which  attaches  to 
each  man  as  an  individual.  No  one,  by  the  bill  of  rights, 
can  be  taxed  without  his  own  consent,  or  by  that  of  the 
representative  whom  he  has  elected,  "nor  bound  by  any 
law  to  which  they  have  not  in  like  manner  assented,  for 
the  public  good."  There  is  a  clause  which  does  not  re- 
late to  any  state  of  things  outside  of  the  constitution, 
prior  to  the  constitution,  or  posterior  to  the  constitution, 
but  it  relates  to  things  as  they  exist  under  the  constitu- 
tion. In  the  abstract  theory  of  the  constitution,  not  a 
part,  but  the  whole  legislature  enacts  the  laws.  How 
do  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  run  ?  Not  be  it  en- 
acted by  a  majority  of  the  general  assembly,  but  be  it 
enacted  by  the  general  assembly.  In  the  abstract  the- 
ory of  the  constitution,  not  a  mere  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple are  regarded  as  assenting  and  giving  authority  to  the 
la  s,  but  every  man  in  the  community  is  regarded  as 
having  assented  to  them  through  his  representative.  He 
agrees  to  give  that  assent  in  the  constitutional  compact, 
when  he  delegates  the  legislative  power  to  an  assembly, 
of  which  his  own  representative  is  a  member,  and  agrees 
that  a  part,  less  than  the  whole,  shall  control  the  will 
and  the  action  of  the  whole.  We  have  the  right  to  pre- 
scribe in  our  constitution  what  part  of  the  legislative 
assembly  shall  stand  for  the  whole,  and  control  the 
whole.  If  we  merely  constitute  the  assembly,  and  are 
silent  as  to  the  rest,  we  of  course  subject  it  to  the  com- 
mon rule  applied  to  assemblies  generally,  that  a  majori- 
ty of  the  assembly  is  to  represent  and  control  the  will 
-of  the  whole.    If  we  chose,  we  could  require  the  con- 


currence of  two-thirds  to  control  the.  will  and  action  o 
the  whole.  So  we  could  make  a  smaller  number  neces 
sary.  In  the  organization  now  existing,  less  than  a  ma 
jority  may  represent  and  act  for  the  whole  assembly 
A  majority  of  a  quorum  can  act.  We  have  the  right  t<- 
settle  this  question  now,  what  part  of  the  legislative  as 
sembly  shall  we  authorise  to  stand  for  and  control  the 
will  of  the  whole  assembly.  Gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  say  that  part,  that  represents  the  counties  contain- 
ing a  majority  of  all  the  voters  in  the  State.  We  say 
that  part,  that  represents  constituencies  who  are  most 
interested  in  a  wise  and  safe  exercise  of  legislative  pow- 
ers. Here,  then,  we  come  back  to  the  practical  question 
to  be  settled  by  this  Convention. 

At  this  point,  I  repeat  the  question  put  a  few  days 
ago  by  my  friend  from  Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  is 
there  any  one  here  who  is  prepared  to  prosecute  to  its 
legitimate  consequences  this  doctrine,  that  the  numeri- 
cal majority  should  elect  and  control  the  legislative  de- 
partment? Is  any  one  here  prepared  to  have  the  legis- 
lature elected  by  the  numerical  majority  and  responsi- 
ble to  it?  If  you  desire  that  the  numerical  majority 
shall  control  the  representative  body,  you  should  make 
that  majority  the  constituent  of  the  representative  bo- 
dy. Gentlemen  who  adhere  to  this  majority  principle, 
can  only  secure  their  object  by  electing  the  legislature 
by  general  ticket.  It  is  not  the  object  of  the  system  of 
representation  of  counties  and  districts,  to  take  the  sense 
of  the  numerical  majority.  I  say  it  without  fear  of  suc- 
cessful controversy,  that  the  wit  of  man  cannot  make 
such  a  system  of  representation  of  counties  and  districts, 
as  will  constitute  the  representative  body  a  faithful  ex- 
ponent of  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  community. 
If  it  really  is  the  great  paramount  controlling  purpose 
of  the  organization  of  the  legislative  department  to  make 
it  the  true  experiment  of  the  will  of  the  numerical  ma- 
jority, then  the  representative  system  is  one  of  the  most 
absurd,  ridiculous  and  bungling  pieces  of  machinery  ev- 
er put  in  operation  by  sane  men.  It  is  a  purpose  which 
our  system  of  representation  cannot  accomplish.  I  will 
illustrate  this  by  imagining  a  state  of  things  which  I 
trust  may  never  occur.  Suppose  that  the  views  of  wes- 
tern gentlemen  prevail,  this  basis  is  adopted,  and  power 
is  transferred  West  of  the  mountain.  Let  me  imagine 
that  some  measure  of  sectional  injustice  is  meditated 
against  the  East.  The  people  on  this  side  of  the  moun- 
tains will,  of  course,  be  unanimous  against  it.  One-third 
of  these  on  the  other  side,  restrained  by  a  sense  of  jus- 
tice, may  also  oppose  it,  and  yet  be  so  dispersed  through- 
out the  West  as  not  to  be  able  to  elect  a  single  delegate. 
A  minority  of  the  whole  people  will  thus  control  the  le- 
gislature, and  a  measure  of  gross  outrage  perpetrated  in 
defiance  of  the  will  of  the  majority.  I  might  multiply  in- 
stances, but  it  must  be  admitted  by  every  candid  man, 
that  the  sense  of  the  majority  of  the  separate  constituen- 
cies will  often  differ  from  the  sense  of  the  majority  of  the 
whole.  In  such  cases,  which  is  to  control  ?  Will  the  advo- 
cates of  the  majority  principle  answer  me  that  question  ? 
In  case  of  conflict  between  the  will  of  his  own  constitu- 
ents and  that  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State, 
to  which  is  the  representative  to  conform  his  action  ?  If 
it  is  our  incumbent  duty  in  arranging  the  organic  law, 
to  provide  that  the  numerical  majority  shall  control  the 
legislature,  surely  it  will  be  no  less  the  duty  of  those 
who  are  chosen  to  execute  this  organic  law,  to  co-operate 
in  this  design.  If  the  whole  object  and  intention  of 
this  part  of  the  constitution  is  to  place  the  legislature 
under  the  control  of  the  numerical  majority,  will  it  not 
be  treason  to  that  constitution  for  any  member  of  this 
legislature  to  act  otherwise  than  in  strict  subjection  to 
the  will  of  that  majority.  To  be  consistent  with  them- 
selves gentlemen  must  assume  that  the  representative 
ought  to  disregard  the  will  of  his  immediate  constitu- 
ents, where  it  is  in  conflict  with  that  of  the  majority  of 
the  whole.  They  must  here  range  themselves  along  lide 
of  the  opponents  of  liberal  principles  both  in  this  coun- 
try and  England.  The  generally  received  view  of  the 
friends  of  popular  government  is  that  each  represents- 


10 


tive  is  elected  by  and  for  bis  own  constituents,  and  is 
bound  by  their  will ;  be  is  no  more  at  liberty  to  consult 
the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  whole  State, 
when  in  conflict  with  that  of  his  own  constituents,  than 
he  is  at  liberty  to  consult  the  will  of  a  foreign  despot. 
That  is  the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  instructions  long 
since  settled  in  this  country,  at  least  definitively,  and 
unanimously  settled  by  the  democratic  party  of  the 
country.  The  opposite  opinion — that  of  the  tory  party 
in  England — is  that  the  representative  is  elected  for  the 
whole  State  or  Kingdom,  and  bound  by  no  peculiar  re- 
sponsibility to  his  own  immediate  constituency.  Here 
is  the  alternative  presented  to  me.  If  I  take  a  position 
alongside  of  gentlemen  who  contend  that  a  majority  of 
the  community  must  control  the  legislature,  I  have  to 
abandon  the  faith  in  which  I  was  reared,  which  teaches 
me  that  the  representative  ought  to  be  the  mere  reflec- 
tion of  the  will  of  his  constituents,  and  must  accede  to 
doctrines  that  have  been  cherished  by  the  tory  party  in 
England.  I  must  stand  by  the  old  alter,  and  worship 
in  the  old  temple.  If  then  the  representative  is  the 
mere  agent  of  the  constituency,  when  you  distribute  re- 
presentation among  the  counties  and  election  districts, 
you,  in  effect,  entrust  the  legislative  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  those  counties  and  election  districts.  There 
is  the  theory  of  our  government ;  aye,  there  is  the  great 
progress  which  modern  society  has  made  in  the  science 
of  government.  If  there  is  any  one  thing,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fauquier  says,  which  experience  fully  de- 
monstrates, it  is  that  when  all  power  is  trusted  in  one 
hand,  or  under  the  control  of  one  body,  whether  it  be 
ten,  one  hundred  or  a  hundred  thousand,  despotism,  ty- 
ranny and  usurpation  will  be  the  natural  result.  The 
concentration — the  great  apostle  of  liberty  has  told  us — 
of  all  power  in  the  same  hands  is  exactly  the  definition 
of  tyranny.  "What,  I  ask,  is  the  great  improvement  in 
modern  political  science  ?  It  is  the  diffusion  of  power ; 
the  distribution  of  power  and  the  breaking  up  of  the 
consolidation  of  power.  The  great  principle  asserted  in 
our  bill  of  rights  is  that  power  in  the  first  place  shall 
be  distributed  among  the  various  governmental  depart- 
ments, and  that  all  power  shall  not  be  in  one  or  the  oth- 
er. .  The  executive  power  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  one  ; 
the  legislative  power  in  another,  and  the  judicial  power 
in  the  hands  of  a  third.  This  is  one  step  in  the  pro- 
gress of  political  improvement,  but  the  great  step,  the 
greatest  achievement  of  modern  political  science  is  this 
representative  system,  by  which  the  consolidation  of 
power  is  broken  up,  and  the  control  of  government  is 
taken  from  the  hands  of  one  individual  unit,  and  dis- 
tributed through  a  variety  of  communities.  Now,  upon 
what  principle  will  you  distribute  power  among  these 
communities  ?  That  is  the  question.  You  say  in  pro- 
portion to  the  numbers  of  voters.  We  say  that  is  an 
unsafe  principle,  because  we  desire  to  have  power  lodged 
in  hands  not  interested  in  abusing  it.  We  say  that  in 
this  distribution  of  power  you  must  put  most  power 
where  there  is  most  interest  to  use-  that  power  wisely ; 
where  there  are  the  most  subjects  of  legislation.  Give 
it  to  those  communities  who  have  the  most  subjects  of 
legislation,  and  are,  therefore,  the  most  directly  interest- 
ed in  a  wise  use  of  legislative  power.  Governments  do 
not  confine  themselves  to  the  protection  of  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  citizen.  Whether  they  are  right  or 
wrong  in  overstepping  that  line  of  duty  I  do  not  now 
inquire.  I  content  myself  for  the  present  with  the  fact 
that  government  is  a  vast  agency  for  collection  and  ex- 
penditure ;  a  tax  collecting  and  a  tax  disbursing  instru- 
ment. Shall  we  entrust  the  power  in  the  hands  of  those 
whose  interests  will  be  most  promoted  by  the  heaviest 
expenditures.,  in  the  hands  of  those"who  are  interested 
to  increase  the  burthens  of  the  community  ?  What  se- 
curity have  we  that  these  burthens  will  not  be  rendered 
intolerable  ?  But  you  say  that  when  you  increase  the 
taxation  you  will  increase  in  the  same  proportion  the 
burthens  on  each  ?  Why,  what  security  is  that  ?  I  will 
illustrate  my  view,  so  that  I  may  *be  more  clearly 
understood.    Here  is  one  of  the  counties  I  represent, 


Orange  county,  with  a  population  of  3,660  paying  a 
tax  of  $5,550,  and  here  is  the  county  of  Braxton  with 
a  population  of  4,125,  paying  a  tax  of  $750.  Now, 
suppose  these  two  counties  were  forming  a  compact 
of  government,  would  it  be  just  to  put  the  power  to 
distribute  the  taxes  which  Orange  pays,  in  the  hands 
of  Braxton,  merely  because  the  last  county  had  the  most 
voters  ?  When  Braxton  felt  the  necessity  for  money, 
she  could  very  easily  double  the  taxes  and  raise  $11,000 
in  Orange,  and  $1,500  in  her.  own  limits,  and  then  apply 
the  whole  for  her  own  benefit.  And  would  it  be  any 
justification  to  Orange  for  Braxton  to  say,  you  are  rich 
and  we  are  poor,  and  no  injury  can  be  done  you  if,  when 
the  tax  is  doubled  on  you,  it  is  doubled  on  us  ?  The  an- 
swer of  Orange  would  be  that  you  can  very  easily  afford 
to  take  $1500  out  of  your  own  pockets,  when  you  bring^ 
back  to  yourself  more  than  15,000,  and  expend  the  whole 
amount  as  you  please.  Would  it  be  any  security,  I  ask 
you,  in  constituting  a  government  here,  to  place  this 
tax -collecting  and  distributing  power  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  are  interested  in  increasing  the  burthens  of 
government,  and  with  whom  the  necessity  for  improve- 
ment and  the  power  of  improvement  that  junctio  juris 
et  seisinae,  according  to  the  views  that  we  have  heard 
here,  vests  a  complete  right  to  other  people's  money. 

But  the  experience  of  the  past  has  been  referred  to  in 
contravention  of  this  view,  and  we  are  told  that  the 
mixed  basis  has  not  proved  a  security  to  us  heretofore  ; 
that  the  burthens  of  the  community  have  been  increased^ 
and  increased  by  the  agency,  in  part,  of  that  Piedmont 
country,  which  advocates  the  mixed  basis.  Gentlemen 
forget  that'the  mixed  basis  has  not  heretofore  been  the 
actual  basis  of  representation.  But  I  pass  that  by.  The 
Piedmont  country,  heavily  as  she  contributes  to  the 
treasury,  has  not,  you  say,  declined  to  accumulate  upon 
herself,  and  the  rest  of  the  State,  the  heavy  burthens  of 
taxation,  when  it  became  her  interest  to  increase  the 
burthens,  because  the  disbursements  were  made  in  that 
quarter.  When  it  became  the  interest  of  that  section  to 
increase  the  burthens  of  taxation,  we  are  informed  that 
they  have  not  hesitated  to aid'in  increasing  them.  Pied- 
mont was  in  a  minority,  however,  and  it  was  by  the  aid 
of  others  equally  interested,  that  this  increase  of  taxa- 
tion and  disbursement  was  effected.  But  because  taxa- 
tion has  been  increased  by  the  agency  in  part  of  a  coun- 
try interested  in  such  increase,  we  are  told  we  must 
feel  perfectly  safe  in  putting  the  taxing  power  in  hands 
interested  to  procure  a  still  larger  increase  of  taxation. 
At  the  very  moment  that  they  point  us  to  the  abuse  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  those  interested  to  abuse  it,  they 
invite  us  to  entrust  still  larger  powers  to  hands  yet 
.more  interested  to  abuse.  Piedmont  and  the  West  to- 
gether have  been  heretofore  interested  in  increasing  dis- 
bursements, and  having  the  power,  have  increased  them  ; 
therefore,  you  must  place  controlling  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  West,  which  is  interested  to  procure  still  heavier 
disbursements !  I  do  not  perceive  the  force  of  that 
logic.  The  Piedmont  country,  with  the  aid  of  the  West, 
we  ape  told,  has  imposed  upon  Tide-water ;  therefore, 
Tide  water  must  strip  herself  of  power,  and  increase  the 
preponderance  over  her  of  Piedmont  and  the  West  both  ! 
The  Tide- water  section  must  not  trust  herself  with  power 
for  for  fear  that  the  sagacious  Piedmont  will  make  dupes 
and  victims  of  them,  and  use  the  power  of  Tide- water 
for  their  own  exclusive  benefit !  The  mixed  basis  gives 
Piedmont  forty-two  members,  and  Tide-water  forty,  I 
believe.  In  order  to  weaken  Piedmont,  you  must  re 
duce  her  bv  the  suffrage  basis  to  thirty-?even,  and  by 
the  same  act  reduce  yourselves  to  thirty-three — increa- 
sing considerably  the  relative  preponderance  of  Pied- 
mont over  Tide-water.  The  power  thus  stript  from  both, 
is  to  be  transferred  to  the  West — that  very  section  most 
deeply  interested  in  that  course  of  legislation,  of  which 
the  Tide-water  people  complain  so  much.  In  addressing 
such  appeals  as  those  to  the  Tide-waterpeople,  gentle- 
men may  accompany  them  with  what  compliments  they 
choQse  to  the  simplicity  of  heart  of  those  people.  I 
must  bt  excused  for  saying:  that  this  course  of  argument 


infers  for  them,  at  least  equal  simplicity  of  head.  It  is  i 
the  interest  of  the  Tide-water  people,  gentlemen  say,  to  J 
co-operate  hereafter  with  the  West  in  the  legislature. 
On  this  ground,  the  Tide-water  delegates  are  invoked  to 
strengthen  the  legislative  power  of  the  West,  by  strip- 
ping themselves  of  it.  I,  for  one,  cannot,  for  the  life  of 
me,  discern  this  new-found  identity  of  interest  between 
these  two  sections.  But  if  it  does  exist,  surely  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Tide  water  will  be  as  quick  to  discern  it  as 
their  delegates  upon  this  floor,  and  when  they  do  discern 
it,  they  will  unite  whatever  powers  we  give  to  them, 
with  the  western  powers  in  the  halls  of  legislation.  I 
must  be  allowed  to  believe  that  no  power  will  be  so 
well  employed  for  the  benefit  of  Tide-water  interests, 
as  the  power  which  Tide-water  herself  will  control. 

But  the  Piedmont  is  denominated  a  dangerous  power 
in  the  community,  and  she  must  be  depressed.  The 
mixed  basis  does  not  depress  her  enough.  You  must  or- 
ganize your  government  on  a  principle  of  contest  and 
of  war  with  the  Piedmont — a  contest  in  which  Pied- 
mont men  and  Piedmont  interests  are  to  be  arranged  on 
one  side  and  all  the  rest  of  Virginia  on  the  other.  The 
mixed  basis  is  to  be  rejected,  because  it  gives  dangerous 
strength  to  the  Piedmont.  Well,  the  mixed  basis  gives 
the  Piedmont  only  forty -two  members  in  a  house  of 
one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  leaves  her  in  a  minority  of 
sixty-six  on  the  floor  of  the  house  of  delegates.  Whenev- 
er Piedmont  attempts  a  course  of  action  adverse  to  the 
general  interests,  the  mixed  basis  enables  you  to  rally  a 
legislative  force  of  nearly  three  to  one  against  her.  In 
the  name  of  Heaven,  if  three  to  one  be  not  odds  enough 
against  Piedmont,  what  odds  will  gentlemen  ask  before 
they  venture  in  the  contest.  If  a  majority  of  sixty-six 
is  not  enough,  how  much  will  you  have  the  face  to  de- 
mand? It  has  always  been  the  boast  of  English  pride, 
that  one  British  soldier  was  equal  to  two  of  any  other 
country,  and  I  must  confess  my  gratitude  for  the  com- 
pliment which  gentlemen  are  paying  to  the  Piedmont 
country  in  intimating  that  in  legislative  contests  in- 
volving the  prowess  of  statesmen,  any  one  man  from 
Piedmont  is  equal  to  any  three  men  from  the  other  parts 
of  the  State.  You  are  afraid  to  trust  yourselves  in  a 
contest  with  Piedmont  unless  you  are  th  ree  to  one 
against  her.  You  are  organizing  the  government  on  the 
principle  of  war  upon  the  Piedmont,  and  is  your  spirit  J 
of  chivalry  such  that  you  will  not  let  us  go  into  the  j 
contest — stript  of  our  pristine  strength  as  we  shall  be 
even  with  the  mixed  basis,  unless  you  first  have  us 
bound  and  fettered.  I  appeal  to  my  Tide-water  friends 
if  they  desire  to  go  into  a  contest  with  us,  if  indeed  one 
is  to  go  on,  with  such  odds  on  their  side  as  these. 

But  we  are  told  that  guaranties  will  afford  the  protec- 
tion that  we  require.  Now,  I  happen  to  be  one  of  those 
who  do  not  believe  in  these  guaranties,  or  in  their  effi- 
caey,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  I  fear  power.  I  have 
been  taught  to  dread  power,  and  I  do  not  think  power 
is  less  dangerous  even  when  restrained  upon  one  side 
while  it  has  free  scope  everywhere  else.  Provide  guar- 
anties against  power !  Will  gentlemen  tell  me  that 
standing  here  and  forming  a  constitution  which  looks,  or 
ought  to  look,  to  the  indefinite  future,  they  can,  at  this 
moment  of  time,  foresee  what  various  forms  of  aggres- 
sion power  will  assume  and  piovide  against  them? 
Power  is  always  shifting  its  aggressions,  its  forms  of  at- 
tack, and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man  to  guard  against 
its  abuse  in  all  instances  in  the  future.  But  the  gentle- 
man from  Jefferson  (Mr.  Lucas)  told  us  that  the  paper 
guaranties  were  very  valuable,  and  that  they  have  of- 
fered us  ample  protection  heretofore,  and  that  we  would 
have  suffered  no  injustice  at  the  hands  of  the  general 
government,  had  we  had  guaranties  in  express  forms  on 
the  subject  in  which  we  have  suffered  injustice.  This 
reference  affords  a  happy  illustration  of  the  views 
which  I  have  just  presented  to  the  committee.  Could 
the  federal  convention  that  formed  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  have  foreseen  the  acts  of  aggression 
which  took  place  but  a  few  months  ago,  and  could  they 
have  provided  against  them,  does  any  gentleman  be- 


lieve that  they  would  not  at  once  have  done  so  1  Does 
any  man  in  this  hall  believe  that  they  could  have  fore- 
seen that  we  were  to  have  acquired  territory  from  Mex- 
ico, and  that  there  would  be  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  people  of  the  North  to  deprive  us  of  our  just 
rights,  in  relation  to  that  territory  ?  It  is  but  an  instance 
of  one  of  the  multiform  aspects  in  which  unrestrained 
power  will  present  itself,  and  it  is  but  additional  evi- 
dence of  the  total  inability  of  man  to  provide  against 
these  abuses  of  power.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  if  we 
had  had  express  guaranties  on  these  subjects,  thev  would 
have  been  observed,  and  it  was  but  from  the  fact  of  the 
absence  of  such  guaranties  that  aggressions  have  been 
committed  upon  us.  Let  me  ask  his  attention  to  one 
guaranty  in  the  federal  constitution,  and  let  me  ask  him 
also  if  it  is  not  as  explicit  a  guaranty  as  any  of  his 
colleagues  can  make  ? 

"  Congress  shall  make  no  law  abridging  the  freedom 
of  speech,  or  of  the  press." 

That  was  one  of  the  amendments  adopted  in  1791. 
There  is  a  guaranty  against  the  abuse  of  power.  Yet 
ten  years  had  scarcely  elapsed  before  the  guaranty 
was  violated,  and  the  federal  statute  book  was  disgraced 
with  the  sedition  law.  Can  you  form  any  guaranty 
more  explicit  than  that  ?  That  is  the  example  to  which 
gentlemen  appeal  as  evidence  in  support  of  the  value  of 
express  guaranties ! 

I  have  another  reason  to  mistrust  the  efficacies  of 
guaranties.  The  moment  that  these  restraints  become 
onerous  restrictions  upon  the  powers  of  the  majority, 
that  majority  will  get  rid  of  them.  They  will  continue 
to  be  restraints  just  so  long  as  the  majority  choose  to 
be  restrained  by  them,  and  then  they  would  be  snapped 
like  pack-thread.  The  same  power  that  puts  them  in 
the  constitution  could  very  easily  put  them  out  of  the 
constitution.  The  same  majority  that  would  control 
the  government  in  all  its  departments,  would  control 
the  constitution  itself.  They  would  very  soon  amend 
your  constitution,  and  purge  it  of  guaranties  whenever 
these  guaranties  might  become  objectionable  to  them. 
And  then  my  friends  of  the  guaranties  would  have 
to  swallow  the  white  basis  in  its  unsophisticated 
purity.  The  pill  would  then  have  no  sugar  upon 
it.  But  here  are  these  gentlemen  from  the  Jeffer- 
son district  with  another  guarantee  to  secure  their 
guaranties.  They  say  that  they  will  require  a  vote 
of  two-thirds  of  the  legislature  before  another  Con- 
vention shall  be  called.  I  do  not  understand  that 
that  proposition  commands  the  general  support  of 
western  gentlemen.  The  chairman  of  the  Basis  Com- 
mittee, (Mr.  Summers,)  in  his  remarks  about  guaranties 
this  morning,  gave  no  intimation  of  his  assent  to  it.  And 
I  must,  confess  my  surprize  that  such  a  proposition 
should  be  presented  in  the  quarter  from  which  it  comes. 
Are  gentlemen  who  are  contending  for  the  great  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  right  of  the  majority  to  rule, 
going  to  beat  down  and  lay  prostrate  that  principle  as 
applied  to  the  organization  of  the  government.  You 
who  are  s  >  much  afraid  of  the  rule  of  the  minority  that 
you  will  not  entrust  to  it  the  powers  of  ordinary  mu- 
nicipal legislation,  will  yet  authorize  that  minority  to 
enforce  upon  you  an  organic  law — a  form  of  govern- 
ment that  is  objectionable  to  you !  Let  me  enquire 
where  is  the  difference  in  principle  between  the  original 
establishment  of  a  law  by  a  minority,  and  the  continu- 
ance of  that  law  by  the  minority  after  a  change  of  cir- 
cumstances has  rendered  it  objectionable  to  the  majori- 
ty ?  Does  not  the  law  derive  its  valid  existence  from 
the  will  of  the  minority  by  whom  it  is  kept  in  force  f 
Gentlemen  are  willing  to  abandon  their  principle  here, 
provided  they  get  the  power  of  legislation.  Yet  they 
do  not  want  "power,  only  principle  !  I  will  pass  that 
by,  and  inquire  what  security  such  a  guarantee  would 
afford  ?  Does  any  man  here  seriously  believe  that  such 
a  provision  as  that  would  prevent  a  majority  in  full  pos- 
session of  the  government,  from  affecting  such  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution  as  they  might  determine  to 
introduce.    Why,  ev«n  now,  when  they  hare  not  that 


12 


complete  mastery  over  the  government  which  they  seek, 
th(  y  tell  us  boldly  that  the  majority  of  the  community 
are  entitled  to  obtain  the  organic  reforms  which  they 
demand,  and  unless  we  will  give  them  in.  the  form 
which  they  desire,  very  distinct  intimations  are  given 
to  us  that  ulterior  measures  will  be  adopted,  in  order  to 
enforce  the  will  of  the  majority.  Suppose  they  now 
had  control  over  the  government,  does  any  one  suppose 
that  a  provision  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote  to  procure 
an  amended  constitution  would  stand  in  their  way.  We 
should  hear  very  able  and  ingenious  arguments,  based 
upon  the  bill  of  rights — arguments  perfectly  satisfacto- 
ry to  those  seeking  the  change,  proving  that  such  a  pro- 
vision is  an  insufferable  violation  of  the  rights  of  man, 
and  of  no  valid  obligation.  The  gentleman  from  Jeffer- 
son, (Mr.  Hunter,1)  says  that  the  majority  could  only 
avoid  such  a  provision  by  a  revolution.  If  the  occasion 
ever  arises,  I  predict  that  he  will  find  the  majority  desi- 
ring the  reforms  will  entertain  a  different  opinion,  and 
will  demand  the  reforms  as  a  legal  right.  But  even  if 
they  have  to  resort  to  revolution,  what  a  safe  and  easy 
thing  will  be  a  revolution  when  the  government  is  on 
the  side  of  the  revolters.  It  cannot  be  difficult  to  upset 
a  government  that  wants  to  be  upset.  It  will  be  very 
easy  to  overturn  the  forms  of  the  organic  law  when  the 
law  making  and  law  executing  power  are  in  the  hands 
of  those  seeking  the  change. 

Upon  such  considerations  as  these,  I  shall  sup- 
port the  mixed  basis  proposition.  Like  the  gentle- 
man from  Westmoreland,  (Mr.  Beale,)  who  addres- 
sed the  committee  some  days  ago,  I  cannot  support 
it  as  a  first  choice  proposition.  When  I  look  around 
me  and  contemplate  the  peculiar  condition  of  a  great 
interest  in  this  state,  for  which  we  ought  to  pro- 
vide, I  want  something  accomplished  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  government  which  tne  mixed  basis  will  not  accom- 
plish to  my  satisfaction.  Gentlemen  will,  of  course  un- 
derstand me  as  having  reference  to  that  great  and  sensi- 
tive property  interest  to  which  the  gentleman  from 
Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  referred  the  other  day.  Congre- 
gated in  one  quarter  of  the  state,  are  400,000  slaves, 
worth  near  $150,000,000.  Between  the  owners  of  this 
property  and  that  portion  of  the  State  containing  a  ma- 
jority of  the  white  population,  mountains  interpose,  and 
no  peculiar  tie  of  business  or  of  social  intercourse  binds 
them  in  inseperable  identity  of  feeling  and  interest.  I 
tremble  when  I  anticipate  the  day  when  the  unrestrict- 
ed control  over  the  powers  of  this  government  shall 
pass  into  hands  not  interested  in  the  preservation  of  that 
property,  for  the  history  of  the  world  shows  that  when- 
ever this  property  has  been  subject  to  power  intbe  hands 
of  those  not  interested  in  it,  it  has  been  made  the  sub- 
ject of  oppression.  I  am  solicitous  for  protection  for  this 
property — yes,  liberty  for  the  property  holder — the 
best  definition  of  liberty  that  I  have  ever  read  is  that 
given  by  Sir  James  Mcintosh  when  he  said  it  is  security 
from  wrong.  I  have  all  proper  confidence,  I  trust,  in  the 
people  of  the  west,  but  it  is  a  principle  of  human 
nature  that  when  it  becomes  the  interest  of  a  com- 
munity to  act  in  a  particular  direction  it  will  so 
act.  What  did  we  hear  the  other  day  from  the  gen- 
tleman from  Monongalia  ?  (Mr.  Willey.)  Why,  if  they 
did  not  get  this  white  basis— a  very  distinct  intimation 


I  thought  it  was — if  this  slave  property  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  progress  of  the  west  to  power,  they  would 
resort  to  measures  for  the  destruction  of  that  which 
thus  stood  in  their  way.  Well,  this  is  the  state  of  feel- 
ing now.  If  they  are  persuaded  that  this  slave  prop- 
erty stands  in  the  way  of  their  rights  now,  how  do  we 
know  in  what  other  aspects  it  may  be  presented  as 
standing  in  the  way  of  these  rights  in  the  future.  It  is 
the  very  argument  upon  which  the  free  soil  party  of 
the  north  bases  itself.  They  deelarethat  slave  labor  is 
an  interference  with  the  rights  of  freemen,  and  it  is  be- 
cause this  people  believe  that  it  is  an  inteference  with 
their  rights  and  interests  that  they  have  sought  to  per- 
petrate those  acts  of  injustice  upon  the  South.  Those 
people,  too,  have  all  these  moral  feelings  of  which  gen- 
tlemen talk.  They  have  sound  hearts — they  have  fought 
for  their  country,  and  their  bones  lie  bleeching  on  the 
battle-fields  too.  Yet,  in  pursuance  of  what  they  called 
a  great  principle,  when  it  became  their  interest  to  per- 
petrate wrong,  they  hesitated  not  to  perpetrate  it. 
There  were  not  wanting  men  among  them  to  persuade 
them  that  in  so  doing  they  were  acting  in  the  prosecu- 
tion and  assertion  of  these  rights.  I  do  not  know.  I 
cannot  foresee  what  particular  view  of  human  rights 
may  be  taken  in  the  different  sections  of  the  state  in  all 
future  time.  I  do  not  know  what  will  be  their  interests, 
and  therefore  I  am  not  willing  to  subject  this  immense 
interest  to  the  control  of  those  who  may  take  such  a 
view  of  their  rights  and  interests  as  to  require  this 
property  to  be  destroyed.  I  feel  especial  occasion  for 
caution — when  I  am  already  told  by  their  delegates  here 
that  they  will  take  that  view  of  the  subject  if  vwe  do 
not  give  them  thi?  white  basis,  if,  I  understand,  that,  if 
this  great  property  interest  enters  as  an  element  into 
the  mixed  basis,  and  stands  as  a  barrier  between  them 
and  the  accomplishment  of  their  wishes  much  longer,  as 
the  intimation  is  most  distinctly  made  to  us,  they  will 
remove  that  barrier.  I  am  not  willing  to  trust  my  inter- 
ests and  their  safety  and  protection  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  take  such  views  of  their  rights  and  interests  as  may 
require  the  sacrifice  of  my  interests  and  my  rights. 
These  very  northern  people  to  whom  I  have  referred, 
have  supposed  that  in  sacrificing  the  rights  of  the  south, 
they  were  acting  in  accordance  with  a  course  of  justice 
and  propriety.  I  do  not  ask  that  the  government  shall 
be  placed  in  "the  hands  of  those  interested  in  this  prop- 
erty. I  should  be  content  if  they  were  empowered  to 
check  and  prevent  unjust  and  oppressive  action  when 
attempted.  I  utterly  despair,  however,  of  obtaining 
such  an  organization  of  this  government  as  will  secure 
for  this  interest  the  permanent  protection  which  I  seek 
for  it.  If  I  cannot  get  that,  I  must  take  the  best  that  I 
can  get — reserving  to  myself  the  privilege,  should  an 
opportuny  occur,  of  successfully  accnmplishing  my  views, 
of  availing  myself  of  it. 

I  have  already  detained  the  committee  longer  than,  I 
ought  to  have  done.  I  must  tender  to  the  committee 
my  unaffected  thanks  for  the  very  kind  attention  with 
which  they  have  honored  me.  It  may  be  some  compen- 
sation to  assure  them  that  their  kindness  has  enabled 
me  to  present  my  views  in  a  much  briefer  space  than  I 
could  have  done  had  I  been  compelled  to  labor  to  attract 
their  attention. 


SPEECHES 


B,  C.  STAIAED,  ESQ.,  OF  RICHMOND  CITY, 


IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 


THE    BASIS  QUESTION, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE 


VIRGINIA    REFORM  CONVENTION, 


OK 


THURSDAY,  April  17,  and  WEDNESDAY,  M  ay  21,  1851. 


RICHMOND,  Y A . 

[WILLIAM  G.  BISHOP,  OFFICIAL  REPORTER.] 

PRINTED  BY  R.  H.  GALLAHER— REPUBLICAN  OFFICE. 
1851. 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  ST  ANARD.  I  do  not  know  that  I  precisely  com- 
prehend the  position  in  which  I  shall  piace  my  friend 
from  Jefferson,  (Mr.  Hunter,)  by  proceeding  to  address 
the  committee  at  this  time  I  am  unwilling  to  adopt 
any  course  that  may  have  the  effect  of  depriving  him 
of  an  opportunity  of  submitting  his  remarks.  I  under- 
stand it  will  be  agreeable  to  him  to  go  on  this  evening 
at  the  hour  indicated  by  him.  If  that  appears  to  meet 
the  concurrence  of  the  committee,  I  am  prepared  and 
willing  to  proceed  with  the  remarks  I  have  to  offer  on 
this  question. 

MANT  MEMBERS.    Go  on,  go  on. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  do  not  think  any  gentleman  will 
be  disposed  to  question  my  sincerity,  when  I  say,  when 
I  repeat*  that  it  is  only  under  the  most  imperious  sense 
of  duty,  that  I  venture,  at  this  stage  of  the  debate, 
with  a  subject  and  an  audience  alike  exhausted,  to  throw 
myself  upon  the  indulgence  of  the  committee.  It  is  not 
that  the  question  itself  is  not  one  of  vast  consequence — 
it  is  not  that  I  do  not  entertain  with  regard  to  it  opin 
ions  of  the  most  decided  character — opinions  which 
•have  been  the  subject  of  very  stfong,  I  might  almost 
say,  of  fierce  and  bitter  denunciation  on  the  part  of  va- 
rious members  on  this  floor,  yet  which,  in  my  poor  judg- 
ment, may  be  triumphantly  sustained  and  vindicated  on 
every  principle  of  republican  liberty,  handed  down  to 
us  by  our  forefathers  ;  but  it  is  because  it  would  not  per- 
haps be  going  too  far  to  say  that  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion is  not  only  exhausted  now,  but  was  exhausted 
long  before  this  debate  commenced.  We  have  now  been 
engaged  for  more  than  two  months  in  the  discussion  of 
a  question  which  twenty  years  ago  engaged  for  weeks 
the  deliberations,  and  exercised  the  talents  of  a  body  of 
men  of  whom  Virginia  may  well  be  proud.  The  debate 
of  1829-'30  called  into  play  all  the  resources  that  in- 
tellect, the  most  commanding,  information  the  most  va 
ried,  and  wisdom  the  most  profound,  could  bring  to  bear 
on  any  subject.  The  question  was  considered  in  all  its 
bearings,  presented  in  all  its  phases,  and  that  n  an  must 
be  presumptuous  indeed  who  could  hope,  at  this  time 
of  day,  to  bring  forward  views  characterized  by  any  de- 
gree of  novelty,  or  to  do  more  than  apply  to  the  exist 
ing  condition  of  the  State,  the  principles  and  arguments 
elicited  by  that  debate.  For  one,  therefore,  I  have  had 
no  desire  to  take  part  in  this  discussion,  to  protract  it 
myself,  or  to  see  it  protracted  by  others.  I  have  uni- 
formly given  my  support  to  every  proposition  calcula- 
ted to  bring  it  to  a  close,  and  there  has  not  been  a  day, 
for  weeks  past,  in  which  I  have  not  been  willing,  (as  I 
have  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  declare,)  that  the 
question  should  be  taken  at  any  moment  that  members 
should  be  in  their  seats.  It  has,  however,  been  deter- 
mined that  the  question  shall  be  taken  to-morrow,  and 
not  till  then.  In  the  meantime,  I  am  aware  of  no  oth- 
er gentleman  on  my  side  of  this  question  who  is  pre- 
pated  or  disposed  at  this  time,  to  engage  in  this  discus- 
sion; and  the  floor,  therefore,  if  not  now  taken  by  me, 
must  be  yielded  to  gentlemen  entertaining  and  advoca- 
ting views  different  from  those  which  I  espouse,  and  will 
continue  to  be,  (as  for  some  time  past  it  has  in  a  great 
measure  been,)  occupied  by  them. 

I  hold  a  somewhat  peculiar  position  in  another  re- 
spect. I  am  one  of  the  delegates  from  a  district  to 
which  especial  regard  appears  to  have  been  paid  on 
the  part  of  many  gentlemen  here,  and  the  concerns  of 
which  have  eng  iged  perhaps  their  full  share  of  the 
attention  of  the  committee  ;  one  of  a  delegation,  the 
sentiments  of  whose  constituents  have  been  more  than 
once  alluded  to,  and  to  whom  appeals  of  a  very  unusual 


character  have  been  more  than  ence  made.  Under 
these  circumstances,  I  feel  it  to  be  my  imperious  duty 
at  any  personal  sacrifice  and  inconvenience  to  myself 
to  answer  those  appeals,  as  in  my  judgment  they  should 
be  answered,  and  to  say  what  I  may  now  have  the 
strength  to  say,  in  vindication  of  the  opinions  I  main- 
tain—opinions upon  the  full,  clear  and  decisive  expres- 
sion of  which,  (as  I  shall  again  express  them,)  I  was 
elected  a  member  of  this  body,  and  which  I  believe  are 
cherished  now  as  they  were  a  few  months  since,  by  al- 
most the  whole  body  of  those  whom  I  have  the  honor  in 
part  to  represent.  <■ 

It  cannot  have  escaped  attention  that  in  much  of 
the  discussion  which, has  taken  place  on  this  question 
our  friends  from  the  west,  (I  trust  they  will  allow  me 
to  call  them  so,  coileetively  and  individually,  for 
such  are,  and  such,  1  trust,  will  always  continue  to 
be  my  feelings  towards  them,)  have  represented  again 
and  agam  to  this  committee,  and  through  this  com- 
mittee to  the  country,  that  for  years  and  years  past 
they  and  the  people  they  represent  have  been  the  sub- 
jects of  the  most  rinding  oppression  and  inequality  in 
being  denied  their  proper  representation  m  the  legisla- 
tive halls  of  the  State.  And  this  complaint,  in  one 
form  or  another,  has  been  echoed  and  re-echoed',  I  may 
say,  from  every  part  of  the  country  from  the  Blue 
Ridge  to  the  hOhio.  I  do  not  doubt  the  sincerity  of 
gentlemen  in  the  views  which  they  have  thus  expressed 
on  this  floor.  But  I  must  be  allowed  to  say  that  they 
are  mistaken,  and  I  think  I  can  show  that  they  are  mis- 
taken upon  the  very  principles  on  which  tiiey  plant 
themselves  in  this  contest.  I  think  it  can  be  shown 
that  from  the  year  1816  down  to  the  meeting  of  the 
convention  of  1829-'30,  and  also  in  that  convention,  the. 
west  had  their  full  representation,  and  this  too  upon' the 
principles  advocated  by  western  gentlemen  themselves 
and  which  they  call  upon  us  to  sanction,  by  their  decla- 
rations and  speeches  here,  as  the  true  and  correct,  and 
the  only  true  and  correct  principles  of  representative 
republican  government.  What  are  those  principles? 
What  is  this  proposition  B  ?  this  suffrage  basis,  on  which 
they  plant  themselves  in  this  contest  ?  Is  it  either  more 
or  less  than  the  proposition  that  representation  should 
be  in  proportion  to  the  qualified  voters,  and  to  them 
alone,  and  that  when  you  have  representation  in  that 
proportion,  no  section  of  the  State,  no  county  or  dif-trict 
has  a  right  to  complain  of  unequal  representation  %  Is 
not  that  their  position  ?  Have  I  not  stated  it  fully  and  fair- 
ly ?  If  not,  I  hope  they  will  correct  me.  And  if  that  be  so, 
then,  1  would  ask,  what  becomes  of  the  complaints  made 
again  and  again,  iterated  and  reiterated  in  this  hall,  and 
throughout  the  country,  that  in  the  convention  which 
adopted  the  present  constitution,  the  west  was  shorn 
of  her  proper  strength,  and  delivered  over  to  the 
hands  of  the  east,  and  that  the  present  constitution 
is  a  constitution  forced  upon  the  west  by  the  people  of 
the  east,  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  body  in  which 
the  west  had  not  its  proper  share  of  representation? 
What  complaint  has  been  more  frequently  heard  on  this 
floor  than  this  in  every  shape  and  form  which  inge- 
nuity could  present,  or  eloquence  depict  it  ?  There 
is  scarcely  a  gentleman  from  the  west  who  has  oct  u- 
pied  the  floor,  that  has  not  made  it.  JNow,  let  us 
examine  it.  Representation,  they  say,  should  be  based 
on  the  qualified  voters  alone — they  are  the  sovereignty 
of  the  land,  and  they  alone,  say  gentlemen  upon  the 
other  side,  are  entitled  to  representation  in  the  halls  of 
your  legislature  or  your  convention,  and  representation  is 
just  or  unjust,  equal  or  unequal,  republican  or  anti-re- 


4 


publican,  according  as  it  is  or  is  not  in  proportion  to  the 
qualified  voters,  whatever  the  qualification  of  the  voter 
or  the  right  of  suffrage  may  be. 

Now,  how,  and  under  what  circumstances  wa3  the 
convention  of  1829- '80  organized,  and  what  was  the 
condition  of  things  in  1829,  and  between  1816  and 
1829  ?    The  senate  bill  of  1816  organized  the  senate  so 
as  to  give  to  the  west  nine  districts  out  of  twenty-four. 
The J3tate  was 'divided  into  twenty-four  districts,  of 
which  the  west  had  nine  and  the  east  fifteen.    The  con- 
vention of  '29  was  a  convention  called  upon  the  basis  of 
the  senate  bill  of  '16,  four  members  being  chosen  from 
each  senatorial  district,  so  that  of  the  ninety-six  mem- 
bers composing  that  body,  the  west  had  thirty-six,  and 
the  east  sixty,  in  the  proportion  of  nine  to  fifteen.  Now, 
was  your  representation  in  the  Convention  of  '29  and 
'30  equal  or  unequal  upon  the  principles  that  you  your- 
selves now  advocate  and  maintain  to  be  the  true  and 
the  only  true  and  proper  principles?    That,  of  course, 
depends  upon  the  number  of  voters  in  the  State,  and 
the  manner  in  which  these  voters  were  distributed  east 
arfd  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  of  mountains.    And  we 
have  the  means  of  ascertaining  this,  if  not  with  precise 
accuracy,  at  least  in  a  form  of  which  the  west  has  no 
right  to  complain,  that  is,  by  a  mode  of  computation 
more  favorable  to  the  west  than  precise  accuracy  would 
be.    The  land  books  of  1829,  are*  among  the  documents 
to  which  we  have  access,  and  to  which  reference  was 
made  in  the  convention  of  l829-'30.    At   that  time 
the  right  of  suffrage  was  restricted  in  the  ownership  of 
the  soil,  and  free  holders  only  had  the  right  to  vote-  Now, 
it  will  not  be  denied  that  there  were  in  1829,  and  have  al- 
ways been  a  much  greater  number  of  non-residents,  and 
consequently  of    on-voters,  amongst  those  charged  with 
the  land  tax  in  the  western  than  in  the  eastern  portion  of 
the  State,  and  therefore,  when  you  refer  to  the  tax  list 
and  the  commissioners'  books  in  1829,  to  ascertain  the 
number  of  those  who,  at  that  time,  and  under  the  then  ex- 
isting right  of  suffrage,  were  entitled  to  vote,  you  make  a 
statement  that  is  much  more  favorable  to  the  west  than 
the  east,  not  only  because  of  the  excess  of  non-resident 
land  owners  in  the  west  over  those  in  the  east,  but  also 
because  a  large  number  of  those  charged  Avith  land  tax  in 
the  west  reside  in  the  east,  whiie  few,  very  few,  of 
those  charged  with  land  tax  in  the  east  reside  in  the 
west. 

Referring  to  the  land  books  then,  we  find  that  the 
whole  number  of  persons  charged  with  land  tax  in 
1829,  was  as  follows : 

West  of  the  Alieghany,  29,946 
In  the  Valley,  15,114 


Total  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge, 

In  the  Piedmont  district, 
lu  the  Tide  water  district, 

Total  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge, 
Total  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge, 

Total  in  the  State, 


36,060 


28,744 
28,052 


56,796 
36,080 


92,856 


Now,  how  many  of  these  land  holders  did  it  requir.e 
to  send  representatives  to  the  convention  of  '29  ?  You 
had  twenty-four  districts,  each  of  which  sent  four 
delegates,  and  if  you  divide  the  whole  number  by  twen- 
ty-four, it  will  give  you  a  ratio  of  3,867to  a  district. 
If  you  divide  the  number  of  persons  west  ofthe  Blue 
Ridge  charged  with  the  land  tax,  viz :  36,060,  by 
this,  ratio  of  3,869,  and  it  will  give  to  the  west 
nine  districts  and  a.  fraction  of  less  than  one-third. 
The  above  statements  include  all  the  names  on  the 
land  books  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  without  any  deduc- 
tion whatever,  though  for  the  reasons  stated,  a  consid- 
erable deduction,  (not  less,  probably,  than  ten  per  cent.) 
should  unquestionably  be  made.  Take  it,  however,  as 
it  stands,  and  the  result  is  to  give  nine  districts  west  of  who  c 
the  Blue  Ridge,  and  that  is  the  number  that  you  had  in  I  for  th 


the  convention  of  1829- '30.    Nine  districts  or  thirty- 
Six  members  were  all,  and  more  than  all  that  the  west 
was  entitled  to  in  the  Convention  of  1829  upon  that  very 
suffrage  basis  in  which  you  now  insert  as  furnishing  the 
only  true  basis  of  government  ;  and  nine  districts  or 
thirty-six  members  you  had  in  that  convention.  You 
not  only  had  this  full  representation  in  that  body,  but 
you  had  enjoyed  it  on  the  same  basis  in  the  legislature 
of  the  State  from  1816  to  1829.    Since  1816  you  had 
had  in  the  senate  nine  districts  out  of  twenty-four,  and 
in  the  house  of  delegates  eighty  members  out  of  two 
hundred  aad  fourteen.    In  other  words,  the  west  had 
been  enjoying  in  the  legislature  since  1816  the  full  po- 
litical weight  and  influence  to  which,  upon  the  principles 
now  contended  for  by  western  gentlemen  themselves, 
she  was  entitled  to  in  1829,  and  this  too,  though  a  refer- 
ence to  the  census  tables  will  show  that  between  1816 
and  J  829,  (or  rathes  between  1820  and  1829,)  the  in- 
crease of  the  white  population  in  the  west  was  65.308, 
while  in  the  east  it  was  but  13,872,  the  excess  of.  in- 
crease on  the  part  of  the  west  bring  51,436.    How  then 
stands  the  case?    Between  1816  and  1829  there  had 
been  a  clear  gain  in  favor  of  the  west  of  upwards  of 
50,000  ofthe  white  population,  and  yet  in  1829  the  west 
had  in  the  convention  its  full  representation  upon  the 
suffrage  basis,  according  to  its  then  population,  and 
that  representation  it  had  been  enjoying  in  the  legisla- 
ture since  1816.    What  then  becomes  of  the  assertion 
again  and  again  made  upon  this  floor,  and  which  is  cal- 
culated, at  least,  if  not  designed  as  much  as  anything 
else,  to  excite  and  arouse  the  western  people  on  this 
subject— that  upon  the  suffrage  basis  you  have  not  had 
your  share  of  representation  ?    It  is  demonstrated  that 
in  the  convention  of  '29  you  had  your  full  representa- 
tion.   That  may  account  for  the  "significant  and  preg- 
nant fact  that  in  that  convention  this  suffrage  basis,  this 
very  basis  which  is  now  the  basis,  and  the  only  true  re- 
publican basis ,  of  government,  was  disclaimed  and  re- 
pudiated by  every  man  espousing  the  western  cause, 
with  the  exception  of  Gen.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Johnson, 
i  say  this  may  furnish  the  explanation  of  this  remarka- 
ole  fact,  for  had  western  gemlernen  stood  then  on  the 
suffrage  basis  where  they  stand  now,  how  could  they 
hav  indulged  in  those  complaints  about  inequality  and 
oppression  with  which  the  convention  of  1829,  like 
that  of  1851,  was  made  to  ring?    How  would  those 
complaints  have  tallied  with  the  facts?  Sir,  they  would 
not  have  tallied  at  all,  and  thus  gentlemen  were  com- 
pelled either  to  admit  that  these  complaints  about  ine- 
quality and  oppression  were  without  foundation,  or  to 
repudiate,  as  they  did  repudiate  in  that  convention  the 
very  basis  on  which  they  insist  in  this.    Hence  the 
emphatic  statement  of  Mr.  Doddridge,  to  which  allu- 
sion has  already  been  made,  when  he  disclaimed  in  the 
face  of  the  whole  convention,  speaking  of  the  west  and 
for  the  west,  without  contradiction  or  question  from  any 
quarter,  <;any  opinion  on  the  part  of   his  friends, 
that  representation  should  be  based  on  voters  alone"  de- 
claring that  "  none  of  them  held  that  opinion  but  Mr. 
Johnson."    [See  Deb.  Conv.,p.  501.] 

I  submit  then  to  the  committee,  that  upon  the  princi- 
ples which  we  are  now  invoked  to  adopt,  upon  the 
principles  of  the  suffrage  basis,  there  must  be  an  end  to 
the  complaints  we  have  heard  as  to  the  organization  of 
the  convention  of  1829,  for  the  west  had  their  full  re- 
presentation in  that  body,  and  the  constitution  then 
adopted  was  not  a  constitution  forced  upon  the  west  by 
a  convention  organized  upon  principles  of  inequality, 
but  a  constitution  adopted  upon  the  recommendation  of 
a  convention  in  which  the  west  was  fully  represented, 
and  which  was  therefore  upon  every  principle  just  as 
binding  in  point  of  law  and  morals  upon  the  west  as 
upon  the  east.  Will  it  be  said  that  the  constitution  of 
'29,  proposed  by  a  body  thus  organized,  was  adopted  by 
others  than  the  freeholders  and  voters  of  the  State? 
Will  it  be  said  that  the  constitution  of  1829  was  adopt- 
ed because  the  Convention  offered  inducements  to  those 
could  not  vote  under  the  old  constitution,  to  vote 
e  new  one,  by  submitting  it  alike  to  non-freehold- 


5 


ers  and  to  freeholders  ?  Or  will  the  ground  be  taken  that 
that  constitution  would  have  been  rejected  by  the  free- 
holders, and  was  only  adopted  because  it  was  submitted 
for  ratification  by  those  who  were  directly  interestedto 
vote  for  it,  viz  :  the  non-freeholders?  If  any  such 
ground  as  this  be  taken,  it  is  only  necessary  to  appeal 
to  the  record,  to  show  that  this  bribe,  if  you  choose  to 
term  it  so,  this  lure  which  is  said  to  have  been  held  out, 
was  not  offered  by  the  east.  On  the  contrary,  the  prop- 
osition to  permit  other  than  freeholders  to  vote  upon  the 
question  of  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  of  1829 
was  opposed  by  a  leading  man  fiom  the  east,  and  sup- 
ported by  the  leading  men  from  the  west,  and  the  only 
votes  against  submitting  it  to  non-freehold  rs  were  from 
eastern  and  not  from  western  Virginia.  Twenty-seven 
eastern  delegates  voted  with  Mr.  Randolph  on  his  prop- 
osition to  restrict  the  vote,  on  the  ratification,  to  the 
freeholders,  while  the  west,  in  a  body,  voted  with  Mr. 
Johnson  and  Mr.  Cooke,  against  it. 

It  is  this  constitution,  then,  proposed  by  a  body,  in 
which,  upon  yourown  principles,  you  were  fully  and 
fairly  represented,  and  ratified  by  the  votes  of  those 
to  whom  you  thought  proper  to  submit  it,  that  we  are 
now  called  upon  to  revise  and  amend.  You  say,  that 
by  it  representation  in  the  legislature  is  so  apportioned 
among  the  grand  divisions  of  the  State  that,  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  increase  of  population  in  the  west 
they  never  can  obtain  a  majority  in  the  legislature,  and 
you  exclaim  against  the  injustice  of  such  arbicrary  ap- 
portionment. Well,  we  are  willing  to  change  it.  All 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  last  Conven- 
tion know  that  this  arrangement  vvas  the  result  of  ne- 
cessity rather  than  of  choice,  and  no  one  desires  to  re- 
tain such  a  feature  in  the  constitution  we  are  about  to 
frame.  We  have  no  wish  to  regulate  representation  by 
grand  divisions  or  by  sections,  but  would  adopt  a  con- 
stitution based  on  principle — a  principle  not  fettered  in 
its  operation  by  sectional  lines,  but  co  extensive  in  its 
application  with  the  whole  State,  and  regulating  the  dis- 
tribution of  legislative  power  alike  east  and  west  of  the 
Blue*  Ridge — a  principle  which  is  so  far  fro  :n  being  merely 
sectional  in  its  operation,  that,  under  it  some  of  the  west, 
era  counties,  the  county  of  Botetourt  for  instance,  has 
tvo  delegates,  while  under  the  white  or  suffrage  basis, 
it  gets  but  one. 

What  more  ?  You  say  that  this  constitution  of  1829 
authorizes  the  legislature  to  elect  the  governor,  and 
thus  places  the  appointment  of  one  aepartment  of 
the  government  in  the  hands  of  another.  That 
fault — if  fault  it  be,  and  you  say  it  is — is  to  be  cor- 
rected. The  governor  is  not  to  be  appointed  by  the 
legislature,  but  by  the  voters  of  the  State — in  other 
words  by  the  west,  if  the  west  think  proper  to  appoint 
him.  The  power  of  appointment  is  given  to  that  class 
in  which  the  west  has  uncontrolled  sway,  considering 
the  question  in  a  sectional  aspect.  "What  more  ?  The 
public  debt,  (as  shown  by  my  friend  from  Meek  eu 
burg,  [Mr.  Go  ode,]  who  has  saved  me  the  trouble 
of  going  into  any  calculations  on  this  point,  and  whose 
inability  to  continue  his  remarks  I  am  sure  the  commit- 
tee, as  well  as  myself,  must  have  greatly  regretted,)  has 
increased  from  abouc  one  million  of  dollars  in  1829,  to 
an  absolute  debt  of  upwards  of  eighteen  millions  now. 
or  upwards  of  twenty-two  millions  if  you  include  the 
guaranteed  bonds,  and  if  you  include  the  amount  which 
the  State  will  bs  obliged  to  contribute  in  order  to  com 
plete  works  now  in  progress,  to  about  forty  millions  of 
dollars.  This  immense  internal  improvement  fund  is,  in 
a  great  measure,  appropriated  by  a  body  termed  the 
Board  of  Public  Works,  and  the  report  of  the  executive 
committee  gives  the  appointment  of  those  controlling 
that  board,  with  all  the  patronage,  power,  and  influence 
it  possesses,  to  the  qualified  voters  of  the  whole  State — 
in  other  words,  to  the  west,  a  majority  of  those  voters 
being  in  the  west.  Then  as  to  the  judicial  department. 
You  desire  to  have  your  own  circuit  judges  appointed, 
not  by  the  legislature,  in  which  the  east  has  a  majority 
of  some  28  or  30  on  joint  ballot,  but  by  the  people 
of  the  circuits.    That  is  accorded.    These  changes  are 


ail  made  without  question,  without  hesitation  upon  the 
part  of  eastern  gentlemen.  We  come,  then,  to  the  le- 
gislative department,  and  in  the  organization  of  that 
department  how  do  the  two  parties  upon  this  floor 
stand?  We  say  that  we  have  given  up  to  you  the 
matters  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  all  that  we  claim 
in  respect  to  the  legislative  department  is,  that  it  shall 
be  so  organized  that  those  who  pay  a  major  part  of  the 
taxes  shall  have  the  power  to  say  how  those  taxes  shall 
be  raised,  and  to  what  purposes  they  shall  be  applied. 
You  wish  to  arrange  the  representation  in  the  legisla- 
ture so  that  that  portion  of  the  State  which  pays  one- 
third — or,  as  the  gentleman  from  Mecklenburg  has 
shown,  less  than  one-third — of  the  taxes,  shall  have  the 
absolute  power  of  levying  and  appropriating  the  whole 
taxes  of  the  Commonwealth.  We  wish  to  give  to  that 
portion  of  the  State  which  pays  the  major  part  of  the 
taxes,  the  power  of  saying  what  taxes  shall  be  raised, 
and  how  they  shall  be  applied.  You  wish  to  organize  the 
legislative  department,  so  that  the-  tax-laying,  tax-col- 
lecting, and  the  tax-disbursing  power  shall  be  in  one 
set  of  hands,  while  the  tax  paying  duty  is  devolved 
upon  a  different  portion  of  the  State.  You  wish,  in 
other  words,  an  organization  of  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  government  that  looks  to  one  principle 
alone — the  principle  of  numbers  merely — while  we  say, 
that  though  we  do  not  propose  to  disregard  that  prin- 
ciple, yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  not  willing  to  give 
it  absolute  and  despotic  sway.  We  are  willing  to  look 
to  that  principle,  not  solely,  but  in  combination  with 
other  principles  which  are  necessary,  as  we  conceive, 
to  attain  the  ends  of  government.  And  because  the 
east  is  not  prepared  to  say  that,  in  the  legislative  as  in 
the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  the  west  shall 
have  unlimited  control,  we  are  told  that  the  rights  of 
our  brethren  of,  the  west  are  disregarded  and  trampled 
under  foot,  and  the  vocabulary  of  the  language  almost 
is  exhausted,  in  an  expression  of  the  degree  of  degra- 
dation and  oppression  which  we  are  informed  is  to  re- 
sult to  the  people  of  the  west  from  the  assertion,  on  the 
part  of  the  east,  of  the  principle  that  the  section  of  the 
State  which  pays  the  larger  portion  of  the  taxes  shall 
have  tne  power  to  say,  in  that  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment which  has  the  control  of  this  subject,  how  those 
taxes  shall  be  raised,  and  how,  when  raised,  they  shall 
be  expended.  We  show  you,  in  respect  to  this  matter, 
that  while  you  have  a  majority  of  92,000  of  the  white 
population  west  of  the  mountains,  we  have  a  majority 
of  292,000  of  the  total  population  east  of  the  moun- 
tains. 

We  show  you  (by  statements  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  committee  yesterday,  and  in  respect  to  which  my 
friend  from  Mecklenburg  has  anticipated  me,  and  ren- 
dered it  unnecessary  that  I  should  go  over  the  ground 
he  has  so  fully  occupied,)  that  of  the  lands  of  the 
State,  according  to  their  assessed  value,  there  is  an 
excess  in  the  east  over  the  west  of  thirty-six  millions 
of  dollars,  and  that  of  the  slaves  of  the  State  there 
is  an  excess  in  the  east  over  the  west  of  one  hundred 
and  four  millions — making,  upon  the  subject  of  lands 
and  slaves  alone,  an  excess  of  property  upon  this  side 
of  the  ridge  of  one  hundred  and  forty  millions.  And  if 
you  look  to  other  sources  of  wealth,  I  apprehend  that 
the  statement  o£  the  gentleman  from  Mecklenburg  will 
be  found  to  be  fully  within  the  mark,  when  he  estimates 
the  excess  in  favor  of  the  east  at  one  million,  thus  mak- 
ing an  aggregate  excess  of  the  property  of  the  east 
over  that  of  the  west  of  not  less  than  $240,000,000. 

That  is  the  position  in  which  we  stand  upon  this 
question  ;  and  standing  in  this  position,  the  eastern 
section  say  to  their  brethren  of  the  west,  we  desire  that 
in  the  organization  of  the  legislative  department — the 
great  tax  laying,  tax-collecting,  and  tax-disbursing 
body — entire  and  exclusive  regard  shall  not  be  had  to 
white  population  alone.  We  are  willing  to  take  that 
element  in  the  account.  We  are  willing  to  give  it  its 
fair  and  just  weight,  but  we  are  not  willing  that  it 
should  be  allowed  despotic  sway,  and  heard  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  every  other  consideration  that  ought  to  bear 


6 


upon  the  solution  of  the  great  problem  of  the  apportion- 
ment of  legislative  power.  We  demand  that  it  shall 
not  be  heard  to  the  exclusion  and  prostration  of  what 
we  maintain  to  be  the  principle  of  the  American  Rev- 
olution; and  the  principle  of  every  representative  gov- 
ernment that  deserves  to  be  called  free — that  taxation 
and  representation  shall  go  together,  and  that  the  pow- 
er to  say  how  the  taxes  shall  be  applied  shall  be  with 
those  by  whom  those  taxes  are  paid — in  other  words, 
that  the  government  shall  not  be  so  organized  that  in 
one  section  shall  be  vested  the  power  of  levying  taxes, 
and  on  another  section  be  imposed  the  duty  of  paying 
those  taxes.  Nov/,  is  this  so  unreasonable,  so  revolting 
a  proposition,  as  to  justify  or  excuse  the  denunciations 
that  have  been  hurled  against  it  ?  Is  this  principle,  I 
ask,  so  monstrous,  that  we  are  to  be  told  here,  and 
have  it  iterated  and  reiterated  again  and  again,  that  its 
very  .assertion  is  an  insult  to  our  western  brethren,  and 
that  to  incorporate  such  a  principle  as  this  in  our  or- 
ganic law  is  utterly  to  degrade  them  ? 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment — for  I  do  not  propose  to  go 
into  any  detailed  examination  of  them — let  us  look  for 
a  moment  at  the  competing  propositions  fur  the  organi- 
zation of  the  legislative  department  nowbefore  the  com- 
mittee— the  white,  or  the  suffrage  basis,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  mixed  basis,  or  that  proposition  which 
regards  white  population  and  taxation  combined,  on 
the  other.  Proposition  B,  insisted  on  by  our  western 
friends,  is  a  proposition  in  which,  it  seems  to  me,  they 
have  the  white  basis  and  the  suffrage  basis  both.  It  is 
a  proposition  by  which  the  legislative  department  of 
the  government  is  to  be  organized  now,  at  this  time, 
upon  the  white  basis  alone,  and  five  years  hereafter  it 
is  to  be  organized  upon  the  suffrage  basis,  or  the  basis  of 
qualified  voters  or  not,  precisely  as  those  having  the  pow- 
er under  the  original  organization  shall  determine.  In 
other  words,  it  is  the  white  basis  in  esse,  and  the  suff- 
rage basis  in  posse.  It  is  the  white  basis,  and  it  may  be 
the  suffrage  basis,  and  being  presented  in  this  form,  it  is 
liable  to  the  objections  that  apply  to  both.  In  putting 
their  proposition  in  this  shape,  therefore,  gentlemen 
cannot  escape  the  argument  pressed  upon  them 
again  and  again  in  the  former  Convention,  and  nev- 
er answered  because  it  could  not  be  answered,  that 
upon  the  basis  of  white  numbers  alone,  you  include, 
in  determining  the  number  of  representatives,  per- 
sons who  are  themselves  not  represented  ;  you  in- 
clude minors,  you  include  women  and  children,  you 
include  convicts  and  paupers,  you  include  all  these  ; 
and  this  suffrage  basis  has,  doubtless,  been  resorted  to, 
among  other  considerations,  with  a  view,  if  possible,  of 
eluding  the  force  of  this  argument.  But  that  design, 
let  me  tell  gentlemen,  is  not  accomplished  by  propo- 
sition B,  because,  while  that  proposition  does  look  to 
the  suffrage  basis  as  the  basis  to  be  adopted  Jive  years 
hence,  it  organizes  government  now  with  all  the  powers 
of  an  organized  government  upon  the  white  basis,  the 
basis  of  mere  numbers,  and  on  that  alone.  But  take  it 
upon  the  suffrage  basis,  and  let  us  look  at  that  principle 
for  a  few  moments.  What  is  the  favorite  dogma  of  the 
advocates  of  this  suffrage  basis  ?  It  rests,  say  they, 
upon  a  principle  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  re- 
publican governments,  and  which  cannot  be  compro- 
mised or  modified  without  a  surrender  of  essential  and 
inalienable  rights,  viz  :  that  as  all  men  are  possessed  by 
nature  of  equal  rights,  ergo  all  men  in  society  should 
have  equal  portions  of  political  power;  that  the  depart- 
ments of  the  government,  and  especially  the  legislative 
department,  should  be  so  organized  as  that,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  proposition  B,  "  the  suffrage  of  one  quali- 
fied voter  shall  avail  as  much  as  that  of  another  quali- 
fied voter,"  and  each  voter,  wherever  residing,  shall  be 
entitled  to  the  same  weight  in  the  government,  and  ex- 
ercise the  same  influence  in  directing  its  operations,  as 
any  other  voter.  This,  I  say,  is  the  great  principle  of 
the  suffrage  basis  as  I  understand  it — that  there  is  an 
inherent,  unalienable  right,  a  right  lying  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  free  governments,  that  there  shall  be  per- 
fect equality  among  qualified  voters.    That  is  your 


principle,  as  expressly  declared  in  proposition  B.  And 
how  is  that  principle  worked  out  in  practice  ?  Why, 
sir,  your  proposition  is,  that  the  vote  of  one  qualified 
voter  shall  avail  as  much  as  that  of  another,  and  equal 
bodies  of  qualified  voters  have  the  same  representation  ; 
yet  the  moment  you  come  to  carry  out  that  principle, 
and  form  a  representative  government  upon  it,  what  is 
the  result  ?  Look  to  your  own  favorite  scheme,  your 
proposition  B,  and  let  that  answer  the  question.  You 
first  take  the  white  population  as  the  standard  by 
which  to  ascertain  the  number  of  qualified  voters,  and 
then  you  declare,  by  proposition  B,  that  9.790  white 
persons,  living  in  the  county  of  Accomac,  shall  elect 
two  delegates,  while  9,068  persons  living  across  the  bay 
in  the  city  of  Norfolk,  shall  elect  but  one  delegate  ;  so 
that  a  qualified  voter  in  the  county  of  Accomac  is 
worth  about  twice  as  much,  upon  the  application  of 
your  own  principle,  as  a  qualified  voter  in  the  city  of 
Norfolk  ;  and  the  county  of  Morgan,  from  which  my 
friend  comes,  who  entertained  the  committee  yesterday, 
(Mr.  Stewart,)  with  a  population  of  3,431,  elects  one 
delegate  ;  so  that  a  qualified  voter  in  the  county  of 
Morgan  is  worth  about  three  times  as  much  as  a  quali- 
fied voter  in  the  city  of  Norfolk. 

I  know  the  answer  which  gentlemen  will  attempt  to 
give  to  this,  for  they  have  made  that  attempt  already, 
fhey  say  that  this  is  unavoidable — that  it  cannot  be 
helped.  Sir,  it  is  not  unavoidable — it  can  be  helped  ; 
and  gentlemen  cannot  be  permitted  in  this  way  to  es- 
cape from  the  legitimate  consequence  of  their  own 
principles,  the  inevitable  results  of  their  own  argu 
ments.  If,  as  they  cortend,  this  right  to  political 
equality  and  to  equal  political  weight,  is  one  in  the  ab- 
sence of  which  the  voter  is  degraded,  and  put  below 
the  level  of  a  freeman,  if  it  is  a  principle  which  can- 
not be  compromised,  surrendered,  or  modified  without 
dishonor  ;  are  there,  I  ask.  no  means  by  which  a  prin- 
ciple so  sacred  can  be  fully  carried  out  in  the  practical 
organization  of  the  government  ?  Cannot  the  legislative 
department  be  so  organized  as  that  the  vote  of  a  qual- 
ified voter  in  one  part  of  the  State  shall  have  precisely 
the  same  weight  as  the  vote  of  a  qualified  voter  in  any 
other  part  of  the  State  ?  Unquestionably  this  may  be 
done.  To  effect  it,  you  have  only  to  require  that  the 
representatives  from  every  county  in  the  State  shall  be 
elected  by  the  voters  of  the  whole  State  ;  in  other 
words,  that  your  delegates  to  the  legislature  shall  be 
elected  by  general  ticket,  instead  of  by  counties  or  dis- 
tricts. In  such  an  election,  and  in  such  an  election  on- 
ly, the  vote  of  one  man  will  have  precisely  the  same 
weight  as  that  of  any  other.  Gentlemen  say  that  to  do 
this,  would  be  to  destroy  representative  government. 
If  this  be  so,  then  is  such  destruction  but  the  legitimate 
consequence  of  their  own  principles.  They  say  that 
this  principle  of  the  right  to  political  equality  must  be 
applied  without  regard  to  circumstances  ;  that  it  is  a 
principle  in  the  absence  of  which  the  freeman  is  de- 
graded ;  that  his  vote,  wherever  he  may  be,  whatever 
his  means  may  be,  shall  exercise  precisely  the  same 
weight  upon  the  operation  of  the  different  departments 
of  the  government,  as  the  votes  of  his  neigbors  residing 
east  or  west,  north  or  south  ;  and  with  these  declara- 
tions upon  their  lips,  the  very  moment  they  are  called 
on  to  carry  out  their  principles  into  practice,  when 
they  can  do  it  without  destroying  the  counties,  but 
keeping  up  the  county  divisions  precisely  as  they  are, 
when  they  can  do  it  by  electing  by  general  ticket  in- 
stead of  by  districts — they  tell  us  that  it  is  impractica- 
ble in  a  representative  form  of  goverment,  and  in  such 
a  government  the  elections  must  be  by  districts.  I  ask 
whether  this  does  not  show,  conclusively,  that  a  repre- 
sentative government  is,  in  its  very  nature,  inconsist- 
ent with  this  pragmatical  idea  that  the  vote  of  one  man 
shall  have  precisely  the  same  weight  as  the  vote  of 
every  other  man  ?  It  is  demonstrable  that  you  cannot 
carry  out  this  idea,  if  you  have  those  elections  by  coun- 
ties and  districts,  which  are,  we  are  told,  and  which  I 
concede  to  be,  of  the  very  essence  of  representative  gov- 
ernment.   Proposition  B,  itself,  proves  this  ;  and  yet 


7 


we  are  to  be  told  that  if,  under  the  application  of  your 
principle  as  made  by  yourselves,  a  voter  in  one  part  of 
the  State  should  exercise  only  half  the  power,  and  en- 
joy only  half  the  representation  that  is  exercised  and 
enjoyed  by  another  voter  in  another  portion  of  the  State, 
this  is  no  degradation — none  whatever  ;  but  the  mo- 
ment we  venture  to  apply  a  different  principle  under 
which,  when  applied  to  the  several  counties  of  the 
State,  similar  inequalities  of  representation  are  found 
to  result,  then  it  is  a  degradation.  It  is  in  vain  to  in- 
sist on  such  a  proposition.  Inequality  of  representation 
among  the  several  counties  is  no  more  peculiar  to  the 
mixed  basis  than  to  the  white,  or  the  suffrage  basis. 
It  is  inseparable  from  any  basis,  where  there  exists  that 
local  or  county  representation  which  is  so  distinguishing 
a  feature  of  representative  government  ;  and  hence  it 
is  that  this  idea  of  making  the  vote  of  one  man  avail  as 
much  as  that  of  any  other  man,  cannot  be  carried  out 
in  a  representative  government. 

It  can  be  carried  out  nowhere  but  in  an  unmixed  de- 
mocracy of  numbers.  A  representative  government  is 
in  itself  a  check  upon  it,  for  the  very  moment  you 
break  the  State  up  into  districts  and  give  to  those  dis- 
tricts a  representation,  you  provide  that  a  majority  of 
the  districts  represented  in  the  legislature  may  speak 
one  voice  while  a  majority  of  the  people  may  speak 
another.  And  when  those  two  come  in  conflict  which 
ought  to  give  way  ?  Unquestionably  on  your  principle 
the  voice  of  the  legislature  ought  to  give  way  because 
according  to  your  principle,  the  voice  of  the  numerical 
majority  however  ascertained,  is  omnipotent.  And  yet 
no  man  will  pretend  to  say,  that  in  a  government  or- 
ganized on  this  very  principle  as  you  yourselves  have 
carried  it  out  in  the  proposition  B,  this  omnipotent  voice 
of  the  numerical  majority  will  not  be  obliged  to  give  way 
to  the  voice  of  the  legislative  majority  though  that  ma- 
jority should  represent  a  numerical  minority.  This  is  the 
necessary  result  of  a  representative  government  as  may 
be  shown  by  the  simplest  examples.  Take  for  instance 
three  counties,  each  containing  1,000  voters.  Each  is  enti- 
tled, we  will  suppose,  to  a  delegate  in  the  legislature — 
a  question  arises  on  which  the  people  of  those  counties 
are  divided  in  opinion — the  voters  of  A  are  unanimous 
in  one  opinion  while  a  small  majority  of  those  of  B  and 
C  entertain  a  different  opinion.  Five  hundred  and  one 
voters  in  B  and  C  elect  each  a  delegate  while  the  thou- 
sand votes  in  A  added  to  the  998  in  B  and  C  elect  but 
one  ;  so  that  here  is  a  legislative  majority  of  two  to  one 
representing  a  numerical  minority  of  nearly  two  to  one. 
And  yet  with  Jhese  things  staring  us  in  the  face  we  are 
asked  by  proposition  B,  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  its 
own  apportionment  of  representation  to  lay  it  down  as 
a  fundamental  principle  in  the  organization  of  the  leg- 
islative department,  that  the  vote  of  one  qualified  vo- 
ter shall  avail  as  much  as  that  of  any  other  qualified 
voter  ;  and  because  we  do  not  choose  to  say  this  ;  be- 
cause we  do  not  choose  to  put  a  declaration  into  the 
constitution  as  a  principle  of"  government  which  is  vio- 
lated the  very  moment  you  attempt  to  carry  it  out  into 
practice,  or  to  adopt  such  a  text  and  then  follow  it  up 
with  such  a  commentary,  we  are  to  be  told  that  the 
east  is  insisting  on  a  principle  which  is  to  degrade  the 
freemen  of  the  west. 

But  we  are  told  that  this  principle  is  fully  recognized 
by  the  bill  of  rights  and  that  it  is  a  violation  of  that  in- 
strument not  to  carry  it  out.  If  so,  then  I  have  to 
remark  in  the  first  place,  that  the  bill  of  rights  is  viola- 
ted alike  by  both  the  schemes  of  representation  now 
under  consideration,  for  I  have  already  shown  that  this 
principle  is  no  more  carried  out  by  proposition  B,  (the 
white  or  suffrage  basis,)  than  it  is  by  proposition  A,  (the 
mixed  basis.)  Let  us  look  however,  a  little  more 
closely  into  this  subject.  I  hope  the  committee  will 
not  be  alarmed  with  the  idea  that  I  am  about  at  this 
time  of  day  to  enter  into  anv  dissertation  on  the  bill  of 
rights.  That  is  a  subject  which,  whatever  may  be  its  at- 
tractions in  other  respects,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  pos- 
sess the  charm  of  novelty,  as  it  has  formed  thes  taple,  to 


a  greater  or  less  extent,  of  nearly  every  speech  that  has 
been  delivered  here,  at  least  by  those  gentlanen  with 
whom  it  is  my  fortune  to  differ  on  this  question.  I  have 
no  purpose  to  go  over  again  the  ground  that  has  been  so 
often  trod  before, -but  design  simply  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  for  a  few  moments  to  the  three 
first  sections  and  to  a  brief  commentary  upon  them. 
The  first  section  declares  "  that  all  men  are  by  nature 
equally  free,"  and  the  deduction  from  that  is— what? 
By  nature  all  men  are  equally  free  ;  ergo,  in  the  state 
of  society  each  man  has  an  equal  right  to  dispose  in 
the  form  of  taxation,  of  the  property  of  others  ?  Now 
this,  it  strikes  me,  is  what  would  be  styled  in  logic,  a 
very  palpable  "  non  sequitur."  The  premises  and  the 
conclusion  have  nothing  to  do  with  each  other.  They 
are  utter  strangers.  There  is  no  coherence  between 
them.  This  principle  of  the  bill  of  rights,  obviously  de- 
signed as  a  source  of  protection  to  individual  rights,  is 
not  to  be  perverted  with  an  instrument  of  political 
power.  And  so  far  from  its  being  true,  that  because 
all  men  in  a  state  of  nature  are  equally  free,  therefore 
every  man  m  a  state  of  society  has  an  equal  right  to 
dispose,  whether  in  the  form  of  taxation  or  otherwise, 
of  the  property  of  others,  the  true  inference,  if  any 
can  be  drawn,  is  precisely  the  reverse,  viz  :  that  every 
man  has  the  best  right  to  dispose  of  his  own  property. 
I  do  not  think,  therefore,  that  gentlemen  can  derive  much 
aid  to  their  argument  from  the  first  section  of  the  bill 
of  rights. 

The  next  section  declares  "  that  all  power  is  vested 
in  and  consequently  derived  from  the  people ;  that 
magistrates  are  their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at  all 
times  amenable  to  them." 

Now  does  any  man  doubt  what  our  ancestors  meant 
when  they  made  this  declaration  ?  Have  gentlemen 
forgotten  the  time  at  which,  the  circumstances  under 
which,  and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  made  ?  What 
was  the  doctrine  against  which  they  were  then  in  arms 
and  what  the  great  principle,  on  the  maintenance  of 
which,  they  had  staked  their  lives,  their  fortunes  and 
their  sacred  honor  ?  It  was  against  the  slavish  doctrine 
of  the  "right  divine  of  kings  to  govern  wrong"  they 
were  then  warring,  and  the  cause  in  which  they  were 
enlisted  was  the  great  cause  of  popular  right  against 
royal  prerogative.  Hence  it  is  declared  that  the  peo- 
ple, not  the  prince,  are  the  only  legitimate  source  of 
power,  that  magistrates  are  the  servants  of  the  one,  not 
the  minions  of  the  other,  and  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest,  are  at  all  times  amenable  to  those  from  whom  their 
powers  are  thus  derived.  But  what  has  this  to  do 
with  the  question  how  the  people  themselves  shall  ex- 
ercise their  own,  undoubted  powers,  what  limitations 
they  shall  impose  on  themselves,  and  upon  what  principles 
and  in  what  form  they  shall  organize  the  different  de- 
partments of  their  own  government  ?  Construct  the 
government  as  you  may— organize  the  legislature  or  any 
other  department  of  it  on  what  basis  you  will,  it  is  from 
the  people  alone  it  must  derive  its  authority  to  act,  and 
it  is  to  them  and  to  them  alone  that  it  is  responsible 
for  its  action,  With  these  questions  therefore,  this 
second  section  of  the  bill  of  rights  has  precisely  noth- 
ing at  all  to  do,  and  I  cannot  but  regard  as  an  evidence 
of  the  extremity  of  their  case  when  gentlemen  of  the 
ability  of  those  who  have  argued  this  question  on  the 
other  side  have  found  it  necessary  to  lay  the  stress  they 
have  on  thi«tiportion  of  that  instrument.  It  is  to  the 
third  section,  however,  that  these  gentlemen  have  most 
frequently  referred,  and  that  too  with  an  air  of  confi- 
dence and  triumph,  as  though  the  argument  based  upon 
it  admitted  of  no  reply.  The  committee  will  bear  with 
me  therefore,  for  a  few  moments  while  I  examine  the 
proposition  announced  by  this  third  section.  It  reads  as 
follows : 

"  That  government,  is  or  ought  to  be,  instituted  for  the 
common  benefit,  protection  and  security  of  the  people, 
nation  or  community;  of  all  the  various  modes  and 
forms  of  government,  that  is  best  which  is  capable  of 
producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety,  « 


8 


and  is  most  effectually  secured  against  the  danger  of]  majority  of  mere  numbers,  told  by  the  head,  nor  was  it 


mal-administration,  and  that  when  any  government 
shall  be  found  inadequate  or  contrary  to  these  purposes, 
a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubitable,  una- 
lienable and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter  or  abol- 


i  majority  of  qualified  voters,  and  the  evidence  of  this 
is  to  be  found,  (if  evidence  were  required  apart  from 
the  bill  of  rights  itself,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
constitution  of  1716,  of  which  it  formed  part,)  in  the 


ish  it  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  manner  in  which  we  adopted  the  federal  constitution, 
to  the  public  weal."  Is  the  constitution  we  are  now  revising  the  only  con- 

Am  aj  or  ity  of  the  community!  Now  there  are  but  |  stitution  of  Virginia  ?  Have  we  not  another  constitu- 
two  modes  by  which  a  government  can  be  changed,  iti on,  which  with  respect  to  the  matters  embraced 
The  one  is  by  peaceful  reform,  the  other  by  revolution,  therein,  is  paramount  to  any  that  we  can  form  or 
The  change  by  reform  is  a  change  made  by  the  consent  that  the  people  themselves  can  adopt?  Are  we 
of  those  in  whom  the  political  power  of  the  State  is  for  I  not  bound  by  the  federal  copstitution,  as  part  and 
the  time  being  vested — that  is,  what  has  been  here  styled  parcel  of  the  constitution  of  Virginia  ;  and  constitu- 


the  governmental  majority.  The  change  by  revolution 
is  made  without  or  ag.anst  the  consent  of  the  existing 
government,  and  results  from  a  right  existing  in  man 
independent  of  and  above  government.  Wow  do  gentle- 
men imagine — does  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  (Mr. 
Summers)  and  other  gentlemen  on  this  floor  imagine 
that  under  this  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights,  the  moment 
you  ascertain  that  a  majority  of  one  of  the  qualified  vo- 
ters of  the  State  desire  a  reform  or  a  change  in  the  gov- 
ernment, that  moment  a  change  must  be '  made,  and 
made  too  without  regard  to  the  rights  conferred  by  the 


ting  within  the  broad  range  over  which  it  extends  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land  ?  And  how  was  that  federal 
constitution  adopted?  Look  to  the  records  of  1787 
and  what  do  you  find  there  ?  You  will  find  that  the 
convention  which  framed  the  federal  constitution  met 
at  Philadelphia  in  the  summer,  1787,  that  the  con- 
stitution was  adopted  in  September,  1787,  and  was  then 
referred  to  the  States.  In  October,  1787,  there  was  a 
series  of  resolutions  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Virgin- 
ia, simply  suggesting  and  proposing  to  the  good  people 
of  this  commonwealth  to  elect  delegates  to  a  conven- 


constitution  as  it  stands  ?  Is  that  their  idea  of  peace- 1  tion  to  meet  in  June,  1788,  for  the  purpose  of  ratifying  or 
fill  reform  as  distinguished  from  revolution — a  reform  rejecting,  so  far  as  Virginia  was  concerned,  the  federal 
effected  by  constitutional  means,  and  through  constitu-  constitution.  This  legislature  was  composed  of  two  dele- 


tional  agencies,  or  is  it  either  more  or  less  than  naked 
and  unmitigated  Dorrism  ?  Sir,  I  maintain  that  the  com- 
munity referred  to  in  that  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights 
is  a  community  which  can  speak  only  by  the  voice  of 
those  in  whom  the  political  power  of  the  State  is,  for 
the  time  being,  vested.  It  can  speak  only  by  that  voice 
unless  you  resort  to  revolution,  and  when  you  come  to 
that,  it  is  not,  1  apprehend,  a  majority  only  of  the 
community  that  have  a  right  to  commit  revolution. 
Will  gentlemen  get  upbore  and  maintain  that  a  majority 
cannot  do  wrong — that  there  cannot  be  a  governmentin 
which  a  majority  of  the  people  or  of  the  qualified  vo- 
ters if  you  please,  might  oppress  the  minority,  and  that 
in  such  an  event,  the  minority  would  not  have  the  right 
to  revolutionize  the  government  precisely  as  they  would 
to  throw  off  the  government  of  any  other  despot  ?  Sir, 
the  right  of  revolution  is  not  measured  by  majorities  or 
minorities.  Man's  last  resort  against  tyranny,  it  is  com- 
mon to  all — to  all  the  oppressed  and  down-trodden  in 
all  ages  and  every  clime.  The  other  mode  of  changing 
the  government  is,  as  I  have  said,  by  peaceful  and  con- 
stitutional reform,  to  be  effected  by  the  agency  and 
with  the  consent  of  those  who  hold  for  the  time  being, 
the  political  power  of  the  State,  people  or  community. 
That  is  the  community,  the  political  body  or  entity  re- 
ferred to  in  the  bill  of  rights  j  and  which  is  composed  not 
of  merely  the  qualified  voters  taken  en  masse,  and  told 
by  the  head,  but  of  those  voters  as  they  are  distributed 
throughout  the  different  sections,  divisions  and  sub-di- 
visions of  the  State  with  that  degree  of  political  power 
attached  to  their  votes  which  is  given  by  the  very  con- 
stitution which  it  is  proposed  to  change. 

It  is  for  this  political  community  then,  this  organized 
people,  speaking  as  alone  it  can  speak  by  the  voice  of 
its  constituted  authorities,  to  determine  in  the  first  in- 
stance whether  the  constitution  shall  be  changed,  and 
to  prescribe  how  that  change  shall  be  made.  It  may 
foe  done  in  various  modes — either  by  submitting  to  the 
qualified  voters  en  masse  the  question  whether  or  not  they 
will  have  a  Convention  for  reforming  the  constitution 
and  if  that  question  be  decided  in  the  affirmative,  try 
by  directing  the  Convention  to  submit  such  constitution 
as  they  may  agree  upon,  to  be  ratified  or  rejected  by 
the  voters  of  the  State,  or  they  may  effect  it  by  provi 
ding  that  a  convention  shall  be  organized,  which  shall 
have  the  power,  without  appeal,  without  submitting 
the  question  of  ratification  or  rejection  to  the  people 
themselves  to  adopt  and  put  into  operation  the  consti- 
tution which  they  may  determine  upon. 

The  majority  of  the  community  then  referred  to  by  our 
ancestors  in  the  third  section  of  the  bill  of  rights  was  no 


gates  from  each  county,  and  was  a  body,  therefore,  in 
which  Warwick,  with  its  six  hundred  inhabitants  had  ex- 
actly the  same  weight  and  representation  as  Montgomery 
with  its  twelve  thousand,  Culpepper  with  its  thirteen 
thousand,  Loudoun  with  its  fourteen  thousand,and  Berke- 
ley with  its  sixteen  thousand.  •  It  was  in  that  man- 
ner that  the  legislature  which  assembled  in  October, 
'87,  wasconstituted  which  passed  the  resolutions,for  the 
election  of  delegates  to  the  convention  of  1788.  And 
what  was  that  convention  to  do  ?  To  advise  people  or 
the  qualified  voters  of  the  State  whether  they  shouM 
accept  or  reject  the  federal  constitution  ?  No,  sir,  but 
to  decide  absolutely,  finally,  and  without  appeal  upon 
the  question  whether  the  federal  constitution  should  or 
should  not  be  the  constitution  of  Virginia.  And 
yet  was  that  convention  itself  organized  with  any 
reference  to  this  numerical  majority,  either  of  the 
white  population  or  of  the  qualified  voters  ?  Not  at 
all  sir.  It  was  a  convention  consisting  of  two  del- 
egates from  each  county  in  the  State,  and  in  which 
the  voice  of  Warwick  had  as  much  weight  as  the 
voice  .  of  Loudoun,  of  Albemarle,  of  Culpepper,  or 
of  Berkeley.  It  was  a  convention  organized,  not  only 
without  any  reference  to  this  numerical  majority  but 
with  reference  solely  to  the  existing  government  and 
with  all  the  political  power  given  to  the  different 
divisions  and  sub-divisions  of  the^  State,  to  which 
they  were  entitled  under  the  existing  State  con- 
stitution. And  what  was  the  action  of  the  con- 
vention thus  organized  on  the  momentous  ques- 
tion of  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  federal 
constitution?  The  record  will  show  that  that  ques- 
tion was  decided  by  a  majority  of  but  ten  votes.  The 
final  vote  on  the  ratification  being  89  ayes  to  79  nays, 
and  in  all  human  probability — I  do  not  make  the  asser- 
tion, but  it  may  be  so,  and  it  certainly  might  have  been 
so — the  eighty-nine  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  may 
have  been  the  delegates  from  the  smaller  counties,  while 
the  seventy -nine  who  voted  in  the  negative  may  have  con- 
sisted chiefly  of  the  delegates  representing  the  larger 
counties.  1 have  not  made  the  calculation,  but  in  a 
body  constituted  as  was  the  convention  of  1788  it  was 
not  only  possible  but  far  from  improbable  that  the  con- 
stitution which  is  now  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
might  have  been  adopted  by  the  votes  of  those  repre- 
senting scarcely  one-third  of 'the  white  population  of  the 
State,  and  adopted  too,  as  it  was,  absolutely,  finally  and 
without  any  submission  of  the  question  to  the  people 
or  to  the  voters  of  the  State.  Suppose  this  had  been  so , 
will  the  gentlemen  from  Augusta,  from  Berkeley,  or 
from  Kanawha  undertake  to  say  that  a  constitution  thus 


I 


9 


adopted  would  not  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  laud  ? 
Will  they  undertake  to  say  that  we  have  been  living 
ever  since  1788  and  are  living  now  under  an  usurpation  \ 
Can  there  be  a  stronger  demonstration  than  is  presented 
by  the  whole  course  of  action  which  resulted  in  the  adop- 
tion of  the  federal  constitution,  that  this  modern  dogma 
that  government  is  an  usurpation  to  which  the  numeri- 
cal majority  of  the  people  or  of  the  voters  told  by  the 
head  have  not  assented  was  not  the  doctrine  of  the 
republicans  of  that  day,  the  framers  of  the  bill  of 
rights  of  1776,  and  the  constitution  of  1788  ?  No,  sir, 
this  doctrine  is  of  modern  birth.  It  was  never  thought 
of,  never  dreamed  of,  for  one  moment  by  those  men  who 
laid  the  foundations  of  our  civil  liberty  and  built 
up  the  structure  broad  and  deep  "by  those  great  arch- 
itects at  whose  bidding  that  "  fabric  huge  rose  like 
an  exhalation,"  and  in  respect  to  whom  it  is  or  ought  to 
be  among  the  proudest  recollections  of  every  marT  now 
within  the  sound  of  my  voice  that  he  has  the  honor 
of  belongiug  to  the  State  that  gave  them  birth. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.  Just  at  this  point,  if  the  gentleman 
from  Richmond  will  allow  me,  I  desire  to  state  a  fact. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  prefer  that  you  should  make  the 
statement  after  1  get  through. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY,  (in  his  seat.)  The  white  basis  was 
not  thought  of  at  that  time. 

Mr.  STANARD.  Precisely  so,  sir.  And  the  gentle 
man  need  scarcely  have  interrupted  to  make  that  re- 
mark ;  for  if  there  could  be  demonstration  furnished  by 
the  most  solemn  acts  of  the  very  men  who  framed  your 
bill  of  rights  acting  upon  subjects  the  most  momentous 
to  themselves  and  their  posterity,  that  the  idea  that  all 
government  was  an  usurpation  to  which  the  people  or 
the  voters  told  by  the  neadhad  not  given  their  sanction, 
had  never  entered  into  their  imagination,  it  was  furnish- 
ed on  that  occasion.  Had  such  an  idea  ever  been  con- 
ceived by  them  they  would  never  have  adopted  the 
proceedings  above  referred  to,  which  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  what  is  now  and  what  I  trust  will 
continue  to  be  for  all  time  to  come  the  supreme  and 
paramount  law  of  the  land — the  constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Resuming  the  line  of  my  remarks  and  again  advert- 
ing to  the  bill  of  rights,  which  has  been  the  subject  of  so 
much  commentary  here,  and  on  which  so  much  stress 
seems  to  be  laid  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  I 
beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  for  one 
moment  to  the  bill  of  rights  adopted  by  the  men-  who 
composed  the  convention  of  1788,  and  prefixed  by  them 
to  their  ratification  of  the  federal  constitution.  The 
first  section  of  that  instrument  is  in  these  words  : 

"  That  there  are  certain  natural  rights  of  which  men 
when  they  form  a  social  compact  cannot  deprive  or 
divest  their  posterity,  among  which  are  the  enjoyment 
of  life  and  liberty,  with  all  the  means  of  acquiring,  pos- 
sessing, and  protecting  property,  and  pursuing  and  ob- 
taining happiness  and  safety." 

This  section  contains  a  declaration  of  those  natural 
rights  of  which  when  men  enter  into  society,  they  do 
not,  and  cannot  deprive  or  divest  their  posterity,  and 
is  the  same  in  substance,  and  almost  identical  in  lan- 
guage with  the  first  section  of  the  bill  of  rights  pre 
fixed  to  the  constitution  of  1776.  The  second  section 
is  as  follows :  "  That  all  power  is  naturally  vested  in 
and  consequently  derived  from  the  people  ;  that  ma- 
gistrates therefore  are  their  trustees  and  agents,  and  at 
all  times  amenable  to  them  " 

This  again,  is  substantially  the  same  with  the  corres- 
ponding section  of  the  present  bill,  and  shows  most 
clearly  that  the  design  of  that  section  was  as  I  have 
stated  it  to  be,  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  popular  rights 
against  royal  prerogative,  and  to  declare  that  the  peo- 
ple are  not  the  subjects  of  the  prince — but  the  prince  is 
the  servant  of  the  people.  The  first  clause  announcing 
the  principle,  and  the  latter  drawing  the  conclusion 
from  it;  that  ''magistrates,  therefore,  are  their  trus- 
tees and  agents,  and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them.' 

The  1st  and  2d  sections  then  of  the  bills  of  rights  of 
2 


1788  and  1776  are  in  substance  the  same;  and  in  what 
respect  does  the  third  section  of  the  former  differ  from 
the  corresponding  clause  for  which  it  is  substituted  in 
the  latter  ?  Does  it  contain  any  recognition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  mere  numbers,  any  declaration  that  of  all  forms 
of  government,  that  is  best  in  which  the  voters  have  the 
same  or  as  nearly  as  may  be  the  same  political  weight, 
or  in  which  the  vote  of  one  qualified  voter  shall  avail 
as  much  as  that  of  any  other  I  '  Not  at  all.  The  men  of 
1788  like  those  of  1776,  appear  to  have  labored  under 
the  delusion,  that  there  was  no  form  of  government 
which  was  adapted  alike  to  every  condition  of  society  ; 
that  which  was  a  very  good  government  for  one  country 
might  prove  a  very  bad  one  for  another,  and  that  of  all 
forms  of  government  that  was  best  which,  under  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  people  to  whom  it  is  in- 
tended to  apply,  is  calculated  "to  produce  the  greatest 
degree  of  happiness  and  safety,  and  to  afford  the  great- 
est security  against  mal-admiuistration."  The  bill  of 
rights,  therefore  of  1788,  (like  its  counterpart  of  1776.)  in 
its  third  section  sets  forth  the  ends  for  which  government 
should  be  instituted,  and  asserts  in  the  most  unqualified 
terms,  the  right  of  revolution,  when  it  becomes  destruc- 
tive of  those  ends.  It  declares:  "That  government 
ought  to  be  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  protec- 
tion and  security  of  the  people  ;  and  that  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance  against  arbitrary  power  and  oppres- 
sion is  absurd,  slavish  and  destructive  to  the  good  and 
happiness  of  mankind  ;''  thus  branding  with  deserved 
reprobation  that  pernicious  dogma  of  passive  submission 
and  non-resistance  which  as  late  as  the  reign  of  James 
II,  and  since,  was  the  cherished  creed  of  a  large  party 
in  England,  but  not  recognizing  in  any  form  the  despot- 
ic sway  of  the  numerical  majority,  or  substituting  "the 
right  divine"  of  numbers  for  "the  right  divine"  of 
kings,  and  thus  throwing  down  one  idol  only,  to 
erect  another  in  its  stead.  No,  sir,  no.  The  advocates 
of  this  doctrine  of  mere  numbers  when  they  are  seeking 
for  authority  to  sustain  their  position,  will  look  in  vain 
to  the  bills  of  rights,  either  of  1776  or  1788,  as  understood, 
interpreted,  and  acted  on  by  their  authors  themselves  ; 
they  must  look  elsewhere  than  to  the  declarations  or  the 
acts  of  those  wise  and  practical  statesmen,  those  virtu- 
ous and  enlightened  men  who,  chastened  by  the  frills, 
and  purified  by  the  fires  of  the  revolution, 'laid  br^ad 
and  deep  the  foundations  of  that  temple  in  which  we 
are  now  worshipping,  and  in  which  I  trust  our  children 
and  our  children's  children  will  long  continue  to  wor- 
ship. Those  men  were  no  visionary  speculators — no 
mere  theorists  and  sciolists  in  government  who  pos- 
sessed with  a  single  idea,  would  apply  it  to  society  like 
the  rack  of  Proerastes  to  his  victims,  and  cut  and  clip 
and  wrench  the  body  politic  until  it  was  made  to  con- 
form to  some  preconceived  theory;  but  they  were  prac- 
tical and  enlightened  statesmen,  who  looking  to  govern- 
ment not  as  an  end,  but  as  a  means,  would  so  ordain  it 
as  in  their  own  language  to  "produce  the  greatest  degree 
of  happiness  and  safety,  and  to  be  most  effectually  se- 
cured against  the  danger  of  mal-administration  ,'  And 
can  that  government  be  said  "to  be  most  effectually  se- 
cured against  the  danger  of  mal-administration,"  in  the 
very  organization  of  which  the  tax  laying  power  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  tax-paying  duty  \  in  which  you  confer 
on  the  one  section  of  State  the  principal  right  of  lay- 
ing and  of  appropriating,  while  you  impose  on  another 
section  the  principal  duty  of  paying  taxes  for  the 
support  of  government  ?  In  which  finally  no  relation 
is  recognized  between  representation  and  taxation,  but 
the  legislative  department  is  organized  on  numbers 
alone  ?  We  say  no ;  and  standing  upon  the  bill  of 
rights  itself,  appealing  to  the  principles  as  well  as  the 
practice  of  our  forefathers,  we  maintain  that  the  legis- 
lative department  should  be  so  organized  a9  to  recog- 
nise the  relation  between  representation  and  taxation, 
and  to  confer  upon  those  who  pay  the  taxes,  the  power 
to  say  what  taxes  shall  be  raised,  and  how,  when  raised, 
they  shall  be  applied.  This  is  what  we  propose  to  ac- 
complish by  the  mixed  basis  of  representation ;  which, 


10 


looking  neither  to  population  alone  nor  to  taxation 
alone,  but  to  population  and  taxation  equally  combined, 
was  so  triumphantly  vindicated  by  the  representatives 
of  Eastern  Virginia  in  the  convention  of  1829-'30,  and 
to  the  principles  of  which  a  decided  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  were  understood  to  be  pledged 
wheu  they  took  their  seats  on  this  floor. 

But  it  has  been  asserted  here  more  than  once 
that  while  gentlemen  were  committed  to  the  mixed 
basis,  they  were  not  at  all  committed  to  the  pro- 
portion, or  as  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (:V'r.  Wise,) 
has  been  pleased  to  express  it,  "  the  mixture"  of  the 
mixed  basis — but  that  its  proportions,  (that  is  the  pro- 
portion in  which  population  and  taxation  should  respec- 
tively enter  as  elements  of  representation,)  might  vary 
almost,  if  not  altogether  without  any  limit  whatsoever. 
According  to  this  idea,  the  mixed  basis  would  certainly 
be  a  very  convenient  sort  of  doctrine,  as  it  might  be 
made  to  mean  any  thing,  every  thing,  or  nothing  at  all, 
precisely  as  gentlemen  thought  proper  to  interpret  it. 
They  have  only  to  add  to  the  weight  given  to  the  ele- 
ment of  population,  and  diminish  that  given  to  the  ele- 
ment of  taxation,  to  make  the  mixed  basis  under  this 
view  of  it,  mean  any  thing  short  of  the  white  basis  it- 
self, and  thus  get  rid  in  a  very  summary  manner  of  any  in- 
convenient trammels  that  might  be  imposed  by  such 
things  as  pledges  or  instructions  But  unfortunately 
for  those  (if  any  such  there  be)  who  are  disposed  to 
adopt  this  convenient  theory,  I  am  prepared  to  show  by 
the  most  incontrovertible  evidence  that  the  mixed  basis, 
as  proposed  by  Judge  Green,  and  advocated  by  the  re- 
presentatives from  the  East  in  the  convention  of  1829-30, 
as  it  was  understood  then,  and  as  it  has  been  under- 
stood ever  since  meant  and  never  did  mean  but  one  thing, 
and  that  was,  that  population  and  taxation  should  enter 
equally  into  the  apportionment  of  representative  power 
— in  other  words,  when  you  base  representation  on  the 
mixed  basis,  you  base  it  one  half  on  population  and  one 
half  on  taxation.  That,  I  say,  was  the  only  mixed  ba- 
sis ever  heard  of  in  the  former  conveution,  or  in  the 
great  debate  that  took  place  on  judge  Green's  amend- 
ment. It  is  the  mixed  basis  as  it  has  been  uniformly  recog- 
nized since  1829,  in  the  discussions  which,  from  time 
to  time,  have  taken  place  in  the  legislature.  It  is  the 
principle  embodied  in  the  bill  calling  this  very  Conven- 
tion, the  basis  on  which  this  Convention  itself  is  organ- 
ized, and  according  to  which  we  hold  our  seats  here.  I 
feel  it  my  duty  in  this  connection  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  committee  for  a  short  time  to  tue  language  of 
my  friend  from  Berkely  (Mr.  Faulener)  and  I  must  be 
permitted,  with  all  respect,  to  say  that  I  think  if  that 
gentleman  had  exhibited  the  ability  which  we  all  know 
he  possesses,  in  the  candid  investigation  of  this  question 
as  presented  by  the  debates  of  the  convention  of  1829- 
'30  he  never  could  have  fallen  into  the  error  contained 
in  the  extract  I  am  about  to  read  from  the  speech  re- 
cently delivered  by  him.    Here  is  what  he  said  : 

''If  the  old,  original  scheme  of  the  combined  basis  were 
now  before  us — that  scheme,  I  mean,  which  aggregated 
the  population  and  taxation  of  the  entire  State,  and  by 
means  of  a  common  quotient,  ascertained  a  ratio  com- 
mon to  the  entire  State,  it  might  not  be  liable  to  this 
particular  objection  which  I  am  now  urging.  But  that 
scheme  is  far  too  weak  for  the  purpose  for  which  this 
is  now  intended.  It  could  only  retain  power  to  the 
east  a  few  years  more.  When  Thomas  R.  Joynes  in 
that  celebrated  speech  which  he  made  in  the  convention 
in  1829,  and  which  has  furnished  the  armory  of  statis- 
ts from  which  his  friends  have  been  supplied  with  wea- 
pons of  defence  ever  since — I  say,  when  Mr.  Joynes  then 
announced  that  upon  the  combined  basis,  the  west  would 
have  the  control  of  the  legislative  power  in  185*7,  he 
stated  what  upon  that  principle  would  be  so ;  he,  at  least, 
little  dreamed  that  after  a  lapse  of  twenty  years,  anew 
device  would  be  resorted  to,  which  would  postpone  this 
consummation  some  forty  or  fifty  years  longer.  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  you  cannot  find  amongst  the  de- 
bates of  1829-'30,  allusion  to  that  South  Carolina 


scheme  which  is  now  sought  to  be  pressed  upon  us,  but 
I  do  say  that  with  the  solitary  exception  of  one  brief 
allusion  to  it  by  Mr.  Leigh,  the  references  to  this  par- 
ticular scheme  were  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  mixed 
basis,  and  made  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  to  the 
convention  an  illustration,  in  its  most  abhorrent  form, 
of  the  practical  operation  of  the  principle  they  were  op- 
posing. This  scheme  in  its  present  deformity  never 
was  submitted  by  any  eastern  man  to  the  consideration 
of  that  convention.  I  have  no  doubt,  if  it  had  been,  it 
would  have  been  promptly  scouted  by  that  illustrious 
body."    _  3 

Now,  sir,  I  have  read  the  whole  of  this  extract,  so 
that  I  might  not  do  my  friend  from  Berkeley  any  possi- 
ble injustice  ;  so  that  I  might  present  him  before  the  Con- 
vention and  the  country  precisely  as  he  has  thought 
proper  to  present  himself ;  and  having  done  that,  I 
take  occasion  to  say,  that  so  far  from  the  mixed  bixsis  of 
1829,  being  what  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley  has 
been  pleased  to  represent  it  ;  so  far  from  its  being  true 
that  the  mixed  basis,  as  advocated  in  the  convention  of 
1829-'30,  involved  on  any  scheme  or  idea  whatsoever 
of  aggregating  or  compounding  population  and  taxes, 
men  and  money  together,  and  thence  deducing  the  ratio 
of  apportionment,  that  very  idea  was  expressly  repudiated, 
and  the  mixed  basis  as  proposed  in  the  convention 
of  1829--' 30,  and  as  it  has  been  insisted  upon  ever 
since,  and  is  insisted  on  now,  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  the  basing  one  moiety  of  representation  upon  the 
white  population,  and  the  other  moiety  upon  taxation. 
In  other  words,  it  is  the  same  principle  which  in  1808, 
was  engrafted  in  the  constitution  of  South  Carolina, 
and  was  distinctly  so  recognized  by  the  leading  mem- 
bers on  both  sides,  who  took  part  in  the  debate  of  1829- 
'30.  Now,  sir,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  South  Caro- 
lina scheme  of  representation.  The  popular  branch 
consists  of  124  members,  of  which  62  are  given  to 
population,  and  62  to  taxation,  the  South  Carolina  con- 
stitution providing  that,  "  in  assessing  representation  to 
the  several  districts  of  the  State,  the  legislature  shall 
allow  one  representative  for  every  sixty -second  part  of 
the  whole  number  of  white  inhabitants  in  the  State,  and 
one  representative  for  every  sixty-second  part  of  the 
whole  taxes  raised  by  the  legislature  of  the  State," 
and  a  reference  to  the  debates  of  1829-'30,  will  show 
that  this  was  precisely  the  mixed  basis  proposed  by 
Judge  Green's  amendment  as  understood,  advocated  and 
opposed  by  leading  members  on  both  sides  in  the  con- 
vention of  that  day.  Thus  Mr.  Leigh  says,  (p.  163,) 
"South  Carolina  finding  herself  in  circumstances  similar 
to  ours,  though  the  diversity  of  interest  is  by  no  means  so 
great  there  as  here,  has  adopted  thai  very  compound  basis 
of  population  and  taxation  which  the  amendment  of  my 
friend  from  Culpeper  (Judge  Green,)  proposes."  This  is 
what  Mr.  Leigh  t  aid,  and  what  says  Mr.  Johnson,  the 
lea  ding  opponent  of  the  mixed  basis  in  the  convention  of 
1829— '30,  as  Mr.  Leigh  was  its  leading  advocate  ?  Here 
is  what  Mr.  Johnson  says,  (p.  278,)  speaking  of  the 
South  Carolina  Constitution  :  "  In  1808,  the  constitution 
of  the  house  of  representatives  was  changed  by  intro- 
ducing into  it,  what  ? — '  the  precise  compound  basis  now 
proposed  to  us  by  the  gentleman  from  Culpeper!  The 
precedent,  as  it  regards  the  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature,  seems  to  be  in  point,  and  how  far  we  shall 
respect  its  authority,  it  is  for  the  good  sense  of  this 
committee  to  decide." 

Mr.  FAULKNER.  I  would  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  the  city  of  Richmond,  (Mr.  Stanabtd,)  whether 
Judge  Green  ever  made  that  explanation  of  this  propo- 
sition ? 

Mr.  STAN ARD.  Precisely  that,  and  I  will  show  it, 
not  only  by  the  statement  of  Judge  Green  himself,  but 
by  the  admission  of  western  gentlemen,  in  commenting 
upon  Judge  Green's  position.  I  have  referred  to  the 
speeches  of  Mr.  Leigh  and  Mr.  Johnson,  but  I  have  not 
read  all  that  Mr.  Johnson  said  on  this  subject.  I  refer 
to  the  remarks  of  that  gentleman,  at  p.  265  ;  and  I  wish 
particularly  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  from 


11 


Berkely  (Mr.  Faulkner)  to  the  passage,  which  I  am  sure 
he  has  not  read,  for  if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  haz- 
arded the  assertion  he  has  made  with  respect  to  the 
mixed  basis  of  1829-'30.  "The  proposition  to  amend," 
(-ays  Mr.  Johnson,  speaking  of  the  mixed  basis,  as  pro 
p>sed  by  the  amendment  of  Jjidge  Green,)  "which  of- 
fers the  basis  of  population  and  taxation  combined,  is 
not  very  definite  in  its  term,  but  as  explained  by  its  mo- 
ver is  very  intelligible.  It  does  not  propose  to  compound 
the  number  of  dollars  paid  for  taxes  in  each  district,  icith 
the  number  of  white  persons  therein,  and  thence  derive  the 
rule  for  apportionment,  but  it  proposes  to  compound  the 
ratios  of  taxation  and  numbers,  thus  to  give  one  half  the 
delegates  according  to  the  ratio  of  taxes  paid,  and  the  other 
half  according  to  the  ratio  of  white  persons — or  thus  take 
for  each  district  the  mean  proportional  between  the 
number  it  would  be  entitled  to  according  to  the  ratio 
of  white  persons,  and  the  number  it  would  be  entitled 
to  according  to  the  ratio  of  taxes  paid.    To  illustrate  : 


from  Berkeley  by  referring  him  to  the  explanation  to 
which  he  seems  to  attach  such  peculiar  importance.  It 
occurred  as  well  as  I  recollect,  in  the  course  of  the  re- 
marks of  Mr.  Mercer,  and  here  it  is.  If  the  gentleman 
from  Berkeley  will  refer  to  p.  179  of  the  debates,  he  will 
find  what  passed  between  Mr.  Mercer  and  Judge  Green 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Mercer  having  inquired  "  whether  gentlemen 
would  adopt  the  plan  of  South  Carolina,  and  distribute 
the  territory  of  this  Commonwealth  into  two  descrip- 
tions of  election  districts,  one  in  reference  to  free  white 
population — the  other  to  taxation  as  it  now  exists  ?" 
Mr.  Green  (I  read  from  p.  179,)  explained,  but  in  so  low 
a  tone  of  voiee,  that  the  reporter  could  not  catch  his 
language. 

Mr.  Mercer  regretted  that  he  had  been  unable  to  hear 
distinctly  the  explanation  of  the  gentleman  from  Cul- 
peper,  but  from  the  few  words  which  had  reached  him, 
he  inferred  it  to  be  his  intention  to  adopt  the  system  of 


The  Trans-alleghany  would  be  entitled,  on  the  basis  of  South  Carolina,  and  to  divide  the  State  into  two  sorts  of 
white  population,  to  31  ;  on  the  basis  of  taxes,  to  11  ;  election  districts.  (Mr.  Green  having  changed  his  seat 
on  the  compound  (or  mixed)  basis  (of  population  and  in  the  hall,  again  rose  for  explanation.    He  explained 


taxation)  to  twenty-one  and  a  half,  (adding  32  to  11  and 
dividing  by  2.)  The  Valley  on  white  population  24, 
taxes  10,  compound  basis  17 — middle  district  on  white 
population  35.  taxes  49,  compound  42 — eastern  district 
on  white  population  29,  taxes  41,  compound  35." 

The  mixed  basis  of  1829--'30,  then,  did  not  propose  to 
do  what  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley  says  it  proposed  ; 
but  it  did  propose  precisely  what  we  now  propose,  and 
that  is,  to  give  one  half  of  the  delegates  in  proportion 
to  the  amount  of  taxes  paid,  and  the  other  half  accord- 
ing to  the  ratio  of  white  persons.  This,  then,  is  the 
mixed  basis  of  1929--S0,  as  explained  by  Judge  Green, 
who  moved  it,  and  re-explained  by  Mr.  Johnson,  wh© 
opposed  it.  Here  is  the  sum  worked  out  in  figures  by 
Mr.  Johnson,  precisely  as  we  now  propose  to  work  it 
out.  And  what  says  Mr.  Summers  on  the  same  point, 
another  prominent  member  of  the  convention  of  1829- 
'30.  Speaking  of  the  mixed  basis  as  advocated  in  that 
convention,  he  says,  (p.  662,)  "their  principles  of  com- 
bination required  that,  to  ascertain  the  number  of  dele- 
gates to  which  any  particular  district  would  be  entitled, 
it  was  first  necessary  to  find  xchat  number  would  be  given 
by  while  population,  and  secondly ,  what  number  the  tax 
paid  by  the  district,  woidd  entitle  it  to.  The  combined  re- 
sult divided  or  averaged,  was  then  assumed  as  the  proper 
representation.  " 

I  hope  then,  there  will  at  least  be  an  end  of  the  ques- 
tion, as  to  what  was  the  mixed  basis  proposed  and  ad- 
vocated in  the  convention  of  1829- '30.  Whatever  dif- 
ference of  opinion  may  exist  on  other  points,  there  can, 
I  submit,  be  none  upon  this.  If  gentlemen  are  not  pre- 
pared to  adopt  the  mixed  basis,  I  trust  they  will  at  least- 
meet  it  fairly — meet  it  as  it  was  proposed  and  insisted 
on  then,  and  as  it  is  proposed  and  insisted  on  now. 


it  to  be  his  plan  to  take  the  white  population  of  the 
State,  and  the  population  of  each  county.  Apply  the 
rule.  Population  gives  to  representation  in  proportion 
to  numbers.  See  the  number  of  representatives  required. 
In  like  manner,  take  the  whole  taxes  of  the  State,  and 
those  of  each  county,  if  the  taxes  give  the  like  rule 
for  the  county,  add  them  together,  and  that  is  the  rule. 

There,  sir,  is  the  sum  again  worked  out — the  amend- 
ment of  Judge  Green  as  explained  by  the  mover,  to  which 
Mr.  Johnson  in  his  remarks  just  quoted  refers — the 
mixed  basis,  as  proposed  in  the  convention  of  1829-30, 
one-half  on  white  population,  one-half  on  taxes — the 
only  mixed  basis  that  was  ever  thought  of  by  the  men 
of  that  day — the  basis  on  which  the  east  has  stood  from 
that  day  to  this,  and  to  which  (as  I  have  said  before) 
a  decided  majority  of  this  convention  were  understood 
to  be  pledged  t\  hen  they  took  their  seats  on  this  floor. 

I  hope  these  "extracts  from  the  record"  will  be  suf- 
ficient to  satisfy  the  committee,  if  not  the  gentleman 
from  Berkeley  himself  of  the  very  grave  error  into 
which  he  has  fallen.  There  is,  however,  one  other  view 
to  which  I  will  advert  before  I  pass  from  this  subject. 
It  was  agreed  upon  all  hands  that  in  1829,  the  mixed 
basis  as  proposed  and  practically  worked  out  at  that  day, 
and  federal  numbers,  produced  the  same  result.  This 
Mr.  Cooke  (p.  550)  and  other  gentlemen  emphatically 
declare.  1  have  taken  therefore  the  federal  numbers  of 
1829,  and  worked  it  out,  and  I  find  that  according  to 
this  basis,  in  a  house  of  134  members  the  west  would 
have  been  entitled  to  forty-seven  delegates.  I  then  pro- 
ceeded to  ascertain  the  number  of  delegates  to  which  the 
west  would  have  been  entitled  in  1829,  in  a  house  of  134 
members,  upon  the  mixed  basis  worked  out  precisely  as 
we  now  propose  to  work  it  out,  and  I  find  the  result  is 


Mr.  FAULKNER.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  refer  to  j  precisely  the  same,  and  that  it  gives  forty-seven  mem- 
Judge  Green's  explanation  of  his  amendment.  What  I  bers  west  of  the  blue  ridge.  And  this  result  cannot  be 
said  was,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  explanation  of!  produced  on  any  other  basis  than  that  which  apportions, 
Mr.  Leigh,  I  did  not  recollect  that  it  was  referred  to  by  one-half  the  representation  to  the  white  population  and 


any  mixed  basis  advocate,  but  the  reference  to  it  was  by 
the  opponents  of  the  mixed  basis,  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
hibiting the  scheme  in  its  most  odious  and  most  abhor- 
rent form.  Now,  I  want  to  know  where  Judge  Green 
has  explained  the  proposition  as  advocated  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  the  city  of  Richmond,  (Mr.  Staxaed.) 
Mr.  STAN ARD.    And  I  wi^h  to  know  whether  I  am 


the  other  half  to  the  taxes  paid.  I  shall  not  detain 
the  committee  by  going  over  these  calculations — they 
are  before  me  and  any  gentleman  may  examine  tbem 
for  himself.  Looking  then  to  the  mixed  basis  as  it  really 
is  and  always  has  been,  and  standing  on  the  same  ground 
in  1850-51  on  which  our  fathers  stood  in  1829-30,  what, 
I  ask,  is  there  in  that  proposition  as  applied  to  the  po- 


to  understand  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley  as  assert-  \  litical  condition  of  this  State  to  provoke  or  to  justify 
ing  before  this  committee  and  the  country,  that  Mr.  j  the  denunciation  with  which  it  has  been  assailed  ?  Is 
Johnson  did  not  understand  Judge  Green's  proposition,  !it  an  extreme  proposition  conceived  and  adhered  to  in  an 


when  he  made  the  explanation  of  it,  I  have  just  read, 
in  the  presence  of  Judge  Green,  and  uncontradicted  by 
him,  and  stated  that  that  was  Judge  Green's  amend- 


uncompromising  spirit,  with  a  view  merely  to  claim  and 
to  conquer  power  for  power's  sake  ?  a  scheme  of  repre- 
sentation by  which  the  east  demands  everything  and 


ment  as  explained  by  its  mover  7  Is  the  gentleman  from  j  yields  nothing?  To  judge  from  the  strain  of  invec- 
Berkeley  prepared  to  assume  this  position?  But  sir,  jtivein  which  gentlemen  have  so  freely  indulged  one 
my  strong  impression  is  that  Judge  Green  himself,  gave  j  would  imagine  the  mixed  basis  to  be  all  this  and  worse; 
the  same  explanation,  and  if  the  committee  will  indulge  i  and  yet  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  mixed  ba- 
me  for  a  moment,  I  think  I  can  gratify  the  gentleman  |  sis  is  itself  a  compromise.    It  is  no  extreme  proposition, 


12 


but  a  compromise,  and  in  the  opinion  and  in  the  language 
of  such  men  as  John  Marshall,  a  "  fair  and  just  compro- 
mise" between  extremes,  and  as  such,  was  offered  by 
the  eas;  to  the  west  in  th«  last  convention.  On  this 
point  T  need  appeal  to  no  higher  authority  than  that  of 
one  of  the  wisest  and  purest  men  that  ever  adorned  the 
annals  of  this  or  any  other  country.  In  the  debates  ol 
1829-30  Judge  Marshall  says :  (I  read  from  page  498.) 

"  I  would  observe  that  this  basis  of  representation  is  a 
matter  so  important  to  Virginia,  that  the  subject  was 
reviewed  by  every  thinking  individual  before  this  Con- 
vention assembled.  Several  different  plans  were  con- 
templated. The  basis  of  white  population  alone;  the 
basis  of  free  population  alone ;  a  basis  of  population 
alone;  a  basis  compounded  of  taxation  and  white  pop- 
ulation, (or  which  is  the  same  thing,  a  basis  of  federal 
numbers :)  two  other  bases  were  also  proposed,  one  re- 
ferring to  the  total  population  of  the  State,  the  other 
to  taxation  alone,  Now,  of  these  various  propositions, 
the  basis  of  white  population,  and  the  basis  of  taxation 
alone  are  the  two  extremes.  Between  the  free  popula 
tion  and  the  white  population  there  is  almost  no  differ- 
ence :  between  the  basis  of  total  population  and  the  ba- 
sis of  taxation,  there  is  but  little  difference.  The  peo- 
ple of  the  east  thought  that  they  offered  a  fair  compromise 
ivhen  they  -proposed  the  compound  basis  of  population  and 
taxation,  or  the  basis  of  the  federal  numbers.  We  thought 
that  we  had  republican  precedent  for  this — a  precedent 
given  ux  by  the  wisest  and  truest  patriots  that  ever 
were  assembled." 

And  what  was  that  precedent  and  what  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  it  was  based?  Sir,  it  was  the  pre- 
cedent of  the  federal  constitution  based  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  American  Revolution — on  that  princi- 
ple which  proclaimed  that  representation  and  taxa- 
tion should  go  hand  in  hand — on  that  principle  to 
which  Judge  Marshall  refers  when,  in  the  same  speech 
from  which  I  have  just  quoted,  he  says:  *'One  gentle- 
"  man  seems  to  imagine  that  we  claim  nothing  of  repub- 
"  lican  principles  when  we  claim  a  representation  for 
V  property.  Permit  me  to  set  him  right.  I  do  not  say 
"  that  I  hope  to  satisfy  him  or  others,  who  say  thatrepub- 
"  lican  government  depends  on  adopting  the  naked  prin- 
"  ciple  of  numbers,  that  we  are  right ;  but  I  think  I  can 
"  satisfy  him  that  we  do  entertain  a  different  opinion.  I 
"  think  the  soundest  principles  of  republicanism  do  sanc- 
"  tion  some  relation  between  representation  and  taxa- 
"  tion.  Certainly  no  opinion  has  received  the  sanction 
"  of  wiser  statesmen  and  patriots.  1 think  the  two  ought 
"  to  be  connected.  I  think  this  was  the  principle  of  the 
"  revolution  :  the  ground  on  which  the  colonies  were  torn 
"from  the  mother  country  and  made  independent  States.\ 
Yet,  I  understood  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  (Mr. 
Stewart)  last  ni^ht  to  talk  about  this  as  a  monstrous 
falsificationof  history — the  assertion  that  it  was  a  prin- 
ciple of  the  American  revolution,  that  representation 
and  taxation  should  go  hand  in  hand.  Now,  sir,  with 
all  due  respect  for  the  authority  of  that  gentleman,  and 
of  the  book  from  which  he  read,  (some  history  of  Ma- 
ryland I  believe,)  I  must  be  pardoned  if  I  choose  rather 
to  rely  upon  the  authority  of  Judge  Marshall  upon  this 
subject. 

Mr.  STEWART,  of  Morgan.  The  gentleman  will 
allow  me  one  moment.  I  did  not  deny  that  representa- 
tion and  taxation  are  to  go  hand  in  hand.  It  was  with 
reference  to  the  colonial  fixation  that  the  authority 
which  had  been  quoted  here  was  cited,  the  idea  that  the 
colonies  complained  because  they  were  not  represented 
in  the  British  Parliament. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  believe  I  understood  the  gentle- 
man, and  did  not  mis-state  his  position.  Gentlemen  do 
not  venture  to  deny  that  representation  and  taxation 
i  hould  go  together.  On  the  contrary,  the  gentleman 
from  Augusta  (Mr.  Sheffey,)  who  opened  this  discus- 
sion on  the  white  basis  side,  stated  expressly  that  taxa- 
tion without  representation  was  tyranny,  but  he  and 
others  who  followed  him  seemed  to  be  impressed  with 
the  idea  that  if  there  is  any  representation  at  all  (it  I 


matters  not  how  trivial  it  is,  and  how  great  the  dispro- 
portion between  it  and  taxation  may  be,)  the  principle 
of  the  revolution  is  satisfied.  Although  this  was  a  ques- 
tion of  sufficient  magnitude  to  cause  our  forefathers  in 
1776,  to  sever  their  connection  with  the  British  crown, 
yet  their  wiser  descendants  in  the  year  1851  would  make 
it  out  to  be  the  merest  abstraction  conceivable.  Ac- 
cording to  the  modern  lights  in  the  science  of  govern- 
ment, with  which  we  have  been  favored  on  this  occa- 
sion, if  the  tax-paying  portion  of  the  community  has- 
one  representative  and  the  non-tax-paying  forty  repre- 
sentatives, this  is  not  taxation  without  representation — 
by  no  means  ;  the  revolutionary  principle  that  taxation 
and  representation  shall  go  hand  in  hand  is  preserved 
intact — and  there  is  no  manner  of  oppression  or  tyran- 
ny in  such  a  government  as  that.  Sir,  I  tell  gentlemen 
that  our  forefathers  contended  for  no  such  absurdity ; 
they  fought  and  bled  for  no  such  shadow.  The  princi- 
ple for  which  they  contended  was,  that  there  should  be 
such  a  proportion,  such  a  ratio  between  representation 
and  taxation,  that  those  who  paid  the  taxes  showldbe  able 
to  control  those  who  levied  them.  Whether  representation 
and  taxation  should  be  to  each  in  precise  arithmetical  or 
geometrical  proportion  was  immaterial.  It  rarely,  if 
ever  happens,  that  the  exact  sciences  can  be  applied  to 
the  measurement  of  moral  or  political  quantities.  But 
if  the  acknowledged  principle,  that  taxation  and  repre- 
sentation shall  go  hand  in  hand,  means,  or  ever  meant 
anything,  it  means  and  always  meant,  that  the  propor- 
tion between  taxation  and  representation  should  be 
such  as  to  protect  the  tax-payer  by  the  immediate  and 
direct  responsibility  of  the  tax-levier — and  it  never 
meant  that  any  government  should  be  so  organized  as 
to  confer  on  one  section  of  the  State,  the  principal 
power  of  laying  taxes,  while  it  devolved  on  another 
the  principal  duty  of  paying  the  taxes  so  laid.  Look, 
sir  to  the  very  first  act  of  those  patriots  and  sages  who 
had  just  passed  the  fiery  ordeal  when  they  met  together 
in  1787,  for  the  purpose  of  framing  the  federal  consti- 
tution. Upon  what  principle  did  those  men,  fresh  from 
the  fires  of  the  revolution,  propose  to  organize  that  de- 
partment of  the  government  to  which  the  right  of  rais- 
ing revenue,  of  laying  and  of  appropriating  taxes  should 
be  confided?  They  were  engaged  in  framing  a  govern- 
ment that  should  be  at  the  same  time  federal  and  nation- 
al— federal  in  some  of  its  features — national  in  others^ 
A  government  in  which  the  States  should  be  represent- 
ed in  one  branch,  and  the  people  in  another  ;  but  which 
unlike  the  old  confederation  should  act  not  on  the  States, 
but  on  the  people  ;  and  in  organizing  that  branch  of  the 
legislative  department  in  which  the  people  of  all  the 
States  should  be  represented  by  delegates  selected  di- 
rectly from  among  themselves — that  popular  branch 
'in  which  ivas  to  be  vested  the  sole  power  of  originating  mo- 
ney bills,  or  in  other  words  the  sole  power  of  taxation, 
upon  what  principle  I  say,  did  these  men  base  repre- 
sentation in  that  branch?  Sir,  they  based  it  on  taxation 
alone  Sir,  I  repeat  it,  and  I  vouch  the  proceedings  and 
debates  of  1787  to  sustain  me  in  the  assertion  that  by 
the  framers  of  the  federal  constitution,  representation 
in  the  house  of  representatives  was  based  on  taxation 
alone,  and  what  is  known  as  federal  numbers  was  resorted 
t  merely  as  a  measure  of  the  wealth  of  t  e  country,  or  of  its 
ability  to  pay  taxes — and  consequently  the  amount  of  tax- 
es to  be  paid.  In  other  words  the  federal  number  was 
adopted  as  a  convenient,  and  under  the  circumstances 
the  most  convenient  measure  of  taxation — and  thus  it 
is,  that  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  repre- 
sentation and  direct  taxation  are  apportioned  to  each 
other  and  are  each  apportioned  to  the  common  ratio  of 
federal  numbers. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  fear  that  I  may  be  wearying  the 
committee  and  I  am  certainly  exhausting  myself  ;  but  I 
trust  the  committee  will  bear  with  me.  [Cries  of  go 
on— e;o  on.]  There  have  been  upon  this  subject  and 
especially  upon  this  branch  of  the  subject  which  I  am 
now  considering,  positions  of  so  extraordinary  a  char- 
acter assumed,  and  that  too  by  gentlemen  of  the  highest 
intelligence  and  respectability  that  I  regard  it  as  due  to 


the  truth  of  history — as  due  to  the  men  who  framed 
tie  federal  constitut  on — as  due  to  truth  and  justice  and 
aid  right,  as  well  as  to  the  position  I  maintain,  to  go 
fully  into  this  subject,  and  even  at  the  hazard  of  being 
tedious  and  of  abusing  the  kind  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee, to  trace  the  provision  in  question  step  by  step, 
and  to  show  as  1  think  I  can  conclusively  show  from  the 


of  it  had  a  right  to  preponderate,  and  he  could  not  deny 
it.  But  he  wished  it  not  to  preponderate  hereafter, 
when  the  reason  no  longer  continued.  From  the  nature 
of  man,  we  may  be  sure  that  those  who  have  power  in 
their  hands  will  not  give  it  up  while  they  can  retain  it. 
On  the  contrary,  we  know  that  they  -will  always,  when 
they  can,  rather  increase  it.    If- the  southern  States, 


record,  that  by  the  federal  constitution  representation  j therefore,  should  have  three-fourths  of  the  people  of 
in  the  lower  house  was  based  on  taxation  alone.  Now  America  within  their  limits,  the  northern  will  hold  fast 
then  to  the  proof.  I  have  before  me  the  debates  and  pro-  jthe  majority  of  representatives.  One-fourth  will  gov- 
ceedings  of  the  convention  of  1787,  as  reported  by  James  Urn  the  three-fourths.  The  southern  States  will  com- 
Madison — and  I  will  refer  in  the  first  place  to  the  origin  j  plain,  but  they  may  complain  from  generation  to  gene- 
al  report  of  the  committee  of  five,  to  whom  was  refer-  ration  without  redress.  Unless  some  principle,  there- 
red  the  subject  of  representation  in  the  house  of  rep-  fore,  which  will  give  justice  to  them  hereafter,  shall  be 
resentatives,  or  the  first  branch  of  the  legislature  as  it 
was  then  styled.  This  report  will  be  found  at  p.  1051. 
It  provides  of  what  number  of  members  the  first  con- 


gress shall  consist,  and  assigns  to  each  State  its  repre- 
sentatives, and  then  proceeds  as  follows  : 

"  But  as  the  present  situation  of  the  States  may  pro- 
bably alter,  as  well  in  point  of  wealth  as  in  the  number 
"of  t!  eir  inhabitants,  that  the  legislature  be  authorized 
"from  time  to  time  to  augment  the  number  of  represen- 
tatives. And  in  case  any  of  the  States  may  hereafter 
"be  divided,  or  any  two  or  more  States  united,  or  any 
"new  States  created  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
"States,  the  legislature  shall  possess  authority  to  regu- 
*'late  the  number  of  representatives  in  any  of  the  fore- 
"going  cases,  upon  the  principles  of  their  icealth  and  num- 
"6er  of  inhabitants".  On  the  basis,  in  other  words,  of  pro- 
perty and  persons,  in  the  laryest  sense — that  i,s  the  total 


inserted  in  the  constitution,  disagreeable  as  the  decla- 
ration was  to  him,  he  must  declare  he  could  neither 
vote  for  the  system  here,  nor  support  it  in  his  State." 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  what  that  principle  should 
be,  and  expressly  maintains  that  "numbers  of  inhabi- 
tants, thougrt  not  always  a  precise  standara  of  wealth,  was 
sufficiently  so  for  every  substantial  purpose."  This  was 
the  language  then  held  by  George  Mason,  and  what 
said  James  Madison  on  the  same  occasion  and  in  the 
progress  of  the  same  debate  ]  In  answer  to  Governeur 
Morris,  who  was  opposed  to  fixing  any  standard  in  the 
constitution,  wishing  to  leave  the  whole  matter  to  the 
discretion  of  the  northern  majority  in  Congress,  and  in- 
sisting that  "  the  best  course  that  could  be  taken  would 
be  to  leave  the  interests  of  the  people  to  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people" — Mr.  Madison  emphatically  re- 
marked,   that  he  was  not  a  little  surprised  to  hear  this 


population — all  the  inhabitants  of  whatever  description,  j  implicit  confidence  urged  by  a  member  who,  on  all 
Thus  it  will  be  perceived  it  was  proposed  originally  to  ;Sions,  had  inculcated  so  strongly  the  political  depravity 
base  the  representation  of  the  different  States  in  the  |  of  men,  and  the  necessity  of  checking  one  vice  and  in- 


popular  branch  "  on  the  principles  of  then  wealth  and 
number  of  inhabitants" — not  the  w  ute  inhabitants,  or 
the  free  inhabitants,  but  the  whole  number  of  inhabi- 
tants, white  and  black,  bond  and  free.  And  when  this 
proposition  came  to  be  voted  on,  the  vote  stood — ayes, 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia — 9.  Xoes — New  York,  New  Jersey.  So  that 
it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  nine  States,  (among  which 
was  Virginia)  in  the  affirmative,  to  two  in  the  negative. 

The  committee  will  not  fail  to  observe,  however,  that 
while,  by  this  vote,  the  principle  of  regulating  repre- 
sentation by  wealth  and  the  number  of  inhabitants 
was  adopted  and  recognized,  it  was  yet  left  discretionary 
with  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  after  it  should 
assemble,  to  carry  out  that  provision,  and  to  determine 
in  what  manner  representation  should  be  apportioneu 
among  ihe  several  States  upon  the  principles  thus  de- 
clared. And  what  was  the  position  of  parties  in  the 
country  at  that  time  ?  The  northern  States  had  a  ma- 
jority of  the  whole  population,  and  a  majority  of  wealth, 
and  in  the  first  Congress  there  was  obliged  to  be  a  ma- 
jority of  representatives  from  the  northern  States. 
Under  &uch  circumstances,  the  representatives  from  the 
southern  States  were  afraid  that,  if  the  provision  were 
adopted  in  the  vague  form  in  which  it  was  reported,  and 
no  standard  fixed  in  the  constitution,  the  northern  ma- 
jority might  refuse  to  carry  out  these  principles,  and 
make  a  fair  apportionment,  and  therefore  the  question 
arose  as  to  adopting  a  rule  by  which  Congress  should 
be  regulated  in  carrying  out  the  provision  just  adopted 
in  the  future  apportionments  of  representation ;  and  it 
was  to  this  question  that  George  Mason  was  addressing 
himself  when  he  made  the  remarks  I  am  about  to  quote 
from  page  1065. 

"  The  greater  the  difficulty  (says  Mr.  Mason)  we  find 
in  fixing  aproper  rule  of  representation,  the  more  unwil- 
ling ought  we  to  be  to  throw  the  task  from  ourselves  on 
the  general  legislature.  He  did  not  object  to  the  con- 
jectural ratio,  which  was  to  prevail  in  outset;  but  con- 
sidered a  revision  from  time  to  time,  according  to  some 
permanent  and  precise  standard,  as  essential  to  the  fair 
representation  required  in  the  first  branch.  According 
to  the  present  population  of  America,  the  northern  part 


terest,  by  opposing  to  them  another  vice  aud  interest. 
If  the  representatives  of  the  people  would  be  bound  by 
the  ties  he  had  mentioned,  what  need  was  there  of  a  se- 
nate ?  What  of  a  revisionary  power ?  But  his  reason- 
ing was  not  only  inconsistent  with  his  former  reason- 
ing, but  with  itself.  At  the  same  time  that  he  recom- 
j  mended  this  implicit  confidence  to  the  southern  States 
in  the  northern  majority,  he  was  still  more  zealous  in 
exhorting  all  to  a  jealousy  of  a  western  majority.  To 
reconcile  the  gentleman  with  himself,  it  must  be  im- 
agined that  he  determined  the  human  character  by  the 
points  of  the  compass." 

After  arguing  thus  to  show  the  necessity  of  fixing  the 
standard  of  representation  by  constitutional  provision, 
Mr.  Madison  proceeds  to  consider  what  that  standard 
should  be,  and  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  special  attention 
of  the  committee  to  his  remarks  on  this  point.  Speak- 
ing as  Mr.  Mason  spoke,  not  of  the  free  white  popula- 
tion, but  of  the  total  population,  bond  and  free,  of  the 
whole  number  of  inhabitants,  Mr.  Madison  says,  (page 
1073  :)  "  He  could  not  agree  that  any  substantial  objec- 
tion lay  against  fixing  numbers  for  the  perpetual  stan- 
dard of  representation.  It  was  said  that  representation, 
and  taxation  were  to  go  together  ;  that  taxation  a»d  viealtk 
ought  to  go  together  ;  that  population  and  wealth  were  not 
measures  of  each  other.  He  admitted  that  in  different 
climates,  under  different  forms  of  government,  and  in 
different  stages  of  civilization,  the  inference  was  per- 
fectly just.  He  would  admit  that,  iu  no  situation,  num- 
bers of  inhabitants  were  an  accurate  measure  of  wealth. 
He  contended,  however,  that  in  the  United  States  it  was 
sufficiently  so  for  the  object  in  contemplation." 

Here,  then,  you  have  Mr.  Madison  expressly  contend- 
ing that  population  (that  is  the  total  population)  should 
be  adopted  as  the  standard  of  representation,  and  why? 
Because,  in  his  judgment,  population  was  a  sufficiently 
accurate  measure  of  wealih — while  it  was  agreed  on  ail 
hands,  that  wealth  was  the  measure  of  taxation,  and 
taxation  the  measure  of  representation.  Accordingly,  at  a 
subsequent  stage  of  the  debate,  it  was  unanimously  re- 
solved, "That  direct  taxation  ought  to  be  proportioned 
to  representation" — (page  1081) — and  instead  of  the  to- 
tal population,  the  free  inhabitants,  and  three  fifths  of 
the  slaves,  or  what  has  since  been  knswn  asthefede- 


14 


ral  numbers,  wa9  adopted  as  the  standard  of  representa- 
tion ;  and  why?  Because  that  had  been  the  ratio  fixed 
by  Congress  in  1783,  under  the  articles  of  confederation 
as  the  rule  of  taxation — the  rule  according  to  which  the 
several  Staies  were  to  contribute  to  the  common  fund. 
And  upon  the  proposition  of  the  committee  of  five  as 
thus  amended,  how  stood  the  vote  ?  I  read  from  page 
1086,  and  give  the  answer  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Madison  : 
"  On  the  question  on  the  whole  proposition,  as  proportion- 
tling  representation  to  direct  taxation,  and  both  to  the  white 
"and  three  fifths  of  the  black  inhabitants,  and  requiring  a 
"census  within  six  years,  and  within  every  ten  years  af- 
terwards— Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Vir- 
"ginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — 6;  New  Jersey  , 
"Delaware,  no — 2  ;  Massachusetts,  South  Carolina,  divi- 
ded." 

Am  I  not  then  fully  warranted  by  these  recorded  pro- 
ceedings of  the  convention  of  1787  in  the  assertion 
that,  by  the  framers  of  the  federal  constitution,  repre- 
sentation in  the  popular  branch — the  tax  laying  branch 
— in  which  it  is  expressly  provided  that  "  all  bills  for 
raising  revenue  shall  originate," — representation,  I  say, 
in  this  tax  laying  and  revenue  raising  department  of 
the  national  legislature  is  based  on  taxation  alone  i — and 
that  the  federal  number  w/as  resorted  to  as  the  stand- 
ard of  representation,  because,  and  only  because,  it  was 
believed  to  be,  and  had  been  adopted  as  the  proper  stand- 
ard of  taxation*  And  by  whose  agency — under  whose 
auspices — and  by  whose  votes  was  this  thing  ac- 
complished? By  the  agency  of  such  men  as  James  Ma- 
dison, and  G  eorge  Mason,  and  by  the  votes  of  the  entire  de- 
legation from  Virginia,  against  the  determined  opposi- 
tion of  Governeur  Morris,  and  those  who  concurred  with 
him.  And  yet,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr. 
B.  H.  Smith,)  with  this  record  before  him,  has  not  scru- 
pled to  represent  those  with  whom  1  act,  as  occupying 
the  position,  and  advocating  the  doctrines  of  Governeur 
Morris  in  the  convention  that  framed  the  federal  consti- 
tution, while  he  claims  to  stand  on  the  same  platform 
with  Madison,  and  with  Mason  !  I  heard  these  remarks, 
I  confess,  with  profound  amazement.  I  will  not  detain 
the  committee  by  any  further  notice  of  them,  having 
said' enough,  1  trust  to  show  how  utterly  unsupported 
they  are  by  the  recorded  facts. 

The  foregoing,  however,  are  not  the  only  portions  of 
the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  convention  of 
1787,  to  which  I  deem  it  proper  to  call  the  attention  of 
ibis  committee.  The  entire  clause  with  respect  to  rep 
resentation  in  the  house  of  representatives,  as  originally 
ad<  pted,  will  be  found  at  page  1107,  and  is  in  these 
words : 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  original  formation  of  the  le- 
gislature of  the  United  States,  the  first  brauch  thereof 
shall  consist  of  sixty  five  members,  of  which  number 
New  Hampshire  shall  send  3  ;  Massachusetts  8  ;  Rhode 
Island  1 ;  Connecticut  5 ;  New  York  6  ;  New  Jersey  4  ; 
Pennsylvania  8;  Delaware  1;  Maryland  6;  Virginia 
•10;  North  Carolina  5;  South  Carolina  5  ;  Georgia  3. 
But  as  the  present  situation  of  the  States  may  probably 
alter  in  the  number  of  their  inhabitants,  the  legislature 
of  the  United  States  shall  be  authorized,  from  time  to 
time,  to  apportion  the  number  of  representatives,  and 
in  case  any  of  the  States  shall  hereafter  be  divided,  or 
enlarged  by  addition  of  territory,  or  any  two  or  more 
States  united,  or  any  new  States  created  within  the 
limits  of  the  United  States,  the  legislature  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  shall  possess  authority  to  reguUte  the  num- 
ber of  representatives  in  any  of  the  feregoing  cases, 
upon  the  principle  of  their  number  of  inhabitants,  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  hereafter  mentioned :  provided 
always,  that  representation  ought  to  be  proportioned  accord- 
ing to  direct  taxation.  And  in  order  to  ascertain  the  al- 
teration in  the  direct  taxation,  which  may  be  required 
from  time  to  time  by  the  changes  in  the  relative  circum- 
stances of  the  States. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  census  be  taken  within  six  years 
from  the  first  meeting  of  the  legislature  of  the  United 
States,  and  once  within  the  term  of  every  ten  years  af- 


terwards, of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  manner,  and,  according  to  the  ratio,  recommended 
by  Congress  in  their  resolution  of  the  eighteenth  and 
of  April,  1783  ;  and  that  the  legislature  of  the  United 
States^shall  proportion  the  direct  taxation' accordingly." 

(The  ratio  recommended  by  Congress  in  1783,  being 
the  free  inhabitants,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves — in 
other  words,  the  federal  number.)  In  this  form  the  en- 
tire clause  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  detail— 
and  that  portion  of  it  which  relates  to  future  apportion- 
ments of  representation,  was  reported  back  by  them, 
as  follows : 

Sec.  4.  As  the  proportions  of  members  in  different 
States  will  alter  from  time  to  time  ;  as  some  of  the 
States  may  hereafter  be  divided  ;  as  others  may  be  en- 
larged by  addition  of  territory ;  as  two  or  more  States 
may  be  united;  as  new  States  will  be  erected  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  the  legislature  shall  in 
each  of  these  cases,  regulate  the  number  of  representa- 
tives by  the  number  of  inhabitants,  (according  to  the 
provisions  hereinafter  made,)  at  the  rate  of  one  for  every 
forty  thousand. 

"  The  provisions  hereinafter  made  "  are  contained  in 
the  third  section  of  the  sixth  article,  (page  1233,)  which 
is  in  these  words  : 

"  The  proportions  of  direct  taxation  shall  be  regulated 
by  the  whole  number  of  white  and  other  free  citizens 
and  inhabitants  of  every  age,  sex  and  condition,  includ- 
ing those  bound  to  servitude  for  a  term  of  years,  and 
three-fifths  of  all  other  persons  not  comprehended  in 
the  foregoing  description,  (except  Indians  not  paying 
taxes.") 

When  this  report  of  the  committee  of  detail  came  up 
for  consideration,  the  words  "  according  to  the  provi- 
sions hereinafter  made"  were  stricken  out,  and  the 
words  "  according  to  the  rule  hereafter  to  be  provided 
for  direct  taxation"  inserted,  so  as  to  make  the  whole 
sentence  read :  "  Shall  regulate  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives by  the  number  of  inhabitants,  according  to 
the  rule  hereafter  to  be  provided  for  direct  taxation  ;  thus 
again,  in  terms,  basing  representation  on  taxation,  and 
regulating  both  by  a  common  standard.  (Page  1261.) 
And  then  Mr.  Governeur  Morris  moved  still  further  to 
amend  by  inserting  the  word  "free"  before  the  word 
"  inhabitants,"  so  as  to  base  representation  neither  upon 
taxation,  nor  upon  the  total  population  as  a  measure  of 
taxation,  nor  upon  the  federal  numbers  as  such  mea- 
sure, but  upon  the  free  inhabitants  only ;  thus  pre- 
senting in  that  convention,  a  question  very  similar  to, 
if  not  identical  with  that  which  has  been  discussed  in 
this,  and  sustaining  his  proposition  by  arguments  which 
I  shall  not  detain  this  committee  by  quoting,  but  which, 
I  regret  to  say,  are  not  altogether  dissimilar  to  some 
that  have  been  urged  on  this  floor  in  the  course  of  this 
discussion  by  some  of  those  with  whom  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  r.  Smith)  acts,  if  not  by  that  gentle- 
man himself.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Sherman  said  that 
"he  did  not  regard  the  admission  of  negroes  into  the 
"ratio  of  representation  as  liable  to  such  insuperable 
"  objections.  It  was  the  freemen  of  the  southern  fi'ates 
"  who  were  in  fact  to  be  represented  according  to  the  taxes 
"paid  by  them,  and  the  negroes  are  only  included  in 
"  the  estimate  of  the  taxes.  This  was  his  idea  of  the 
"  matter." 

The  amendment  of  Governeur  Morris  was  rejected  by 
a  vote  of  ten  to  one,  all  the  States  except  New  Jersey 
voting  in  the  negative.  Aid  the  clause  was  finally 
adopted  as  it  now  stands  in  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  regulating  representation  and  taxation  by  the 
common  ratio  of  federal  numbers,  and  thus  proportion- 
ing them  directly  the  one  to  the  other. 

I  stand  then  upon  the  principles  of  the  federal  con- 
stitution, when  I  insist  that  representation  shall  be  pro- 
portioned to  taxation ;  when  I  claim  the  practical  ap- 
plicition  of  the  great  truth,  that  it  is  of  the  essence  of 
free  government  that  taxation  and  representation  shall 
go  hand  in  hand,  and  that  he  who  lays  the  tax  .shall  be 
not  constructively,  or  theoretically,  or  nominally,  but 


15 


practically,  and  substantially,  and  directly  responsible 
to  him  -who  pays  it.  I  stand  upon  the  principles  of 
the  federal  constitution,  and  I  vouch  the  declarations 
an  I  the  acts  of  the  patriots  and  sages  who  framed  that 
sacred  instrument  (esto  perpetua) — when  I  claim  pro- 
tection to  property,  and  protection  through  representation. 
This  is  the  precedent  to  which  the  venerable  John 
Marshall  referred  in  1829-30,  as  sustaining  the  position 
he  occupied  then,  and  we  occupy  now — 'k  a  precedent,'' 
said  he,  "  given  us  by  the  wisest  and  truest  patriots 
ever  assembled."  Sir,  I  too  claim  the  benefit  of  this 
precedent,  and  I  put  it  to  those  gentlemen  who  have 
denounced  the  mixed  basis  in  the  unmeasured  terms 
that  have  been  applied  to  it  on  this  floor,  to  say  whether 
they  are  prepared  to  maintain  that  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  is,  to  use  a  somewhat  favorite  phrase 
with  them,  "  an  aristocracy  in  disguise  r" 

Is  that  their  opinion  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  are  they  prepared  to  avow  it  i  And  if  they 
are  not,  upon  what  principle  is  it  to  be  maintained  that 
there  is  no  aristocracy,  nothing  anti-republican,  in  bas- 
ing representation  in  the  national  legislature  on  taxa- 
tion alone,  but  that  it  is  rank  aristocracy  to  base  repre- 
sentation in  the  State  legislature  on  taxation  and  white 
population  combined  ?  Is  the  same  principle  altogether 
republican  in  the  federal  government,  and  utterly  anti- 
republican  when  applied  in  a  mitigated  form  to  the 
State  government  ?  Or  are  we  to  be  told  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  is  not  "  an  aristocracy  in 
disguise,"  but  simply  a  republican  government  based 
upon  anti-republican  principles  1  Sir,  I  may  be  wrong — 
very  wrong;  but  I  must  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  I 
would  much  sooner  take  my  ideas  of  republican  govern- 
ment and  republican  principles  from  the  men  who 
achieved  the  independence  of  their  country  and  framed 
the  constitution  of  these  United  States,  than  from  any 
of  the  modern  lights  that  have  been  so  bounteously 
shed  upon  our  path. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  we  were  in  the  position  in  which 
our  forefathers  stood  in  1787  ;  that  we  were  about  now, 
for  the  first  time,  to  unite  the  two  sections  of  the  State 
together  into  one  government;  that  we  come  here,  men 
from  the  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  and  men  from  the  west 
of  the  Blue  Ridge,  and  we  propose  to  form  an  united 
government.  "Well,  we  of  the  east  say  to  you  of  the 
west :  "  We  will  organize  this  government  so  that  with 
respect  to  the  executive  department  it  shall  be  under 
your  entire  control ;  and  as  respects  the  legislative  de- 
partment, inasmuch  as  we  have  much  the  larger  propor- 
tion of  property,  and  pay  much  the  larger  proportion  of 
taxes,  as  our  property  exceeds  yours  by  some  two  hun- 
dred or  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars,  and 
our  taxes  are  to  yours  in  the  proportion  of  more  than 
two  to  one;  and  even  in  respect  to  population,  while 
your  white  population  exceeds  ours  by  some  93,000,  our 
total  population  exceeds  yours  by  some  292,000  stand- 
ing, I  say,  in  this  position  we  propose  to  you  not  as  our 
fathers  did  to  our  northern  brethren — to  base  represen- 
tation in  the  legislature,  or  the  revenue  raising  branch  of 
it,  on  taxation  alone,  and  to  adopt  eitner  the  total  popu- 
lation, or  the  federal  number  as  the  measure  of  taxation 
and  the  standard  of  representation,  but  we  propose  to 
you  to  base  representation  in  equal  proportions  on  your 
white  population  and  on  our  taxation ;  or  to  speak  more 
accurately,  on  the  white  population  of  which  you  have 
the  majority,  and  on  taxes  of  which  we  pay,  and  must 
continue  to  pay,  much  the  greater  proportion.  In  other 
wore s  we  tender  you  the  "mixed  basis"  of  population 
and  taxation. 

Now,  I  ask  if  a  proposition  of  this  kind  were  made 
under  the  circumstances  I  have  supposed,  are  you  pre- 
pared to  say  that  you  could  not  accept  it  without  "per- 
sonal and  political  degradation  ?"  If  you  are  prepared 
to  say  that,  I  ask  you  in  what  position  do  you  place 
your  fore-fathers  and  the  fore-fathers  of  your  northern 
brethren,  when  they  formed  that  constitution  to  which 
we  are  indebted  for  so  large  a  share  of  the  blessings  we 
enjoy,  and  which  is  destined,  I  trust,  to  transmit  those 


blessings  to  our  latest  posterity  ?  Are  you  prepared  to 
say,  that  in  the  framing  of  that  great  instrument,  con- 
cessions were  made  that  we  had  no  right  to  exact,  and 
that  the  very  compromises  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of 
our  federal  Union,  without  which  it  never  could  have 
been  formed,  and  in  the  absence  of  which  it  would  not 
now  stand  for  a  day  or  an  bom-,  involve  personal  and 
political  degradation  ?  Surely  no  one  will  be  hardy 
enough  to  affirm  this.  And  if  there  was  no  degradation 
for  northern  men  to  unite  with  their  southern  brethren 
in  a  government  in  which  representation  is  based  upon 
taxation  alone  in  the  tax-laying  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, I  ask  how  can  it  be  degrading  to  western  men 
now  to  unite  with  their  eastern  brethren  in  a  govern- 
ment in  which  representation  in  the  same  department 
is  to  be  based  upon  your  white  population  and  our 
taxation  combined?  Why,  of  whom  did  our  fathers 
make  this  demand,  and  when  was  it  made  ?  It  was 
made  when  they  had  but  just  passed  through  the  ordeal 
of  the  revolution ;  and  made  not  of  aliens  and  strangers, 
but  of  comrades  and  brethren,  of  those  with  whom  they 
had  stood  side  by  side  and  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  that 
most  unequal  contest ;  with  whom  they  had  shared  the 
toils  of  the  winter's  march,  and  the  perils  of  ' the  battle 
field.  Your  fathers  and  our  fathers  thought  it  no  de- 
gradation to  demand  of  their  northern  brethren  for  their 
protection,  guaranties  similar  to  those  which  we  ask  of 
you  for  our  protection.  They  demanded  that  represen- 
tation should  be  proportioned  to  taxation  ;  that  proper- 
ty should  be  protected,  and  protected  through  repre- 
sentation ;  protected  by  the  most  effectual  of  "ail  guar- 
anties— the  power  to  protect  itself. 

The  men  of  whom  those  guaranties  were  sought  were 
bound  to  them  by  every  tie  that  can  bind  man  to  man. 
They  were  those  who  had  but  just  pledged  their  lives, 
their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor  to  maintain  the  in- 
dependence of  their  country/and  nobly  had  they  re- 
deemed the  pledge.  They  did  not  therefore,  and  could 
not  distrust  them.  And  yet,  they  sought  guaranties 
at  their  hands,  and  those  guaranties  were  accorded 
to  them — accorded  without  degradation  on  the  part  of 
those  who  sought  or  those  who  gave  them.  ISTo  man 
wiil  say  so — no  man  will  venture,by  such  a  charge  to 
asperse  the  memory  of  the  illustrious  dead.  It  is  idle 
then — it  is  worse  than  idle,  to  talk  about  personal  and 
political  degradation  being  involved  in  a  question  of  this 
kind.  It  is  at  war  with  the  whole  history  of  the  coun- 
try— at  war  with  everything  which  tends  to  make  and 
keep  us  united,  prosperous  and  happy.  Strike  that  pro- 
vision out  of  the  federal  constitution — discard  taxation 
as  an  element  of  representation — declare  that  property 
shall  no  longer  be  protected,  and  protected  by  and 
through  representation — organize  your  national  as  you 
proposed  to  organize  your  State  legislature,  on  the  ba- 
sis of  white  population  alone,  and  how  long  would  this 
Union  last  ?  And  is  this  the  time  and  these  the  cir- 
cumstances, under  which  southern  men  are  to  be  called 
upon  to  enter  on  this  mad  crusade  against  the  compro- 
mises of  the  constitution — the  principles  and  practices 
of  our  forefathers — and  to  denounce,  as  applied  to  our- 
selves, the  very  principle  to  which  we  are  indebted  for 
nearly  one-third  of  the  representation  we  enjoy  in  the 
legislature  of  the  Union  ?  But  this  is  a  subject  on 
which  I  forbear  to  dwell.  It  is  one  on  which  1  cannot 
and  will  not  trust  myself. 

But  where  is  this  argument  of  epithet,  which  more 
than  any  other,  as  I  solemnly  believe,  has  had  its  effect, 
both  in  and  out  of  this  hall — this  denunciation  of  the 
mixed  basis,  under  the  idea  of  its  involving  a  principle 
degrading  to  the  freemen  of  the  west — where,  I  ask,  is 
it  to  stop,  and  whither  is  it  to  carry  those  who  use  it  ? 
Because  forsooth,  under  the  mixed  basis,  those  counties  on 
both  sides  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  which  happen  to  pay  a  larger 
amount  of  taxes,  and  to  contain  a  smaller  number  of  white 
people,  are  made  equal  in  their  representation  with  those 
counties  which  are  paying  a  much  larger  amount  of  taxes, 
have  a  smaller  white  population — this  we  are  told  is  de- 
gradation.   It  is  a  degradation  for  a  gentleman  to  stand 


16 


on  the  floor  of  the  house  of  delegates,  representing  nine 
thousand  white  persons,  or  voters  if  you  please,  by  the 
side  of  one  who  represents  but  three  or  tour  thousand 
voters.  Now,  1  have  already  shown  under  your  own  fa- 
vorite white  basis  the  very  same  inequalities  exist. 

I  have  shown  that  by  your  own  proposition  B, 
you  give  to  some  three  thousand  people  in  the 
couuty  of  Morgan,  West  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  the 
same  representation  that  is  allowed  to  upwards  of  nine 
thousand  in  the  city  of  Norfolk,  east  of  the  Ridge ;  and 
your  whole  apportionment  abounds  with  similar  viola- 
tions of  the  principle  you  profess  to  hold  so  sacred.  Sir, 
this  whole  idea  is  founded  on  fallacy — a  gross  and  pal- 
pable fallacy.  You  cannot  so  organize  the  government 
of  this  State ;  you  cannot  organize  any  republican  rep- 
resentative government  for  a  people  situated  as  we  are, 
upon  any  basis  you  may  choose  to  adopt,  so  that  the 
vote  of  one  man,  according  to  your  own  favorite  theory, 
shall  avail  as  much  as  that  of  any  other.  And  because 
we  do  not  choose  to  carry  out  this  impracticable  dogma, 
or  rather  to  profess  to  carry  it  out  while,  in  truth,  we 
are  violating  it  every  step  we  take,  it  is  said  that  we 
are  degrading  our  western  brethren.  But  where,  I  ask 
again,  is  this  argument  to  stop  ?  If  you  are  degraded 
by  standing  here  upon  the  floor  of  the  house  of  dele- 
gates, by  the  side  of  your  eastern  brethren,  be- 
cause of  our  having  a  smaller  white  population,  while 
we  have  a  larger  total  population  than  you ;  I  say  if 
you  are  thus  degraded  in  your  own  State  legislature, 
how  can  it  be  contended  that  you  are  less  degraded  by 
occupying  a  similar  position  in  the  legislature  of  the 
Union  ?  How  far  then  is  this  argument  to  go  ?  "Will 
you  refuse  to  sit  side  by  side  with  eastern  delegates 
in  the  State  legislature,  because  they  represent  a  smal- 
ler white  population  thau  you,  and  yet  retain  your  pre- 
sent position  in  congress  ?  I  know  that  the  present  con- 
stitution contains  a  provision  by  which  the  representa- 
tion in  congress  is  required  to  be  proportioned  amongst 
different  counties  and  election  districts  of  the  State  ac- 
cording to  the  federal  and  not  according  to  the  white 
population  of  those  counties  and  districts.  I  know  too 
that  the  provision  thus  engrafted  in  our  present  consti- 
tution was  made  a  part  of  proposition  A,  (the  mixed 
basis  report,)  and  was  not  embraced  in  proportion  B, 
(the  suffrage  basis  report,)  though,  I  believe,  it  is  not  : 
proposed  by  western  gentlemen   to  strike   out  that 

Eart  of  proposition  A.  But,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  it  has 
een  very  broadly  intimated  on  this  floor,  I  think,  by  : 
the  gentleman  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  B.  H.  Smith,)  and  I  i 
know  it  has  been  said  elsewhere,  and  under  other  circum-  ; 
stances,  that  this  right  to  slave  representation  ;  this  ] 
power  whieh  the  State  gets  in  her  congressional  repre-  < 
sentation  by  the  application  of  federal  numbers,  (to  1 
which,  by  the  way,  we  are  indebted  for  nearly  five  rep-  i 
resentatives  out  of  the  fifteen  assigned  us,)  it  has  been  » 
maintained,  I  say,  that  this  power  was  a  State  acquisi-  i 
tion,  and  like  the  literary  fund  should  be  apportioned  - 
throughout  the  State,  not  according  to  the  federal,  but  ! 
according  to  the  white  population  of  the  different  coun-  ' 
ties,  cities  and  election  districts  of  the  State.  That,  sir,  < 
is  no  new  proposition.  It  was  broached  long  ago,  and  1 
among  others  by  no  less  distinguished  a  man  than  Philip  ] 
Doddridge,  and  the  effect  of  it  at  this  time  would  be  just  i 
to  reverse  the  position  of  eastern  and  western  Virgi-  t 
nia  in  respect  to  their  representation  in  congress;  and  < 
instead  of  nine  reprsentatives  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  to  < 
six  west  of  it,  (as  we  now  have)  to  make  it,  nine  west  to  1 
six  east ;  in  other  words,  to  take  the  representation  to  ( 
which  we  are  entitled  on  account  of  our  slave  popula-  1 
tion  from  that  portion  of  the  State  where  the  slaves  ( 
are,  and  give  it  to  that  portion  where  the  slaves  are  not ;  ( 
take  it  from  those  who  own  slaves  and  give  it  to  those  1 
who  do  not  own  them.  I  may,  and  doubtless  I  shall,  be  \ 
told  that  you  do  not  propose  to  do  this  thing;  that  you  r 
do  not  propose  to  strike  out  this  provision  of  the  pre-  c 
sent  constitution,  but  are  willing  to  retain  it  precisely  ^ 
as  it  stands.  Sir,  I  desire  to  do  injustice  to  no  one,  least  e 
of  all  to  those  for  whom,  individually  and  collectively,  f 


e  I  entertain  the  sentiments  I  feel  towards  western  gen- 
e  tlemen  on  this  floor.    I  am  willing,  therefore,  to  g  ve 
I  all  credit  to  their  professed  intentions  on  this  subject, 
and  to  concede,  if  you  please  that  neither  they  nor  the 
people  they  represent  have  any  purpose  at  this,  time  to 
make  any  change  in  this  respect.    But  I  cannot  shut  my 
3  eyes  to  the  fact  that  you  propose  to  organize  the  State 
3  legislature  on  the  basis  of  the  white  population  alone, 
3  and  that  you  propose  to  do  this  upon  principles,  and 
1  under  the  influence  of  appeals  to  popular  feeling,  which 
-  may  eventually  carry  you  much  beyond  that  point.  '  I 
,  cannot  forget  that  the  doctrine  to  which  I  have  advert- 

■  ed  has  already  had,  and,  if  *  mistake  not,  still  has  dis- 
;  tinguished  advocates  both  in  and  out  of  this  body  ;  and 

■  that  it  has  happened  and  may  happen  again,  even  with 
,  the  best  of  us,  that  those  who  feel  power  forget  right ; 

nor  can  I  wink  so  hard  as  not  to  see  that  when  you 
,  shall  have  organized  your  State  legislature  on  the  basis 
i  of  the  white  population  alone,  you  put  it  in  the  power 
,  of  those  representing  a  majority  of  that  population,  at 
i  any  moment  to  call  a  new  convention,  and  to  expunge 
from  the  constitution  any  provision  which  may  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  enjoyment  by  them  of  what  that  majori- 
ty may  believe  to  be  their  just  and  equal  representa- 
tion as  well  in  the  national  as  in  the  State  legislature. 
Supposing,  therefore,  this  clause  to  be  inserted  in  the 
constitution  we  are   about   to  form,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  the     State  legislature   to   be    organized  on 
the  white  basis,  is  it  not  apparent  that  the  question 
whether  this  clause  shall  stand  or  not  will  depend  en- 
tirely upon  the  views  which  the  western  people  or  their 
representatives  may  take   of  this  subject  hereafter? 
Should  they  change  the  views  we  are  told  they  now 
entertain';  should  they  believe  that  the  same  principle 
applies  with  equal  force  to  the  federal  as  to  the  State 
legislature  ;  should  they  concur  with  Philip  Doddridge 
and  other  distinguished  western  men  that  this  is  but  a 
State  acquisition  to  be  distributed,  like  the  literary  fund, 
throughout  the  State,  acccording  to  the  white  popula- 
tion, what,  I  ask,  under  these  circumstances,  is  to  pre- 
vent them  calling  another  convention  for  the  purpose 
of  expunging  the  obnoxious  proposition  from  the  con- 
stitution t    Are  we  to  be  told  that  the  Valley  will  pro- 
tect us;  that  we  are  to  rely  upon  the  slaveholding 
interest  in  the  Valley  for  protection  ?    Sir,  has  it  ever 
protected  us?    Does  it  protect  us  now?    Looking  to 
the  course  of  the  delegation  from  the  Valley  on  this 
floor,  I  apprehend  that  those  who  think  and  act  with  me 
may  well  be  pardoned  for  being  somewhat  skeptical  as 
to  support  from  that  quarter.    But  concede  that  they 
have  the  will  to  protect  us,  will  they  have  the  power  to 
do  so  ?    Sir,  is  this  committee  aware  that,  according  to 
the  present  ratio  of  increase  in  the  course   of  five-and- 
twenty  years,  a  majority  of  the  whole  white  population 
of  the  State  will  be  found  west  of  the  Alleghany  moun- 
tains?— in  that  region  of  the   State   which,  of  the 
474,591  slaves  now  within  its  limits,  contains  but 
24,436  ?    And  then  the  Valley  as  well  as  fiedmont,  and 
Tidewater,  the  only  sections  of  the  State  in  which  any 
considerable  proportion  of  the  slave  population  is  found, 
will  be  placed  on  a  position  in  which  the  legislative 
power  will  be  vested  almost  exclusively  in  that  section 
in  which  slave  property  scarcely  exists  at  all.    Can  the 
slaveholding  interest  of  the  Valley  protect  us  then  ? 
Can  they  protect  themselves  ?    These,  sir,  are  pregnant 
questions,  on  the  answer  to  which  gentlemen  would,  per- 
haps, do  well  to  ponder.  But  let  it  be  conceded  that  this 
clause  will  not  only  be  inserted  now,  but  no  attempt 
will  be  made  to  expunge  it  hereafter.    Are  we  certain, 
can  we  be  certain,  that  in  apportioning  representation  in 
congress  regard  will  always  be  had  to  it  ?    Do  we  not 
know  that  it  has  been  maintained,  and  maintained  too 
by  leading  men,  that  representation  in  Congress  is  a 
matter  over  which  the  State  convention  and  the  State 
constitution  has  no  control ;  a  matter  in  respect  to  which 
we  cannot  limit  or  control  the  State  legislature  in  the 
exercise  of  the  power  expressly  conferred  on  it  by  the 
fourth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution  of 


17 


the  United  States  which  declares  that,  "  the  times, 
places  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators 
and  representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State 
by  the  legislature  thereof? '  And  that  when,  therefore, 
we  have  constituted  a  State  legislature,  we  have  given 
it  being  and  a  capacity  to  receive  this  grant  of  power; 
but  th#  grant  is  not  from  us,  but  another  ;  and  the  ex- 
tent of  the  power  cannot  be  regulated  by  us,  but  must 
be  regulated  only  by  the  instrument  that  confers  it. 
Now,  sir,  I  by  no  means  concur  in  this  view  or  acknow- 
ledge the  f.^rre  of  this  argument.  I  regard  it  as  a  here- 
sy, and  utterly  repudiate  it,  bat  I  should  be  blind  to  all 
the  lessons  of  experience  if  I  did  not  know  that  argu- 
ments weaker  than  this  have  been  found  quite  sufficient 
for  those  who  would  claim  or  conquer  power.  Nor  can  I 
be  insensible  to  another  consideration,  and  that  is  that 
this  very  view  which  I  regard  as  unsound  and  untenable 
has  found  distinguished  advocates  *rnong  western  gen- 
tlemen, and  that  too  in  their  official  character  as  the 
representatives  of  the  western  people.  Why,  sir,  what 
is  the  history  of  the  very  clause  we  are  now  considering, 
and  uuder  what  circumstances,  and  by  what  vote  was 
it  inserted  in  the  present  constitution  ?  (for  it  formed  no 
part  of  the  constitution  of  1776,  and  was  inserted  for 
the  first  time  into  that  of  1829-30.)  By  reference  to 
page  857  of  the  debates  of  the  convention  of  1829-30, 
the  committee  will  find  that  this  clause,  precisely  as  it 
now  stands,  was  offered  by  Judge  Green,  and  oppos- 
ed by  Mr.  Summers,  (the  late  Judge  Summers,  a  dele- 
gate from  Kanawha  district,  and  a  leading  western 
member  of  the  last  convention.)  And  on  what  ground 
did  he  oppose  it  ?  Let  him  answer  for  himself.  I 
quote  his  own  words :  "  Mr.  Summers  explained  the 
reasons  why  he  should  vote  against  the  amendment  ; 
not  that  he  was  opposed  to  its  principle,  but  because  it 
was  unnecessary  and  improper  to  regulate  by  constitution 
any  of  the  powers  or  duties  devolved  on  the  legislature 
by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Under  that 
aut  iority  the  general  assembly  had  for  forty  years  wisely 
and  satisfactorily  exercised  the  discretion  confided  to 
them,  and  he  thought  it  could  not  be  abridged  or  restrain- 
ed by  any  act  of  the  convention." 

Here  then  is  the  position  expressly  taken  in  the 
former  Convention  by  as  leading  a  member  as  the  late 
Judge  Summers,  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  in- 
sertion of  this  clause  into  the  constitution  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  matter  with  which  the  Convention 
had  nothing  to  do,  because  the  power  of  the  legislature 
over  this  subject  could  not,  to  use  his  own  language, 
"  be  abridged  or  restrained  by  any  act  of  the  Convention,  ' 
and  therefore,  the  provision  itself  was  a  nullity.  On  this 
ground  he  voted  against  its  insertion.  Nor  did  he  stand 
alone,  for  thirty -four  members  voted  with  him,  and 
there  were  in  the  last  Convention  but  thirty-six  members 
west  of  the  Blue  Ridge. 

Now,  sir,  I  say  again,  organize  your  State  legislature 
on  the  basis  of  the  white  population — do  this  upon  the 
principle  avowed  and  reiterated  in  every  form  and  from 
every  quarter  on  this  floor,  that  to  organize  it  on  any 
other  basis  is  degrading  to  the  western  people — in 
volves  in  the  language  of  gentlemen  here,  their  "  person- 
al and  political  degradation  and  how  long  will  it  be 
before  those  will  be  found  who  will  be  prepared  to  in- 
sist that  the  same  sort  of  degradation  is  involved  in  the 
existing  apportionment  of  your  representation  in  con- 
gress— how  long  will  it  be  before  the  western  people 
will  be  appealed  to  to  sustain  theposition  already  assumed 
by  such  men  as  Philip  Doddridge  and  Lewis  Summers, 
and  to  disregard  that  provision  which  some  of  their 
ablest  and  most  distinguished  champions  have  already 
declared  to  be  utterly  nugatory  ?  And  if  they  should 
p'-ove  not  insensible  to  these  appeals  ;  if  the  western 
people  should  be  induced  to  assume  hereafter  on  this 
question  the  position  which  nearly  their  whole  delegation 
occupied  more  than  twenty  years  ago  ;  if,  with  the  ma- 
jority in  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  believing 
(as  they  may  conscientiously  believe)  that  they  possess 
under  the  federal  constitution  a  control  over  this  sub- 


ject that  cannot  "  be  abridged  or  restrained  by  any  act " 
of  this  or  any  other  State  Convention,  they  should  un- 
dertake to  apportion  representation  in  congress  accor- 
ding to  the  white  population  of  the  State  ;  what  I  ask 
in  that  event  would  be  the  position  of  eastern  Virginia, 
and  what  their  remedy  then  ?    What  is  the  tribunal  that 
would  have  to  decide  upon  the  validity  of  such  an  ap- 
portionment bill  and  the  return  of  the  members  elected 
under  it?    The  house  of  representatives  of  the  United 
States — that  northern — that  anti-slavery — I  had  almost 
said  that  free  soil  house — 1  will  say  that  house  in  which 
even  now — even  at  this  day,  the  free  soil  party  holds 
the  balance  of  the  power.    And  can  slaveholers — can  f  he 
slaveholding  interest  expect  favor — nay,  sir,  can  they 
look  for  justice  at  the  hands  of  such  a  tribunal  as  this? 
Is  that  a  body  that  would  be  apt  to  nullify  a  law  of 
tne  State,  and  vacate  the  returns  of  members  elected 
under  it  in  order  to  protect  interests  or  vindicate  rights, 
in  the  protection  and  vindication  of  which  the  slave- 
holder alone  is  concerned?    Sir,  no  man  is  credulous — 
is  romantic  enough,  to  believe  any  such  thing  and  should 
the  case  I  have  supposed  ever  occur,  (and  God  grant  it 
never  may,  as  I  devoutly  hope  it  never  will) — there  will 
be  no  redress — no  alternative,  but  submission  or  revo- 
lution.   Sir,  let  me  not  be  misunderstood — I  am  far 
fiom  imputing  to  the  western  delegates  or  to  the  west- 
ern people  any  present  purpose  or  desire  to  apportion  rep- 
resentation in  congress,  otherwise  than  is  provided  for  in 
the  existing  constitution—I  have  already  disclaimed 
any  such  imputation,  and  I  repeat  the  disclaimer.    I  be- 
lieve the  western  sentiment  on  this  subject  is  sound — 
perfectly  sound,  and^l  believe  further,  that  if  it  shall  ever 
undergo  a  change,  it  will  be  due  to  the  unhappy  preva- 
lence of  principles  and  opinions,  which  I  am  this  day  en- 
deavoring to  combat.  But  I  am  here  in  the  discharge  of 
a  solemn  duty,  and  woe  be  to  me  and  to  mine  if  I  do  not 
strive  at  least  to  discharge  it  faithfully,  and  with  a 
single  eye  to  the  maintainence  of  the  rights  and  the 
protection  of  the  interests  confided  to  any  care.    I  am 
here  one  of  the  representatives  from  a  city  in  which  the 
colored  population  is  equal  or  nearly  equal  to  the  white, 
and  from  a  district  in  which  it  exceeds  the  white  ;  and 
I  should  be  recreant  to  every  sentiment  of  representa- 
tive duty  if  I  permitted  considerations  of  any  kind  to 
prevent  me  from  examining  this  momentous  question  to 
the  extent  of  my  poor  ability  in  all  its  aspects,  or  from 
endeavoring  to  exhibit  to  the  Convention  and  to  the 
country  all  the  consequences,  direct  or  contingent,  im- 
mediate or  remote,  which  may  result  from  the  establish- 
ment of  principles  which  we  are  called  upon  to  engraft 
for  the  first  time  on  our  constitution,  as  part  and  parcel 
of  the  organic  law.  This  duty  1  have  endeavored  to  dis- 
charge in  such  manner  as  not  to  give  just  cause  of  of- 
fence to  any  ;  but  discharge  it  I  will  fearlessly  and 
faithfully,  with  whatever  of  ability  it  has  pleased  God 
to  endow  me  with. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  m,ixed  basis  is  a  most  aristo- 
cratic basis,  and  that  its  effect  is  to  give  power  to  the 
rich  at  the  expense  of  the  poor.  That,  we  are  told,  is 
the  character  of  it.  And  gentlemen  have  said  again 
and  again,  if  you  insist  upon  this  principle  why  do  you 
not  carry  it  out,  (as  they  are  pleased  to  term  it)  to  the 
fountain  head?  Why  do  you  not  give  representation  to 
property-holders  in  proportion  to  their  property,  in- 
stead of  apportioning  it  through  the  section  where  the 
property  holder  may  be  ?  My  distinguished  friend  from 
Kanawha  (Mr.  Summers)  took  that  view,  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta  and  other  gentlemen  took  the 
same  view.  Now,  I  will  tell  you  why  we  do  not  do 
this.  We  do  not  do  it  simply  because  the  mixed  basis 
not  only  has  not  the  effect  which  has  been  thus  confi- 
dently ascribed  to  it,  but  has  precisely  the  opposite  ef- 
fect. So  far  from  giving  power  to  the  rich  man  at  the 
expense  of  his  poor  neighbor — the  effect  of  the  mixed 
basis  is  to  give  to  the  poor  at  the  expense  of  the  rich. 
Its  effect  and  operation  being  to  apportion  the  power, 
which  is  necessary  to  the  protection  of  all  in  a  district, 
aot  so  that  it  will  be  wielded  by  the  property-holder, 


18 


but  in  such  a  manner  that  the  poor  man  as  well  as  the 
rich  man  of  the  district,  may,  through  his  representa- 
tive, protect  himself  from  improper  taxati©n  by  those 
whose  interests  in  respect  to  that  matter  are  not  identi- 
cal with  his  own. 

Whilst  on  this  subject  allow  me  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  to  the  citation  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Berkeley  (Mr.  Faulkner)  from  Mr.  Burke's 
rerlections  on  the  French  revolution.  He  says  that  Mr. 
Burke  was  totally  opposed  to  the  mixed  basis,  and  he 
triumphantly  invokes  the  authority  of  Mr.  Burke  to  s  js- 
tain  him  in  his  opposition  to  it.  This  is  all  very  well. 
But  did  it  never  occur  to  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley 
to  inquire  why  Mr.  Burke  was  opposed  to  it?  Avery 
slight  examination  of  the  essay  to  which  he  has  so  ex- 
ultingly  referred,  would,  I  think,  have  been  quite  suf- 
ficient to  satisfy  him  on  this  point.  What  then,  was 
the  point  of  Mr.  Burke's  opposition  to  this  scheme  which 
his  authority  is  so  triumphantly  cited  to  condemn  ?  Did 
he  oppose  it  on  the  ground  that  it  was  eoo  aristocratic  ? 
No,  sir.  But  upon  the  slightly  different  ground  that  it 
was  not  aristocratic  enough — upon  the  ground  that  it 
was  democratic  in  its  character  and  tendencies;  and 
being  democratic,  it  did  not  give  sufficient  protec- 
tion to  the  rich  man.  That  is  the  express  point  of  ob- 
jection on  the  part  of  Mr.  Burke,  and  the  distinct  ground 
upon  which  his  opinion  rests. 

i  o  show  this,  1  beg  leave  to  read  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Burke,  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley, 
and  a  portion  of  those  remarks  which  he  did  not  read. 

He  read  as  follows,  from  page  194  : 

"  Let  us  suppose  one  man  in  a  district  (it  is  an  easy 
supposition)  to  contribute  as  much  as  a  hundred  of  his 
neighbors :  Against  these  he  has  but  one  vote  :  if  there 
were  but  one  representative  for  the  mass,  his  neighbors 
would  out-vote  him,  by  a  hundred  to  one,  for  that  single 
representative.  Bad  enough.  But  amends  are  to  be 
made  him.  How?  The  distriet,  in  virtue  of  his  wealth, 
is  to  choose,  say  ten  members,  instead  of  one — that  is 
to  say,  by  paying  a  very  large  contribution,  he  has  the 
happiness  of  being  out-voted,  a  hundred  to  one,  by  those 
not  having  property,  for  ten  representatives,  instead  of 
being  out-voted  exactly  in  the  same  proportion  for  a 
single  member.  " 

The  gentleman  read  to  this  point  and  there  he  stop- 
ped. .  I  will  take  leave  to  continue  the  quotation. 

Mr.  Burke  proceeds : 

"  In  truth,  says  he,  instead  of  benefitting  by  this  su- 
perior quantity  of  representation,  the  rich  man  is  sub- 
jected to  an  additional  hardship.  The  increase  of  rep- 
resentation within  his  province  sets  up  nine  persons 
more,  and  as  many  more  than  nine  as  there  may  be 
democratic  candidates,  to  cabal  and  intrigue,  and  to 
flatter  the  people  at  his  expense  and  to  his  oppression. 
An  interest  is  by  this  means  held  out  to  multitudes  of  the 
inferior  sort,  in  obtaining  a  salary  of  eighteen  livres  a 
day  (to  them  a  vast  object)  besides  the  pleasure  of  a 
residence  in  Paris,  and  their  share  in  the  governmentof 
the  kingdom.  The  more  the  objects  of  ambition  are 
multiplied  and  become  democratic,  just  in  that  proportion 
the  rich  are  endangered. ' '  . 

Here,  then,  you  have  the  point  of  Mr.  Burkes's  objec- 
tion to  this  aristocratic  mixed  basis,  which  gentlemen 
tell  us  is  to  give  power  to  the  rich  at  the  expense  of  the 
poor,  but  by  which,  according  to  Mr.  Burkes's  view, 
'*  the  objects  of  ambition  are  to  be  multiplied  and  be- 
come democratic,  and  just  in  that  proportion  the  rich 
were  to  be  endangered."  The  gentlemen  are  wel- 
come to  their  authority,  which  I  am  under  many  obliga- 
tions to  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley  for  having  intro- 
duced, (though  he  did  not  read  the  passage  just  quo- 
ted,) and  which  I  venture  to  commend  to  the  special 
attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Kanawha  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Augusta;  for  if  there  has  been  any  one  idea 
that  has  been  harped  upon  on  every  side,  and  iterated 
and  reiterated  in  every  form,  it  is  tins  utterly  unfound- 
ed— I  had  almost  said  this  demagogical  and  ad  captan- 
dum  argument,  that  the  mixed  basis  was  aristocratic 
in  its  tendency,  and  that  its  tendency  was  to  provide 


for  the  rich  at  the  expense  of  the  poor.  Now,  I  have 
the  authority  quoted  by  the  gentleman  himself,  to  shew 
that  if  power  be  given  to  a  district  by  the  mixed  basis 
to  protect  itself  against  taxation  by  another  distri 't  not 
having  the  same  interest  with  it,"  that  power,  instead 
of  being  wielded  by  the  rich,  is  given  to  and  wielded 
by  the  poor  of  the  district,  and  it  was  because  the 
mixed  basis  had  this  effect  that  Mr.  Burke,  (whose  opin- 
ions were  cert  inly  not  of  a  particularly  democratic  or- 
der,) was  utterly  opposed  to  it.  He  wanted  something 
more  aristocratic.  But  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley 
(Mr  Faulkner)  says,  the  mixed  basis  will  a'  ord  no 
protection  to  property,  because  of  the  great  extension 
of  the  right  of  suffrage.  Suppose  he  is  right,  how  is 
property  to  be  protected  under  the  same  right  of  suf- 
frage by  the  white  basis  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  protec- 
tion he  would  accord  to  us.  But,  in  truth,  when  that 
gentleman  maintains  that  the  poor  in  a  particular  sec- 
tion, according  to  this  idea,  are  to  be  arrayed  against 
the  rich,  he  forgets,  totally  forgets,  that  in  the  same 
section  of  the  State  the  poor  and  the  rich  have  the 
same  interests.  It  is  not  the  interest  of  the  poor  man 
to  send  a  delegate  to  the  legislature  who  will  vote  away 
either  his  money  or  that  of  his  rich  neighbor,  for  the 
construction  of  works  or  the  promotion  of  schemes  that 
are  to  benefit  neither.  But,  when  gentlemen  tell  us 
that  the  mixed  basis  affords  no  protection  to  property, 
because,  under  an  extended  right  of  suffrage,  the  poor 
of  a  district  may  oppress  the  rich  of  the  same  district — 
when  they  tell  us  this,  do  they  propose  to  correct  the 
evil  by  restricting  the  right  of  suffrage  ?  By  no  means : 
their  remedy  is, :  to  give  us  the  same  right  of  suffrage, 
and  the  white  basis  along  with  it,  and  thus  superadd  to 
the  oppression  which,  (according  to  their  theory,)  the 
poor  of  one  district  may  inflict  on  the  rich  of  the  same 
district — the  additional  burdens  which  the  poor  of  one 
section  may  impose  upon  both  the  rich  and  the  poor  of 
another  section.  This  is  their  mode  of  protecting  prop- 
erty by  the  white  basis.  You  cannot  rely  upon  your 
neighbors  with  whom  you  are  in  constant  and  daily  in- 
tercourse— you  cannot  rely  upon  those  whose  interests 
in  the  main  are  identical  with  your  own,  who  have  no 
inducement  or  temptation  to  spend  your  money  upon 
works  which,  if  worthless  to  you,  must  prove  equally 
valueless  to  themselves,  and  if  they  spend  it  on  works 
that  are  to  benefit  themselves,  must,  by  that  very  ex- 
penditure, and  perhaps  in  a  still  greater  degree,  benefit 
you.  You  cannot  rely  upon  these  people  at  all  ;  they 
will  be  sure  to  oppress  you.  But  you  can  rely  with  en- 
tire confidence  upon  exactly  the  same  class  of  voters 
living  one,  two,  or  three  hundred  miles  off,  whom  you 
have  never  seen  and  never  expect  to  see,  and  whose  in- 
terests are  so  far  from  being  identical  with  your  own, 
that,  perhaps,  they  can  scarcely  be  so  materially  pro- 
moted in  any  other  way  as  by  taking  your  money  to  im- 
prove, not  your  property,  but  their  own.  I  confess  that 
this  is  a  proposition  that,  in  my  humble  judgment,  will 
hardly  bear  to  be  stated.  But  we  are  to  have  guaran- 
tees, and  if  the  white  basis  and  universal  suffrage  don't 
protect  us,  the  guarantees  will.  Now  I  do  not  mean  to 
go  into  the  consideration  of  the  value  of  any  guarantees 
in  controlling  the  will  of  that  majority  which,  we  are 
told  by  those  who  tender  them,  has  the  natural,  inde- 
feasible, and  inalienable  right  of  doing  precisely  what  it 
pleases  to  do.  I  will  not  inquire,  "  quis  custodiet  cus- 
todes  ?  Who  will  guarantee  the  guarantors  ?  IS  or  will 
I  speculate  as  to  the  probable  duration  of  any  provis- 
ions which  may  be  expunged  from  the  constitution  by 
the  act  of  those  whom  they  are  designed  to  fetter.  All 
the  views  pertaining  to  this  branch  of  the  subject  have 
been  presented  by  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me, 
and  I  should  but  weaken  the  force  of  what  they  have 
so  well  said,  by  going  over  the  ground  they  have  so  ful- 
ly occupied.  But  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  these 
vaunted  guarantees,  on  which  the  gentleman  from  Berke- 
ley seems  to  place  implicit  reliance,  and  see  what  they 
are.  What  is  the  great  guarantee  tendered  us  by  the 
gentleman  from  Berkeley,  to  afford  to  eastern  Virginia 


19 


that  protection  which  he  concedes  she  is  entitled  to  de- 
mand against  the  improper  exercise  of  the  taxing  pow- 
er— rhat  power  ia  respect  to  which  I  speak  but  the  lan- 
guage of  the  fathers  of  the  Republic,  when  I  say  that 
those  who  surrender  it  have  nothing  more  to  give.  As 
was  truly  said  by  John  Randolph  in  the  last  Conven- 
tion, "the  richest  man  in  Virginia,  be  that  man  who 
he  may,  would  make  a  good  bargain  to  make  you  a 
present  of  his  estate,  provided  you  gave  him  bond  up- 
on that  estate  allowing  him  to  tax  it  as  he  pleases,  and 
to  spend  the  money  as  he  pleases."  And  if  this  be  true 
of  individuals,  why  is  it  not  true  of  communities  or  of 
sections  ? 

But  to  return  to  the  guarantee  of  the  gentlemara  from 
Berkeley— his  boast«  d  panacea  for  all  the  ills  arising, 
or  that  can  arise,  under  the  white  basis,  from  the  un- 
limited exercise  of  the  power  of  taxation  and  appro- 
priation. Where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  It  is  to  be  found, 
he  tells  us,  in  the  ad  valorem  tax.  That  is  to  be  our  gua- 
rantee and  safeguard  ;  and  no  small  portion  of  the  able 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Berkeley  was  devoted 
to  an  attempted  establishment  of  this  proposition. 

Now,  sir,  just  look  at  this  idea  for  a  single  moment. 
I  have  shown  you,  (or  rather  my  friend  from  Mecklen- 
burg (Mr.  Goode)  has  shown  you,  and  I  will  not  go 
over  his  statements  again,)  that  the  excess  of  property 
in  the  east  over  that  of  the  west,  in  the  matter  of  land, 
is  thirty-six  millions  of  dollars,  and  in  slave  property, 
one  hundred  and  four  millions  of  dollars  ;  which  added 
together,  makes  an  excess  of.  one  hundred  and  forty 
millions  of  dollars  in  lands  and  slaves.  That  is  the  ex- 
cess of  property  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  over  property 
west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  in  these  items  alone,  to  say 
nothing  of  an  excess  of  at  least  one  hundred  millions  in 
other  subjects  of  property.  Now  you  impose  an  ad  va- 
lorem tax,  and  by  the  imposition  of  that  tax,  for  every 
dollar  you  collect  in  the  west  you  collect  a  dollar  in 
the  east,  and  you  collect,  besides,  the  ad  valorem  tax, 
whatever  that  maybe,  on  one  hundred  and  forty  or  two 
hundred  and  forty  millions  of  dollars  more,  and  then 
you  give  to  the  west  the  unlimited  power  of  spending 
the  whole  amount  (all  that  they  contribute  themselves, 
and  the  much  greater  sum  they  collect  from  us,)  precise- 
ly as  they  please.  And  this  is  to  be  our  guarantee 
against  taxation — this  the  protection  the  east  is  to  get 
under  the  combined  operation  of  the  of  the  ad  valorem 
tax  and  the  white  basis  !  You  confer  the  power,  and 
you  offer  at  the  same  time  the  strongest  temptation  to 
abuse  it!  You  say,  in  effect,  to  people  of  the  west, 
lay  what  taxes  you  please,  for  under  this  system  your 
eastern  brethren  will  not  only  pay  dollar  for  dollar  with 
you.  but  they  will  pay  the  ad  valorem  tax  on  two  hun 
dred  an  forty  millions  of  property  besides  ;  and  then 
it  will  rest,  not  with  them,  but  with  you  to  appropriate 
the  whole  as  you  shall  think  proper,  and  according  to 
your  own  views  of  propriety  and  justice.  Sir,  I  have 
as  much  confidence,  fully  as  much,  in  the  patriotism, 
intelligence,  and  honesty  of  the  western  as  of  the  east- 
ern people.  But  I  will  not  act  on  the  principle  of  con- 
ferring on  any  man,  or  set  »f  men,  power  which  they 
may  abuse,  and  which  they  will  be  under  constant  temp- 
tation to  abuse.  And  I  put  it  to  the  candor  of  western 
gentlemen  themselves  to  say,  if  we  of  the  east  are  un- 
reasonable when  we  decline  to  place  ourselves,  or  those 
whose  interests  are  confided  to  our  keeping,  in  the  atti- 
tude to  which  I  have  just  referred  ?  Will  you  say  that 
by  refusing  to  do  so  we  are  distrusting  or  degrading 
you  ?  On  the  contrary,  are  you  not  degrading  us,  when 
you  ask  us  to  place  ourselves  in  that  condition?  Are 
you  not  in  fact  asking  us  to  give  up  to  you  that  which 
our  fathers  refused  to  surrender  to  the  crowned  head 
of  Great  Britain — the  power  of  deciding  how  much 
money  shall  be  raised,  and  where,  and  when,  and  how 
it  shall  be  expended,  to  be  exercised  by  those  who  are 
obliged  to  raise  the  money  ? 

But  no  ;  the  white  basis  is  to  be  adopted,  with  this 
most  efficient  guarantee  (God  save  the  mark  !)  of  an  ad 
valorem  tax  ;  and  an  alliance  is  to  be  formed  between 


the  tide-water  and  the  trans-Alleghany,  and  one  of  the 
first  articles  in  that  treaty  of  alliance — one  of  the  con- 
ditions upon  which  we  of  the  tide-water  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  its  bent- fits — is,  that  we  shall  surrender  ten 
delegates  to  the  west.  The  mixed  basis  gives  us  forty- 
one,  while  the  white  basis  gives  but  thirty-one,  and  the 
ten  members,  making  a  difference  of  twenty  votes,  are 
to  be  transferred  to  the  west,  so  that  when  this  alliance 
is  formed,  it  will  be  worth  nothing  to  us,  for  the  pow- 
er is  given  up  to  the  west  by  which  whatever  the 
west  thinks  proper  to  do,  they  can  do  without  the  aid 
of  a  single  tide-water  vote.  Now,  sir,  as  my  friend 
from  Essex  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett)  said  the  other 
day,  I  trust  that  our  western  friends  will  not  think  that 
we  are  wanting  in  due  courtesy  or  deference  to  them, 
when  we  say  that  however  great  may  be  our  confidence 
int  heir  ability  to  manage  our  affairs,  still  we  areunder 
what  may,  perhaps,  be  a  very  great  delusion,  (but  yet 
it  is  one  I  apprehend  of  which  our  people  very  general- 
ly partake,)  and  that  is,  that  we  can  manage  our  own 
affairs  just  as  well  ourselves.  I  confess  I  do  not  see 
why  these  ten  delegates  should  not  be  retained  by  the 
tide-water  district,  so  that  they  may  be  able  to  decide 
for  themselves  and  their  people  in  respect  to  the  schemes 
of  improvement  in  which  they  may,  or  may  not,  be  dis- 
posed to  unite  with  their  trans-Alleghany  brethren,  in- 
stead of  transferring  the  whole  jurisdiction  over  that  sub- 
ject to  the  other  side  of  the  mountains.  And  I  say  further 
here  in  my  place,  as  the  representative  of  a  tide-water 
constituency,  as  one  of  the  representatives  from  this 
city  and  this  district,  that  regarded  as  a  question  of  ex- 
pediency alone,  throwing  the  question  of  principle  al- 
together out  of  view,  it  does  seem  to  me  to  be  the  most 
extraordinary  of  all  possible  delusions  to  maintain  that 
the  interests  of  tide-water  are  to  be  promoted,  the  tide- 
water cities  built  up,  and  commerce  invited  to  our  ports 
by  the  adoption  of  this  white  basis.  Why,  sir,  if  you 
adopt  the  white  basis,  what  will  be  its  effect  at  once? 
You  give  to  the  counties  lying  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge 
a  majority  of  fourteen  in  the  House  and  two  in  the 
Senate,  and  that  majority  would  have  the  entire  con- 
trol of  the  legislative  department,  with  the  power  to 
i raise  and  appropriate  taxes,  and  to  decide  what  roads 
shall  be  made  and  how  they  shall  be  made,  withoul  the 
aid  of  a  single  vote  from  Piedmont  or  the  tide  water. 
Now,  if  this  majority  is  given,  am  I  to  be  regarded  as 
casting  an  imputation  on  the  west  when  I  say  that  with 
a  majority  of  fourteen  delegates  coming  from  the  coun- 
ties west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  theie  is  no  certainty — nay, 
sir,  there  is  the  reverse  of  certainty — that  such  a  direc- 
tion will  be  given  to  the  internal  improvements  of  the 
State,  as  to  bring  trade  and  travel  to  the  tide  water, 
or  to  the  cities  of  eastern  Virginia  ?  Look,  sir,  to  the 
present  condition  of  things,  and  to  the  position,  the 
commercial  relations,  the  affinities,  and  the  wants  of 
that  section  of  the  State  to  which  you  propose,  by  this 
wnite  basis,  to  transfer  all  legislative  power.  The  west 
consists  of  the  valley  and  the  trans-Alleghany,  the 
trar.s- Alleghany  of  the  south-west,  the  central  west, 
and  the  nortli-west.  Where  does  the  trade  of  the  north- 
west go  now?  You  have  the  Baltimore  and  the  Ohio 
railroad,  which  is  to  be  extended  to  the  city  of  Wheel- 
ing. You  have  also  a  bill,  passed  at  the  last  session  in 
spite  of  all  the  opposition  that  I  and  others  could  make 
to  it,  for  incorporating  a  company  to  make  a  road  from 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  railroad  at  Three  Forks,  in  the 
county  of  Taylor,  to  Parkersburg,  thus  giving  the  same 
direction  to  another  portion  of  the  trade  of  the  north- 
west, and  sending  that  too  to  Baltimore. 

The  north-west,  then,  already  trades  to  Baltimore. 
How  is  it  with  the  central  west  and  the  south-west  ? 
You  have  a  continuous  line  of  railroad  at  this  time  from 
Baltimore  up  the  valley  to  Winchester  ;  and  a  company 
has  been  incorporated,  and  is  now  engaged  in  making 
another  road  from  Alexandria  through  the  Manasses 
Gap  to  Harrisonburg,  which  will  pass,  at  Strasburg, 
within  eighteen  miles  of  the  railroad  from  Baltimore  to 
Winchester.    Now,  sir,  you  have  only  to  extend  the 


20 


Winchester  road  up  the  valley  to  Stauuton,  and  thence 
by  the  way  of  Covington  to  Guyandotte,  or  extend  the 
Manasses  Gap  road  in  the  same  direction,  and  fill  up 
the  gap  of  eighteen  miles  at  Strasburgh,  and  you  have 
the  central  west,  like  the  north-west,  in  direct  commu- 
nication with  Baltimore,  and  that,  too,  by  a  railroad 
every  foot  of  which  will  lie  in  the  Valley  and  the  trans- 
Alleghany  country.  And  if  you  give  to  the  delegates 
coming  from  that  section — that  is,  the  Valley  and  the 
trans- Alleghany — the  absolute  power  of  controlling  the 
finances,  and  moulding  the  internal  improvement  policy 
of  the  State,  can  you  suppose  that  they  will  not  make 
a  rosd  every  foot  of  which  will  be  in  their  own  section, 
and  the  money  employed  in  making  which  will  be  ex 
pended  among  themselves,  even  though  that  road  when 
made  should  bring  them  in  direct  communication  with 
Baltimore,  instead  of  with  Richmond  or  Norfolk?  Can 
you  put  any  guarantee  into  the  constitution  against  that  ? 
But  this  is  not  all.  I  have  traced  this  Manassas  Gap 
road  from  Harrisonburg  to  Staunton,  and  from  Staun- 
ton to  Covington;  but  it  was,  I  think,  only  at  the  last 
session  of  the  legislature  that  a  bill  was  introduced  for 
a  railroad  to  run  from  Harrisonburg,  by  the  way  of 
Staunton  and  Lexington,  to  Salem,  in  the  county  of 
Roanoke,  and  connect  there  with  the  Tennessee  rail- 
road, and  you  have  but  to  look  at  the  map  to  see  that 
this  road,  too,  passes  right  through  the  section  of  the 
State  to  which  you  propose  to  transfer  the  whole  politi- 
cal power,  and  that  you  have  but  to  make  it  to  bring 
the  south-west,  like  the  central  and  the  north-west,  in 
direct  communication  with  the  city  of  Baltimore. 

Now,  I  ask  if  it  is  not  a  very  small  compliment  that 
gentlemen  pay  to  our  intelligence,  or  to  that  of  our  con- 
stituents, when,  under  pretext  of  building  up  the  tide- 
water cities,  they  propose  to  us  to  confer  on  the  Valley 
and  trans- Alleghany  country  the  entire  legislative  pow- 
er of  the  State,  with  the  power  of  making  roads  through 
their  own  section  which  will  take  the  whole  trade  and 
travel  to  Baltimore  ?  Confer  the  power,  and  then  the 
practical  question  is,  will  the  delegates  coming  from  the 
Valley  and  trans-Alleghany  country  be  most  likely  to 
make  railroads,  every  foot  of  which  will  be  in  their  own 
portion  of  the  State,  to  carry  their  produce  to  Baltimore, 
or  to  make  them  in  other  portions  of  the  State  to  bring 
that  same  produce  to  Richmond  or  Norfolk  ?  With  the 
power  to  raise  money  in  the  east  in  the  proportion  of 
two  dollars  to  one,  and  to  spend  it  in  the  west  in  the 
proportion  of  three  dollars  to  nothing,  are  we  to  be  told 
that  this  power  will  never  be  used  by  those  to  whom 
we  are  asked  to  confide  it  ?  Or,  are  we  to  be  persuaded 
that  sucn  are  the  superior  advantages  of  our  markets 
that  the  western  delegates,  with  the  absolute  power  to 
do  in  this  respect  precisely  as  they  think  proper,  will 
rather  spend  their  money  among  us,  to  get  to  Richmond 
and  Norfolk,  than  spend  our  money  among  themselves 
to  get  to  Baltimore  ?  And  this,  too,  when  we  know 
that  the  north-west  already  trades  to  Baltimore,  while 
the  extension  of  the  railroad  from  Winchester  to  Staun 
ton,  and  from  Staunton  by  the  way  of  Covington  to  the 
Ohio  on  the  one  hand,  and  up  the  Valley  to  the  Tennes- 
see railroad  at  Salem,  in  the  county  of  Roanoke,  on  the 
other,  will  bring  the  central  west  and  the  south-west 
in  direct  connection  with  the  same  city,  thus  tapping 
the  Central  railroad  at  Staunton  and  the  Tennessee 
railroad  at  Salem,  and  carrying  directly  to  Baltimore 
that  western  trade  and  travel  for  which  the  tide-water 
cities  of  Virginia  have  been  so  long  struggling,  and 
which,  we  are  told,  is  to  build  up  a  Manchester  at  Rich- 
mond, and  a  Liverpool  at  Norfolk.  To  accomplish  this 
most  disastrous  result  of  carrying  trade  and  travel  away 
from  us,  instead  of  bringing  them  to  us,  it  is  only  neces- 
eary  to  construct  railroads,  every  foot  of  which  will  be 
in  the  Valley  and  the  trans-Alleghany  country,  and 
every  dollar  employed  in  the  construction  of  which  will 
be  expended  there  ;  and  yet  it  is  to  that  section  of  the 
State  that  the  tide-water  people  and  the  tide-water 
cities  are  asked,  by  this  white  basis,  to  transfer  the  ab- 
solute sway,  and  this,  too,  on  grounds  of  expediency 


and  as  a  matter  of  interest  ?  I  can  comprehend  the 
position  of  the  man  who  advocates  the  white  or  suffrage 
basis  on  the  ground  of  principle,  however  I  may  differ 
with  him — as  I  do,  utterly  and  absolutely  ;  but  as  to 
this  argument  of  expediency,  by  which  the  tide  water 
people  and  the  tide-water  cities  are  to  be  induced  to 
give  up  their  representation  in  the  legislature  and  to 
strip  themselves  of  the  power  of  voting  their  own  money 
to  bring  trade  and  travel  to  their  own  doors,  in  order 
that  other  people  may  use  that  same  money  in  building 
roads  to  carry  that  same  trade  and  travel  somewhere 
else,  I  confess  that,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  passeth 
all  understanding. 

Sir,  this  thing  cannot  be  done  now,  and  why  ?  Not 
because  it  has  not  been  suggested — not  because,  even 
now,  it  has  not  been  tried — but  because,  under  the  pres- 
ent apportionment  of  representation,  the  legislative 
power  is  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  because  our  western 
friends  must  have  money  to  make  their  roads,  and  we 
of  the  east  are  not  disposed  to  vote  money  to  make  roads 
to  carry  the  trade  out  of  the  State,  although  we  have 
voted  and,  I  trust,  will  continue  to  vote  it  freely  for 
the  purpose  of  building  up  Virginia,  by  bringing  her 
trade  and  the  trade  of  the  great  west  to  her  own  cities 
on  the  tide  and  on  the  ocean.  That  is  the  result  of  the 
present  distribution  of  legislative  power — that  the  re- 
sult of  the  apportionment  of  representation  onthe  mixed 
basis.  It  is  not  that  you  cannot  have  internal  improve- 
ments, but  those  improvements  must  be  such  as  shall 
enlist  both  eastern  and  western  support,  improvements 
which  both  the  sections  of  the  State  must  unite  to  car- 
ry through  ;  and  which  are  destined,  when  completed, 
to  retain  our  own  and  to  bring  foreign  trade  and  travel 
within  our  own  borders,  and  thus  to  add  to  the  wealth 
and  develop  the  resources  of  the  whole  State. 

But  if,  under  the  pretext  of  advancing  the  interests  of 
tide-water,  and  building  up  Richmond,  and  Alexandria, 
and  Petersburg,  and  Norfolk,  this  transfer  of  legislative 
power  shall  be  made,  then,  indeed,  may  the  t.-me  come, 
and  that,  I  fear,  at  no  distant  day,  when  despite  the  re- 
sistance of  tide-water  and  of  Piedmont  against  the  vote 
of  every  delegate  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  the  whole  in 
ternal  improvement  policy  of  the  State  may  be  chang- 
ed, and  Virginia  become  the  mere  thoroughfare  for  a 
trade  and  travel,  the  rich  fruits  of  which  she  is  never 
destined  to  enjoy.  Sir,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  dwell 
longer  on  this  subject.  I  say,  then,  that  upon  grounds 
both  of  principle  and  of  expediency,  I  stand  upon  the 
mixed  basis;  upon  the  basis  on  which  eastern  men  stood 
in  the  Convention  of  1829,  and  successfully  stood  ;  the 
position  on  which  Leigh,  and  Randolph,  and  Up,jhur, 
and  Marshall,  and  their  distinguished  coadjutors  then 
stood,  and  which  they  sustained  by  arguments  that  will 
be  remembered  and  admired  when  this  debate,  and  ev- 
erything connected  with  it,  shall,  I  fear,  have  sunk  into 
oblivion. 

That,  sir,  was  a  body  of  men  of  whom  Virginia  might 
well  be  proud — men  who  reared  amidst  the  scenes  of 
the  revolution,  were  animated  by  the  spirit,  imbued 
with  the  principles,  and  ennobled  by  the  virtues 
that  marked  that  glorious  epoch,  and  who,  having 
earned  the  highest  distinction  in  every  department 
of  the  public  service,  approached  full  of  years  and  full 
of  honors  to  that  the  closing  scene  of  a  long  and  bril- 
liant career.  Though  a  mere  boy  at  the  time,  I  was 
no  inattentive  attendant  on  the  sessions  of  that  august 
body,  and  the  impressions  produced  then,  subsequent  ob- 
servation and  reflection  have  tended  only  to  strengthen 
and  to  confirm.  I  recollect  as  well  though  it  had  oc- 
curred yesterday,  when  in  this  very  hall,  (it  had  not 
then  passed  under  the  hand  of  reform  and  been  render- 
ed, as  I  must  be  permitted  to  say  I  think  it  has,  less  fit 
than  before  for  the  use  of  a  deliberative  body  ;  I  re- 
member, I  say,  as  well  as  though  the  scene  had  occurred 
but  yesterday,  when  in  this  very  hall  John  Randolph 
rose  to  close  the  great  debate  on  this  very  basis  ques- 
tion, and  to  vindicate  against  all  the  assaults  that  had 
been  made  on  it,  that  old  constitution  of  1776  which, 


21 


said  he  in  those  peculiar  tones  that  told  with  such  dis- 
tinctness on  the  ear,  ''he  had  always  been  in  the  habit  of 
''considering,  with  all  its  faults  and  failings,  and  with  all 
"the  objections  which  practical  men,  not  theorists  and 
"visionary  speculators,  have  urged  or  could  urge  against 
"it,  as  the  very  best  constitution ;  not  for  Japan,  not  for 
"China,  not  for  New  England  or  for  <  Id  England,  but  for 
"this  our  ancient  commonwealth  of  Virginia."  We  all 
"know  what  was  the  impression  produced  on  the  popu- 
lar mind  by  the  discussion  of  the  basis  question  in  the 
last  convention.  The  seed  then  scattered  broadcast 
over  the  land  took  root,  and  have  yielded  an  abundant 
harvest.  Those  who  doubted  before,  were  convinced  by 
the  views  and  arguments  then  urged  wi  h  such  conclu- 
sive force ;  the  wavering  were  confirmed,  the  timid 
were  rebuked,  the  decided  were  strengthened,  and  east- 
ern Virginia  then  took  her  position  on  this  question  and 
has  steadfastly  adhered  to  it  ever  since.  Gentlemen 
tell  us  that  the  mixed  basis  principle  cannot  be  sus- 
tained, that  it  is  fast  giving  away  before  the  influence  of 
public  sentiment  and  what  they  are  pleased  to  term, 
the  progress  of  popular  principles.  I.  have  no  doubt 
gentlemen  think  this  because  they  say  it,  but  I  appre- 
hend it  will  be  found  that  in  this,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
the  wish  is  father  to  the  thought.  We  all  know  how 
apt  we  are  to  believe  that  to  be  true  which  we  wish  to 
be  true.  But  what  sir,  are  the  facts,  those  stubborn 
things  with  which,  however  reluctantly,  we  must  some- 
times grapple  ?  Prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  conven- 
tion of  1829-30,  the  whole  country  had  been  agitated 
for  years  on  this  subject,  and  the  agitation  had  all 
been  on  the  white  basis  side  Zealous  missionaries 
had  traversed  the  State  from  one  end  to  the  other. 
Meetings  had  been  held  and  resolutions  adopted  in  al 
most  every  county.  Conventions  had  assembled  at 
Scaunton,  and  various  other  points  I  believe  throughout 
the  west,  and  the  public  mind  had  been  excited  and  inflam- 
ed by  appeals  of  every  kind  against  the  gross  inequality 
of  the  then  existing  representation.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  convention  of  1829-30  assembled  and 
how  stood  parties  in  that  body?  Out  of  the  sixty  dele- 
gates from  the  counties  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  there 
were  originally  fifteen  white  basis  men  One  of  these, 
Gen.  Taylor,  resigned  his  seat  under  instructions,  an- 
othfr  (Dr.  Read  of  Northampton)  died,  and  the  remain- 
ing thirteen  voted  with  the  thirty-six  western  delegates 
against  Judge  Green's  amendment  (the  mixed  basis)  so 
that  the  vote  on  that  proposition  in  committee  of  the 
whole  stood  47  ayes  to  49  nays. 

[I  here  take  occasion  to  correct  the  statement  that 
Mr.  Midison  was  among  the  forty-nine.  He  voted  in 
the  affirmative  and  not  in  the  negative,  as  will  appear 
by  reference  to  the  vote  taken  the  next  day  on  the  pro- 
position to  base  representation  on  federal  numbers,  on 
which,  as  on  the  mixed  basis,  the  vote  stood  forty- 
seven  to  forty-nine,  and  among  the  forty-seven  ayes  you 
find  the  name  of  James  Madison.] 

But,  sir,  as  this  was  the  first  triumph  achieved  by  the 
white  basis  party  in  that  convention,  so  it  was  their 
last.  The  mixed  basis  was  for  the  time  defeated,  but 
the  white  basis,  (I  say  the  white  basis  for  as  compared 
with  that  the  suffrage  basis,  which  is  the  basis  now,  was 
utterly  repudiated  by  western  gentlemen  then,)  the  white 
basis  1  say  was  not  carried,  and  was  never  destined  to 
be  carried  in  that  convention.  The  discussion  on  the 
basis  of  representation  went  forth  to  the  country  and 
produced  upon  the  popular  mind  the  impression  due  to 
its  commanding  ability ;  meetings  were  held,  public 
sentiment  re-acted  and  made  itself  known  in  tones  that 
could  not  but  be  heard  and  heeded  by  those  to  whom  they 
were  addressed.  Under  its  influence  one  of  the  dele- 
gates from  the  Albemarle  district  who  had  voted  with 
the  west  in  committee  of  the  whole  on  Judge  Green's 
amendment,  declined  to  go  further  and  brought  forward 
a  proposition,  of  hie  own,  and  on  two  succeeding  trials  of 
strength,  the  vote  stood  forty-eight  to  forty-eight,  and 
the  final  result  was  the  adoption  substantially  of  Mr. 
Gordon's  plan  and  its  insertion  into  the  present  constitu- 


tion. That  plan,  it  is  true,  was  not  in  terms  the  mixed 
basis  ;  but,  sir,  our  western  friends  will  tell  you,  as  they 
have  in  effect  told  you  again  and  again,  that  it  was 
still  further  from  being  the  white  basis.  They  know 
as  well  as  we  do  that  call  it  by  which  name  you  will 
the  scheme  of  representation  adopted  by  the  convention 
of  1829-  30  gave  to  the  east  all  that  she  sought  to  ob- 
tain by  the  mixed  basis,  all  that  she  struggled  foi  then, 
and  all  that  she  struggles  for  now.  It  gave  her  protec- 
tion to  property  and  protection  through  representation, 
and  it  gives  her  now,  (as  we  all  know,)  a  majority  in  the 
legislature  greater  by  nearly  one-half,  than  according 
to  the  present  population  and  taxation  of  the  State 
she  would  be  entitled  to  on  the  mixed  basis  itself.  That 
was  the  practical  result  of  the  struggle  on  this  question 
in  the  convention  of  1829-30.  Well,  sir,  twenty  years 
have  rolled  around  during  which  this  basis  question  has 
been  once  and  again  before  your  State  legislature. 
Another  convention  has  been  called,  and  we  are  here  in 
obedience  to  that  summons.  And  on  what  principle  is 
this  convention  organized  ?  On  the  very  principle  that 
has  been  so  bitterly  denounced  for  weeks  and  months 
past,  and  in  respect  to  which  the  argument  of  epithet 
at  least,  has  been  exhausted,  on  the  mixed  basis  of  white 
population  and  taxation  equally  combined.  This,  sir,  is 
the  basis  on  which  the  people  of  Virginia  by  a  majority 
of  more  than  25,000  votes  have  declared  that  this  Con- 
vention shall  be  organized,  this  the  basis  on  which  we 
hold  our  seats  here  and  are  clothed  with  the  high  and 
responsible  trust  of  proposing  to  those  who  sent  us  "  a 
new  constitution  or  alterations  anil  amendments  to  the 
existing  constitution."  An  1  how  stand  parties  here  on 
this  basis  question,  or  at  least  how  were  they  under- 
stood to  stand  according  to  the  avowed  opinions  and 
principles  of  gentlemen  when  the  convention  met  ?  We 
have  seen  that  in  the  former  convention  out  of  the  sixty 
delegates  from  the  counties  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  fif- 
teen were  white  basis  men,  or  just  one-fourth  of  the 
whole,  while  in  this  Convention  out  of  the  seventy-six 
delegates  from  these  same  counties  east  of  the  Blue 
Ridge  there  are  but  four  white  basis  men,  or  just  one- 
nineteenth  of  the  whole.  Fifteen  out  of  sixty  in  the 
convention  of  1829-30,  and  four  out  of  seventy  six  in 
the  convention  of  1850-'51!  Is  thist  he  evidence  to  which 
gentlemen  would  appeal  to  show  the  rapid  progre&s  of 
the  white  basis  principle  in  eastern  Virginia  in  the  last 
twenty  years?  I  speak  only  of  eastern  Virginia  be- 
cause our  friends  on  the  other  side  had  all  the  delegates 
west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  in  1829,  and  they  will  not  claim 
more  than  all  now.  But  how,  I  ask,  do  the  unquestion- 
ed and  unquestionable  facts  to  which  I  have  referred 
tally  with  the  assertion  so  often  and  so  confidently 
made  that  the  mixed  basis  can  no  longer  be  sustained, 
that  it  stands  condemned  by  public  sentiment  and  is 
fast  losing  ground  in  popular  estimation  ?  Sir,  our 
friends  on  the  other  side,  (I  am  free  to  admit,)  have 
many  advantages  over  us  in  this  debate.  They  abound 
in  eloquent  invective,  in  glowing  declamation  in  im- 
passioned appeals  to  the  feelings,  not  to  say  the  preju- 
dices and  passions  of  those  they  address.  They  "are 
passing  rich  in  that  same  heavenly  speech  and  spend  it 
at  their  pleasure."  But  I  must  be  pardoned  for  saying 
in  all  respect  and  kindness,  that  in  my  humble  opinion, 
they  rarely  come  into  contact  with  one  of  those  stub- 
born things  called  facts,  without  incurring  great  risk, 
(to  use  a  homely  phrase,)  of  breaking  their  shins  over  it. 

The  east  then  went  into  the  convention  of  1829-'30 
with  a  majority  against  her.  She  comes  into  this 
convention,  according  to  the  avowed  opinions  and  ex- 
press pledges  of  the  members  composing  it,  with  a  ma- 
jority of  from  seven  to  nine  in  her  favor. 

And  shall  eastern  men  with  the  example  of  their  fa- 
thers before  them,  shall  we,  coming  from  the  same  peo- 
ple, representing  the  same  interests,  and  charged  with 
the  same  high  responsibilities  as  they,  abandon  the 
principles  which  they  so  triumphantly  vindicated,  or 
meanly  shrink  from  the  position  they  so  gallantly  main- 
tained?  The  west  has  ' sent  to  this  body  champions 


22 


worthy  of  any  cause — men  -who  have  proved  themselves 
the  worthy  successors  of  Doddridge  and  of  Johnson — 
and  the  representatives  from  the  east  will  not,  I  tivst. 
be  found  to  be  altogether  the  degenerate  sons  of  noble 
sires."  If  we  cannot  aspire  to  their  eloquence,  we  may 
at  least  imitate  their  example  ;  if  our  lips  are  not 
touched,  like  theirs,  with  the  honey  of  persuasion — if  we 
cannot,  as  they  did,  command  the  public  ear  and  sway 
the  public  mind — we  can  at  least  maintain  the  princi 
pies  they  held  dear,  and  stand  by,  and  if  need  be,  fall 
with  them.  Let  it  not  be  then  I  appeal  to  eastern  gen- 
tleman one  and  all,  let  it  rtot  be  that  those  who  sent  us 
here  shall  have  cause  to  curse  the  hour  they  confided  their 
interests  to  our  care,  and  to  say  to  our  shame  and  to 
our  confusion,  that  while  in  our  fathers'  hands  a  mi- 
nority swelled  to  a  majority,  in  ours  a  majority  has 
dwindled  into  a  minority. 

My  friend  from  Kanawha,  (Mr.  Summers,)  in  die 
course  of  his  remarks  was  pleased,  with  that  power 
of  eloquence  which  he  possesses  in  so  eminent  a  degree, 
to  draw  a  picture  in  which  he  represented  himself  as 
returning  to  his  people,  and  the  people  making  inqui- 
ries of  him  in  respect  to  his  stewardship,  and  the  re- 
sponse he  would  give  if  the  mixed  basis  were  adopted. 
I  wish  I  had  the  same  graphic  power  to  draw  the  coun- 
terpart of  that  picture,  to  draw  the  picture  of  an  eastern 
man  who  goes  back  to  his  constituency  with  this  white 
basis,  either  in  name  or  in  substance,  fixed  upon  them 
by  any  act  or  omission  of  his  ?  What  will  they  say  ? 
Will  they  not  tell  him,  "  We  agreed  to  go  with  our 
western  brethren  into  Convention,  upon  a  basis  that 
preserved  to  us  that  degree  of  representative  power 
which  we  thought  essential  to  the  protection  of  our  in- 
terests, for  the  purpose  of  making  what  we  considered 
necessary  and  proper  reforms.  We  were  willing  to 
make  the  necessary  and  proper  reforms  ;  we  were  will- 
ing to  infuse  a  greater  degree  of  popular  vigor 
into  the  government,  to  reorganize  the  judiciary  and 
the  county  court  system  to  extend  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, to  reorganize  the  executive,  to  make  provisions 
for  a  board  of  public  works ;  but  we  sent  you  there 
with  your  course  upon  this  one  question  of  the  basis  of 
representation,  distinctly  marked  out  by  opinions  the 
most  decided  and  pledges  the  most  solemn,  and  we  call 
upon  you  to  say  how  comes  it  that  these  opinions  have 
not  be  m  maintained,  that  these  pledges  have  not  been 
redeemed? 

Sir.  I  envy  not  the  man  who  in  answer  to  a  demand 
like  this,  shall  be  forced  to  admit  that  by  his  agency, 
active  or  \  assive — by  his  supineuess  or  faint  heartness — 
or  something  perhaps  worse  than  either — a  constitution 
— not  that  sir,  which  may  be  ena  ted  to-day  and  repeal- 
ed to-morrow,  but  an  orgauic  law  to  last,  it  may  be,  for 
generations  and  generations,  is  to  be  forced  upon  a  con- 
fiding constituency,  w'.-ich  in  one  of  its  provisions,  and 
that  too  the  most  important  of  the  whole,  is  ti±  i  very 
reverse  of  what,  they  believed  a  d  had  every  reason  to 
believe,  when  they  absented  to  the  call  of  this  Conven- 
tion, would  1  ave  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  Vir- 
ginia for  their  ratification  or  rejection. 

If  in  the  case  supposed  by  my  friend  from  Kanawha, 
the  delegate  from  the  west,  who  like  that  gentleman 
has  stood  by  his  principl  ts,  and  done  all  that  human 
power  could  do  to  render  them  triumphant  if  in  such 
a  case  such  a  man  sh  dl  return  to  his  constituents  with 
tie  feelings  my  friend  has  so  eloquently  portrayed, 
what,  I  ask  him,  must  be  the  feelings  of  that  represen- 
tative from  the  Cast  who  has  not  s'ood  by  his  princi- 
ples, but- has  hasely  abandoned,  surrendered,  or  compro- 
mised them  away  ?  How  will  he  face  an  indignant 
and  outraged  constituency,  or  fl  e  from  the  reproaches 
of  a  conscience  that  should  pursue  him  with  a  whip  of 
scorpions,  and  lash  him  to  a  dishonored  grave?  T  can 
speak  at  least  for  one  eastern  delegate,  nay,  sir,  I  feel 
that  I  can  speak  for  many — I  would  fain  hope  I  might 
speak  for  all — when  I  say  that  come  weal  come  wo,  we 
will  endeavor  to  walk  without  faltering  in  what  we 
solemnly  believe  to  be  the  plain  path  of  honor  and  of 


Idutv  — we  will  redeem  the  pledges  under  which  we 
were  elected,  and  stand  by  the  principles  we  were 
sent  here  to  maintain. 

Gentlemen  talk  about  compromise,  about  the  spirit  of 
compromise  and  the  n  scessity  for  compromise.  Why, 
sir,  what  is  the  mixed  basis  itself  but  a  compromise? 
And  in  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  wisest  statesmen  and 
purest  patriots  that  ever  lived,  a  fair  and  just  aud  equal 
compromise  between  the  extremes  of  the  white  popula- 
tion (the  basis  of  our  western  friends)  on  the  one  hand, 
ana  taxation  the  basis  of  the  federal  constitution  on  the 
other.  Is  it  not  enough  that  we  are  willing  to  meet 
you  half  way  between  your  own  extreme  proposition 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  principles  of  the  federal  con- 
stitution— which  is  also  our  constitution  and  your  con- 
stitution— on  the  other?  Or  do  you  require  us  to  go 
yet  further,  and  if  so,  how  far  shall  we  go  ?  With  all 
that  has  been  said  about  compromise,  both  in  and  out  of 
this  hall,  where,  I  ask,  is  the  proposition  for  a  compro- 
mise yet  offered  by  the  west  ?  Where  is  the  western 
gentleman  that  has  yet  tendered  such  a  proposition  in 
any  form  ?  When  it  shall  be  made  I  /or  one  am  dis- 
posed to  receive  it  in  tie  s  irit  in  which  it  is  offered, 
and  to  give  it  the  most  respectful  and  candid  consider- 
ation. But  our  western  friends  tell  us,  that  they  stand 
upon  principles  not  to  be  surrendered  or  compromised 
away,  and  in  this  I  doubt  not  they  are  sincere ;  I  doubt 
not  they  stand  upon  what  they  believe  to  be  the  true 
principles  of  republican  government.  But  is  it  unreas- 
onable to  ask,  that  they  should  give  us  credit  for  equal 
sincerity,  when  we  say  that  we  too  claim  to  stand  upon 
principles  consecrated,  as  we  believe,  by  the  blood  of 
the  revolution  and  handed  down  t )  us  by  our  forefathers, 
as  fundamental  tenets  of  free  governments — principles 
that  the  people  we  represent  will  not  and  cannot  sur- 
render, without  a  surrender  at  the  same  time  of  their 
dearesrt  rights  and  interests.  It  is  (to  say  no  more) 
quite  charitable  to  infer,  that  in  this  matter  they  alone 
are  actuated  by  principle,  while  with  us  it  is  a  mere 
struggle  for  power  for  power's  sake? 

But  perhaps,  I  am  wrong  in  saying  that  there  has 
been  no  offer  of  compromise,  for  it  has  I  understand 
been  suggested  (I  did  not  myself  hear  the  suggestion) 
by  one  gentleman  from  the  west,  that  by  way  of  com- 
promising this  question  we  should  propose  to  the  people 
of  Virgiuia  two  constitutions — one  with  the  white  basis, 
and  the  other  with  the  mixed  basis.  But  for  the  respect 
±  have  for  the  gentleman  from  whom  I  understood  this 
suggestion  came,  who  proposed  it  as  in  his  opinion,  a 
fair  and  honorable  compromise,  I  should  really  have 
supposed  it  was  meant  only  as  an  example  of  that  figure 
of  speech  that  rhetoricians,  I  believe  call  irony.  I  should 
not  have  believed,  and  I  really  can  scarcely  yet  believe 
that  rhe  gentleman  was  serious  in  the  proposition  he  is 
said  to  have  made.  Two  constitutions  for  the  peop'e  of 
Virginia !  one  with  the  white  basis  and  the  other  with 
the  mixed  basis  !  Where  sir,  in  the  first  place  do  we 
get  the  authority  to  do  this  ?  Were  we  sent  here  to 
make  two  constitutions,  or  half  a  dozen  constitutions  ? 
Or  did  the  people  send  us  here  with  our  duties  distinct- 
ly marked  out,  with  our  letter  of  attorney  plainly  defi- 
ned, with  directions  to  propose  to  them  in  tl  e  language 
of  the  bill  convening  us,  "a  new  constitution  or  amend- 
ments and  alterations  to  the  existing  constitution." 
VVhen  therefore,  I  shall  have  voted  for  a  new  constitu- 
tion, such  a  one  as  according  to  the  best  of  my  poor 
judgment  I  believj  to  be  proper ;  or  when  I  shall  have 
voted  for  such  alterations  and  amendments  as  I  think 
ought  to  be  made  in  the  existing  constitution,  T  shall 
have  done  precisely  all  1  am  authorized  to  do.  and  pre- 
cisely all  will  do  und^r  any  conceivable  state  of  cir- 
cumstances. And  I  cannot  help  having  a  very  strong 
impression  that  if  we  shall  succeed  in  proposing  to  the 
people  one  constitution,  we  shall  do  quite  as  much  as 
was  ever  expected  at  our  hands,  and  more  than  some  be- 
lieve we  shall  accomplish. 

My  friend  from  Kanawha  observed  when  '  ou  sir,  (al- 
luding to  Mr.  Janney,  who  was  then  in  the  chair,)  were 


23 


expressing  views  similar  to  those  I  am  now  presenting,  | 
that  he  had  no  idea  that  you  were  so  technical ;  he  did 
not  suppose  you  were  such  a  strict  constructionist. 
Now,  I  do  not  know  what  my  frien  l  from  Kanawha's  idea 
of  strict  constitution  may  be,  but  I  take  occasion  here  to 
say.  that  if  there  be  a  party  here  or  elsewhere  who  are| 
prepared  to  hold,  that  those  who  are  sent  here  to  make! 
a  constitution  have  the  authority  under  that  grant  of  j 
power  to  make  as  many  constitutions  as  they  please — 
if  there  be  those  who  maintain  that  sort  of  construc- 
tion. I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  I  am  entitled  to  be 
styled  a  strict  constitution Ut,  but  I  certainly  am  not 
latirudinarian  enough  for  that. 

But,  sir,  apart  from  this  plain  defect  of  authority,  I 
for  one,  will  never  consent  to  do  indirectly  what  I  will 
not  do  directly,  or  place  myself  in  the  position  of  saying 
to  he  west  I  will  not  give  you  power  and  I  will  1  t 
you  take  it.  I  will  never  skulk  from  a  question  which 
duty  requires  me  to  meet,  nor  meanly  attempt  to  evade 
responsibility  by  shuffling  off  upon  others  the  decision 
of  questions  which  it  is  our  province  to  decide  or  we 
have  no  business  here.  The  white  basis  principle  is 
either  right  or  wrong.  If  right,  let  it  be  adopted  and 
engrafted  on  the  constitution  ;  if  wrong,  let  it  be  re- 
jected and  some  other  principle  adopted  in  its  stead. 
If  I  believed  it  to  be  right,  I  would  vote  for  it  out  and 
out,  and  right  out  without  disguise  or  evasion  of  any 
sort.  Believing  it  to  be  wrong,  I  shall  vote  against  it  in 
every  form  in  which  it  can  be  proposed. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  western  people  will  not  accept 
a  constitution  with  the  mixed  basis  engrafted  on  it,  but 
will  reject  it;  and  resolutions  have  been  presented  here 
from  some  of  the  counties  in  the  west,  (chiefly,  1  be- 
lieve, in  the  north-west,)  indicating  a  purpose  and  a 
desire  to  have  a  separation  or  division  of  the  State  if 
the  mixed  basis  be  adopted.  Now,  I  have  too  much 
regard,  too  much  respect  for  the  good  sense  and  the 
good  feeling — for  the  true  Virginia  spirit  and  patriotism 
of  my  western  brethren,  among  whom  1  am  proud  to 
reckon  some  of  my  best  friends — gentlemen  who  would 
do  honor  to  any  country — too  much  respect,  I  say,  for 
these  men  and  the  peop'e  they  represent,  to  believe 
that  should  this  Convention  recommend  to  the  people 
a  constitution  embracing  those  reforms  which  are  de- 
manded by  the  whole  people,  east  and  west,  such  a 
constitution  would  be  rejected  by  them  merely  because 
it  embodied  also  the  mixed  basis  of  representation  iw 
the  legislature. 

I  have  no  fears  on  this  point — none  whatever.  There 
is  nothing  new,  sir,  in  the  suggestion  thus  made,  the 
argument  thus  presented,  the  threat — if  threat  it  be — 
thus  held  over  us.  The  very  same  ground  was  taken 
twenty  years  ago  by  gentlemen  just  as  much  entitled  to 
speak  for  the  western  people  then,  as  anv  of  those, 
however  enlightened  and  respectable,  who  represent  and 
undertake  to  speak  for  them  now.  Who,  sir.  I  ask,  in 
the  last  Convention  was  the  acknowledged  leader  and 
champion  of  the  western  forces?  Who  but  Philip 
Doddridge — a  champion,  let  me  add,  worthy  of  any 
cause  and  a  leader  of  whom  any  party  might  well  be 
proud?  And  what  did  Mr.  Doddridge  say  in  the  last 
convention  with  respect  to  the  very  constitution  under 
which  we  are  now  living,  and  have  been  living  for  the 
last  twenty  years?  Speaking  of  the  plans  then  before 
the  convention,  one  of  which  was  Mr.  Gordon's,  (the 
plan  that  was  subsequently  adopted,)  and  adverting 
particularly  to  the  fact  that  under  the  schemes  he  was 
considering,  (as  also  under  the  existing  constitution  of 
which  it  forms,  as  I  have  already  stated,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  the  most  objectionable  feature.)  the  east 
would  have  in  all  future  time  a  majority  of  the  legisla- 
ture even  though,  "  the  eastern  population,"  (to  use  his 
"  own  language)  should  be  stationary,  and  the  west  in- 
"  crease  to  a  million."  Mr.  Doddridge  proceeds  in  these 
emphatic  terms  :  (I  read  from  page  684  of  the  debate* 
of  the  last  convention.)  "  I  am  satisfied,  Mr.  President, 
"  that  if  a  constitution  should  be  offered  to  the  people 
"on  either  of  these  plans,  it  would,  nay,  it  must  be  rejected 
"by  the  people."    This,  sir,  was  the  language  of  Philip 


Doddridge  in  the  last  convention — speaking  for  the 
west — its  acknowledged  leader — and  no  man  raising  his 
voice  against  him.  And  yet  a  constitution  was  offered 
to  the  people  on  one  of  "  these  plans  "  to  wit :  on  Mr. 
Gordon's  plan,  and  was  adopted  by  the  people  by 
a  majority  of  upwards  of  ten  thousand  votes.  This  was 
the  absolute  majority;  and  how  much  of  that  majority 
came  from  the  counties  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge?  How 
did  the  west  vote  on  the  ratification  of  the  existing  con- 
stitution notwithstanding  the  objection  Mr.  Doddridge 
had  pointed  out,  and  the  confident  prediction  he  had 
hazarded  with  respect  to  it?  I  have  the  record  before 
me,  and  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee- 
for  a  moment  to  the  recorded  vote  of  some  of  the  largest 
and  most  p  pulous  counties  of  the  Valley  and  the  trans- 
Alleghany.  In  the  county  of  Botetourt,  for  instance, 
the  vote  sto  d  six  hundred  and  sixty  for  the  constitution 
to  twelve  against  it  : 

In  Jefferson         234  for  it ;     53  against  it. 

Rockbridge  416  **  125  "  (three  to  one.) 
Rockingham    457    "  49    "      (ten  to  one.) 

Shenandoah     671    "  64    "     (ten  to  one.) 

Washington  (in  the  extreme  south-west) 

556  for  it  ;    175  against  it. 
Lee  (on  the  borders  of  Tennessee) 

330  for  it;     99  against  it. 
A  MEMBER.     How  did  Mr.  Doddridge's  county 
vote  ? 

Mr.  STANARD.  Mr.  Doddridge's  county  voted 
against  it ;  but  Mr  Doddridge  did  not  undertake  to 
speak  alone  for  his  own  county.  Gentlemen  may  speak 
perhaps  for  their  own  counties,  but  it  is  a  very  different 
matier  when  they  get  up  here  and  undertake  to  speak 
for  the  whole  west,  the  trans-Alleghany  and  Valley. 
And,  sir,  I  would  appeal  to  my  friend  from  Berkeley 
himself,  to  say  whether  he  believes  if  a  constitution  is 
offered  to  the  people — satisfactory  in  other  respects — 
that  constitution  would  be  rejected  by  them  because  it 
contained  this  mixed  basis  principle?  1  would  make  a 
similar  appeal  to  my  friend  from  Botetourt,  (Mr.  Mil- 
ler,) does  he  believe  the  Valley  will  vote  against  the 
constitution  with  the  mixed  basis  ?  Does  he  believe 
his  own  county  will  vote  against  it,  which  under  the 
mixed  basis  gets  two  delegates,  while  the  white  or  suf- 
frage basis  gives  it  but  one? 

I  have  referred,  sir,  to  the  history  of  the  last  Conven- 
tion, to  the  predictions  made  then  as  authoratively  and 
confidently  as  they  are  now,  and  to  the  extent  to 
which  these  predictions  were  verified  by  the  result; 
but  we  have  yet  a  more  recent  example  of  the  difference 
between  the  prophecy  of  to-day  and  the  history  of  to- 
morrow. Many  men  are  prophets — after  the  fact — few 
comparatively  before  the  fact.  But  how  was  it  when 
the  bill  was  pending  last  winter  to  call  this  Conven- 
tion, and  to  call  it  on  the  mixed  basis — what  did  we 
hear  then,  such  of  us  at  least  as  happened  to  be  mem- 
bers of  that  legislature  ?  Precisely  what  we  have 
heard  since — unsparing  denunciation  of  the  mixed  basis 
principle  as  unjust,  unequal,  anti-republican,  insulting, 
and  degrading  to  the  west — and  confident  predictions  by 
western  gentlemen,  that  a  Convention  called  on  such  a 
principle  would  never  be  held — that  the  west  would 
rise  up  as  one  man  and  reject  the  proposition  to  hold  a 
convention  organized  on  such  a  principle  with  indigna- 
tion and  with  scorn.  Nevertheless  the  bill  was  passed, 
and  the  question  was  submitted  to  the  people — not  the 
naked  question — will  you  have  a  convention  or  not  ?  but 
will  you  have  a  convention  as  proposed  by  this  bill  ? — that 
is,  a  convention  organized  on  the  mixed  basis  of  white  popu- 
lation and  taxation  equally  combined?  And  to  this  ques- 
tion with  a  decided  majority  of  the  white  population, 
and  of  the  voters  of  the  State  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge, 
che  people  by  a  majority  of  upwards  of  25  000  responded 
in  the  affirmative.  And  are  we  now  to  be  told  that  it 
is  altogether  right  to  call  the  convention  on  the  mixed 
basis,  but  that  it  is  entirely  wrong  to  organize  the  legis- 
lature on  the  same  basis  ? 

I  confess  I  had  always  supposed  that  it  was  the  pro- 


24 


vince  of  the  Convention  to  frame  the  organic  law,  as  it 
is  the  province  of  the  legislature  to  enact  the  ordinary 
laws,  and  1  know  not  on  what  ground  consistent  with 
reason  an  J  common  sense  it  is  to  be  maintained  that  the 
same  principle  which  is  altogether  proper  as  applicable 
to  the  one  should  be  utterly  discarded  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  other.  On  the  contrary  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  was  right  to  call  the  Convention  on  the  mixed  basis, 
it  cannot  be  wrong  to  organize  the  legislature  un  the 
same  basis. 

And  why,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  reasonable, 
should  not  the  west  be  satisfied  with  a  consti  ution  un- 
der which  they  will  have  the  control  now  pretty  much 
of  every  thing  but  the  legislature,  and  according  to  the 
arguments  of  many  western  gentlemen  h  re — (arguments 
which  I  suppose  must  at  least  be  satisfactory  to  those 
who  use  them) — in  the  course  of  some  ten  or  twelve 
years,  they  will  get  the  control  of  that  too?  The  west 
is  the  growing  portion  of  the  State.  It  already  controls 
the  vote  of  the  State  in  the  presidential  election — and, 
under  the  constitution  we  propose  to  adopt,  will  elect 
the  governor,  and  it  may  be  also,  the  board  of  public 
works  ;  it  already  exercises  a  nost  patent  influence  over 
the  subject  of  internal  improvement,  and  for  its  benefit 
in  a  great  measure — to  open  up  its  lands — develop  its 
resources — and  augment  its  population  and  wealth  ha> 
the  internal  improvement  debt  of  the  Sta'e  been  swelled 
from  some  one  million  of  dollars  in  1829,  to  some  eighteen 
or  twenty  millions  in.  1851.  Is  not  this  enough  ?  or  must 
we  surrender  all — all  of  political  power,  sir,  that  we 
can  give  ©r  they  can  take,  under  the  penalty  of 
h  iving  the  constitution  rejected  or  the  State  divided? 
"Why,  sir,  does  any  reasonable  man  suppose — does  an)* 
man  in  his  senses  imagine  that  the  western  people  would 
prefer  living  under  a  constitution  that  gives  to  the  east 
a  majority  of  twenty  three  in  the  popular  branch,  and 
thirty  (I  believe)  on  joint  ballot — and  contains  none  of 
the  reforms  they  so  ardently  desire  to  adopting  a  con- 
stitution that  gives  the  east  a  majority  of  but  fourteen 
in  the  popular  branch,  and  sixteen  on  joint  ballot,  while 
at  the  same  time  it  embodies  all  those  great  reforms? 
or  that  sooner  than  submit  to  the  latter,  they  will  di- 
vide the  State  ?  I  speak,  sir,  with  the  most  perfect  re- 
spect to  gentlemen  who  may  think  differently,  and  who 
are  certainly  just  as  much  entitled  to  their  opinion  as  I 
am  to  mine;  but  I  must  say  that  this  idea  of  rejecting 
the  constitution  or  dividing  the  State,  because  of  the 
adoption  of  the  mixed  basis  is,  in  my  humble  judgment, 
the  veriest  bug-bear — ihe  merest  raw-head  and  bloody- 
bones  that  was  ever  held  up  to  frighten — not  childron, 


sir,  but  bearded  men,  to  whom  (however  unworthy)  the 
people  have  been  pleased  to  confide  the  high  trust  they 
have  delegated  to  us — from  their  propriety  and  their 

duty. 

Let  us  then,  I  implore  gentlemen,  dismissing  all  such 
apprehensions  as  these,  proceed  calmly  and  deliberately 
— unseduced  if  possible  by  prejudice — unswayed  by 
passion — undismayed  by  menace — to  the  discharge  of 
the  high  and  solemn  duty  to  which  we  have  been  called. 
Let  us  not,  possessed  with  a  single  idea,  and  blindly  fol- 
lowing its  guidance,  disregard  -utterly  disregard  all 
those  numerous  and  multiform  considerations  that  should 
enter  into  the  great  and  complex  problem  of  govern- 
ment, and  especially  of  free  government.  Let  us  not 
adopt  the  unstatesmanlike  course  of  looking  to  one  prin- 
ciple only— giving  it  despotic  sway,  and  permitting  it  to 
override,  and  to  hush  to  silence  all  the  rest.  Let  us 
rather  base  the  government  we  propose  to  rear  on  all 
the  great  interests  of  the  people  whose  destiny  it  is  to 
control.  Let  us  rest  it  on  the  principles  and  doctrines 
of  the  American  revolution,  and  the  precedent  and  ana- 
lagies  of  the  federal  constitution.  Let  us  rest  it,  in  fine, 
on  the  two  great  elements  of  all  society — the  two  great 
subjects  of  all  government — persons  and  property — and 
on  this  foundation,  broad  and  deep,  let  us  rear  a  struc- 
ture which,  for  ourselves,  and  for  our  childre",  and  our 
children's  children,  we  may  dedicate  to  liberty  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  term — liberty  founded  on  law  and  pro- 
tected by  law — the  only  liberty  that  can  be  preserved 
or  that  is  worth  preserving ! 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  that  T  must  draw  these  remarks 
to  a  close.  Suffering  from  indisposition  when  I  com- 
menced speaking,  I  am  now  greatly  exhausted,  and  must 
pass  by  altogether  some  of  the  views  I  designed  to  pre- 
sent. I  have  endeavored  in  what  I  have  said,  to  give 
some  of  the  reasons  for  the  principles  I  maintain — for 
the  faith  that  is  in  me — and  in  doing  this,  my  object  has 
been  to  address  myself  rather  to  the  understanding  of 
my  hearers,  than  t©  their  prejudices  or  to  their  pas- 
sions. To-morrow  we  shall  be  called  upon  to  decide 
a  most  momentous  question,  and  I  cannot  believe  that 
this  is  the  fitting  time  or  place  for  displays  of  rhetoric 
or  flights  of  declamation  even  were  I  as  gifted  in 
those  respects  as  I  know  myself  to  be  deficient.  It  only 
remains  for  me  to  express  my  sense  ofthe  very  flattering 
attention  which,  at  this  late  stage  of  this  protracted  de- 
bate, the  oommittee  has  been  pleased  to  accord  to  me, 
and  to  add,  that  I  will  trespass  no  longer  on  their 
patience  or  indulgence. 


REMARKS 


R.  C.  STANARD,  ESQ.,  OF  RICHMOND  CITY, 

ON 

THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  EIGHT, 

COMMONLY  CALLED  THE  COMPROMISE. 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


DELIVEEED  ON 

Wednesday,  May  21,  1851. 


Mr.  STANARD.    I  had  the  honor  yesterday  to  sub- 
mit a  simple  proposition  to  the  Convention,  which  I  ac- 
companied with  an  explanation  of  some  five  or  ten  min^., 
utes,  merely  to  put  the  Convention  in  possession  of  the' 
points  I  desired  to  present,  and  I  was  content  then  to 
leave  it  to  their  decision.    I  should  not  again  have  en- 
tered upon  the  subject.    I  made  the  proposition  be 
cause  I  understood  both  from  the  discussion  that  has 
taken  place,  and  from  the  statement  of  one  of  the  mem- 
bers ©f  the  Committee  of  Eight,  with  whom  I  had  spo- 
ken a  few  moments  before  I  submitted  my  amendment, 
that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  committee  in  the  scheme 
they  proposed  to  give  to  the  west  what  the  west  was 
now  entitled  to  upon  the  suffrage  basis  in  the  house  of 
delegates,  and  to  give  to  the  east  double  the  represent- 
ation that  the  east  would  be  entitled  to  upon  the  mixed 
basis  in  the  senate.    Believing  that  to  be  their  object, 
and  being  satisfied  from  the  documents  to  which  I  call- 
ed the  attention  of  the  house,  that  this  object  was  not 
attained,  but  that  the  west  got  by  this  so-called  compro- 
mise, not  only  all  that  it  is  now  entitled  to  in  the  house 
of  delegates  on  the  suffrage  basis,  but  two  more  than 
it  could  claim  even  on  that  basis — a  fact  which  is  now 
conceded  on  all  hands — I  felt  it  my  duty  to  bring  this 
matter  to  the  notice  of  the  Convention,  and  to  invoke 
their  judgment  upon  it    I  wished  to  see  if  we  were 
prepared  to  go  further  than  the  committee  themselves 
(as  1  understood  them)  designed  to  go — if  we  were  to 
out-compromise  the  compromisers — and  to  give  to  the 
west  two  more  in  the  house  of  delegates  than  even  they 
intended  the  west  should  have.    I  proposed,  therefore, 
so  to  modify  the  report  as  to  make  the  representation 
in  the  house  of  delegates  81  west  to  69  east,  instead  of 
82  west  to  68  east  ;  and  it  was  upon  a  proposition  of 
this  kind,  accompanied  as  it  was  with  a  bare  explana- 
tion of  its  character,  that  gentlemen  have  been  pleaded 
to  go  into  a  discussion  of  matters  from  all  allusion  to 
which  I  have  throughout  carefully  abstained,  and  to 
attempt  to  justify  their  own  course  by  arraigning  the 
course  of  other  gentlemen,  both  in  and  out  of  this  hall. 
When  I  say  "arraigning,"  I  mean  that  they  have  at- 
tempted to  show  that  in  sustaining  this  so-called  com 
promise,  they  have  provided  better  protection  for  the 
rights  and  interests  of  the  eastern  people  than  did  the 
members  of  the  eastern  committee  of  conference,  and 
such  other  eastern  members  as  may  have  concurred 
with  that  committee  in  the  propositions  submitted  by  them 
to  our  western  brethren,  and  this,  too,  notwithstanding 
the  incontestible  fact,  that  each  and  every  one  of  the 
propositions  thus  submitted  was  unanimously  rejected 
by  the  western  committee,  and  that  rejection  unani- 
mously concurred  in  by  the  western  caucus,  while  as 
respects  this  compromise  (which  we  are  told  is  so  much 
better  for  the  east,  and  so  much  worse  for  the  west 
than  the  propositions  thus  made  and  rejected)  every 
western  vote  stands  recorded  in  its  fwor,  and  every 
eastern  vote  but  seven  stands  recorded  against  it,  and 
of  those  seven,  three  were  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tee who  reported  it. 


Reverse  the  votes  of  the  eastern  committee  men,  and 
even  now  this  scheme  would  be  defeated.  And  yet  we 
are  to  be  told  a  scheme  thus  sustained  by  the  west  and 
repudiated  by  the  east  is  better  for  the  east  and  worse 
for  the  west  than  the  propositions  submitted  by  the 
eastern  committee  of  cenference  and  unanimously  re- 
jected by  the  western  committee  and  the  western  meet- 
ing. Sir,  I  must  be  pardoned  for  saying,  with  all  due 
respect,  that  gentlemen  must  be  driven  to  extremities 
indeed,  when  they  find  it  necessary  to  assume  positions 
and  to  hazard  assertions  like  these.  If  they  have  no 
better  excuse  to  offer  for  the  support  they  have  given 
to  this  miscalled  compromise,  than  is  to  be  found  in  the 
proceedings  or  votes  of  their  eastern  associates  either 
in  or  out  of  this  hail,  then,  indeed,  is  their  case  hope- 
less— utterly  hopeless.  I  have  said,  sir,  that  I  have 
made  no  allusion  to  the  proceedings,  either  of  eastern 
or  western  gentlemen  out  of  this  hall1,  whether  in  com- 
mittees of  conference,  caucus,'  or  otherwise — it  was 
not  my  purpose  to  allude  to  them  in  any  the  remotest 
manner  :  but,  as  they  have  been  alluded  to,  I  feel  it  to 
be  not  only  my  right,  but  my  duty,  to  meet  and  to  repel 
the  positions  that  have  been  assumed  with  respect  to 
them,  and  to  show,  as  I  think  I  can,  most  conclusively, 
that  so  far  from  this  thing  called  a  compromise  being 
better  for  the  east  than  the  propositions  made  by  the 
eastern  committee,  it  is  decidedly  worse  for  the  east 
than  one  at  least,  if  not  two  of  the  propositions  offered 
cy  the  western  committee.  And  I  feel  it  to  be  the 
more  incumbent  on  me  to  do  this,  because  these  po- 
sitions have  not  only  been  takanby  the  gentleman  from 
Albemarle,  (Mr.  Randolph.)  but,  as  I  understand,  have 
been  endorsed  by  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Ka- 
nawha, (Mr.  Summers.)  He,  as  well  as  the  gentleman 
from  Albemarle,  has  found  in  the  proposition  submitted 
by  the  eastern  committee  of  conference  to  the  western 
committee,  a  justification  of  the  course  of  those  eastern 
members  who  have  united  with  the  west  in  the  support 
of  the  proposition  of  the  committee  of  eight. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  As  to  that  matter,  I  only  referred 
to  the  second  proposition  submitted  by  the  committee 
of  conference,  as  having  proposed  a  larger  majority  up- 
on joint  ballot  to  the  west  than  the  proposition  now  be- 
fore us.  I  spoke  of  the  proposition  submitted  in  the 
house  by  the  gentleman  from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  as 
containing  the  same  principle  and  the  same  admission 
that  the  compromise  itself  did — there  being  merely  a 
difference  as  to  time. 

Mr.  STANARD.  I  understood  the  gentleman  per- 
fectly, and  had  he  allowed  me  to  proceed,  he  would 
have  found  that  I  should  not  have  misstated  his  position 
in  any  respect.  As  regards  the  proposition  of  my  friend 
from  Fauquier,  (Mr.  Scott,)  that  gentleman  himself 
has  avowed,  that  he  brought  it  forward  as  a  matter  of 
necessity,  not  as  a  matter  of  choice ;  to  use  his  own 
language,  "  it  was  not  his  choice,  but  Hobson's  choice." 
And  I  have  already  stated  that  that  proposition  did  not 
command  my  support,  except  as  a  competing  prop*- 


2 


6 


sition  to  this  report  of  the  committee  of  eight,  to  which, 
in  my  humble  judgment,  it  has  been  showed  to  be  de- 
cidedly preferable.  But  I  do  not  mean  to  be  drawn  off 
into  any  discussion  of  this  matter  at  this  time.  I  am 
now  considering  the  attempt  made  by  gentlemen  to 
shelter  themselves  behind  the  propositions  submitted 
by  the  eastern  committee  of  conference,  and  before  I 
advert  to  those  propositions  in  detail,  1  desire  to  state 
the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  submitted, 
and  the  action  of  the  eastern  meeting  with  respect  to 
them,  so  that  my  own  course  and  that  of  eastern  gen- 
tlemen who  acted  with  me,  may  be  fully  understood 
now  and  hereafter.  I  do  this  as  an  act  of  sheer  justice, 
to  disabuse  the  public  mind  of  any  impressions  that  may 
have  been  produced  by  the  extraordinary  course  of  re- 
mark indulged  in  yesterday,  and  when  1  shall  have  made 
a  brief  and  simple  statement  of  the  facts  connected  with 
this  matter,  I  shall  leave  to  the  country  to  say  by  what 
sort  of  perverse  ingenuity  anything  like  censure  is  to  be 
visited  on  eastern  gentlemen  for  the  course  they  have 
pursued  throughout  this  affair,  from  its  beginning  to  its 
end. 

The  facts,  are  simply  these:  on  Friday,  the  9th 
inst.,  a  test  vote  was  taken  in  committee  of  the  whole 
on  the  principle  of  the  mixed  basis,  as  contained  in  pro- 
position A,  and  a  motion  to  strike  out  that  proposition 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  58  yeas  to  62  noes,  being  a  major- 
ity of  four  in  a  full  house,  every  member  but  one  (and 
that  an  eastern  member)  having  voted  or  paired  off.  On 
Saturday,  the  10th  instant,  after  this  decisive  exhib- 
ition on  the  part  of  the  advocates  of  the  mixed  basis  of 
their  power  to  carry  out  the  principles  they  were  pledg- 
ed to  support,  if  they  only  thought  proper  to  stand  by 
those  principles,  a  motion  was  made  by  an  eastern  gen- 
tleman, without  consultation,  however,  so  far  as  I  know 
or  believe,  with  eastern  members  generally,  and  against 
the  wishes,  I  feel  assured,  of  a  large  portion  of  them,  to 
adjourn  over  till  Monday.  This  motion  was  made  and 
sustnined,  I  doubt  not,  from  the  purest  motives  and  un- 
der the  strongest  convictions  of  its  propriety  on  the  part 
of  the  gentleman  who-  submitted  it,  but  it  was  done  on 
his  own  responsibility,  and  that,  I  believe,  of  one  or  two 
others  with  whom  he  consulted.  The  motion  prevailed 
and  the  convention  adjourned. 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment,  the  eastern  mem- 
bers met  together  in  this  hall,  with  feelings  of  strong 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  a  large  portion,  if  not 
much  the  larger  portion  of  them.  In  that  meeting  it 
was  finally  agreed  that  a  committee  should  be  appointed 
who  were  clothed  with  no  power  beyond  that  of  simply 
conferring  with  such  a  committee  as  might  be  appoint- 
ed upon  the  part  of  the  west.  The  members  of  the 
eastern  committee  (of  whom  I  was  not  one)  came  to- 
gether, as  I  understand,  and  agreed  among  themselves 
upon  certain  propositions,  which  were  communicated, 
so  far  as  I  know  or  believe,  to  no  one  o;  the  eastern 
members  until  they  had  been  submitted  to  the  western 
committee  of  conference,  under  the  circumstances 
which  have  been  detailed  to  the  Convention  by  two 
of  the  members  of  the  respective  committees,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Loudoun  (Mr.  Janney)  and  the  gentleman 
from  Kanawha  (Mr.  Summers.) 

Well,  sir,  every  proposition  which  was  presented  by 
the  east  was  unanimously  rejected  by  the  western 
committee,  and  the  action  of  that  committee  was  unan- 
imously endorsed  by  the  western  meeting.  When  these 
facts  were  communicated  to  the  eastern  meeting,  and 
we  were  then  for  the  first  time  informed  what  proposi- 
tions had  been  submitted  by  our  committee  of  confer- 
ence, and  how  those  propositions  had  been  received,  we 
thought  it  best  to  pursue  the  course  we  did  pursue  in 
not  taking  any  vote  or  expressing  any  opinion  in  rela- 
tion to  the  propositions  thus  made  and  rejected.  And 
if  in  this  respect  we  erred,  I  confess  I  am  wholly  at  a, 
loss  to  conceive  in  what  the  error  consisted ;  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  imagine  in  what  respect  it  was  either  necessary 
or  proper  that  eastern  members  should  express  any 
opinion  as  to  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  proposi- 


tions which  had  been  unanimously  rejected  by  the  west. 
They  had  been  proposed  and  rejected,  and  there  was 
end  of  them.  No  one  entertained  an  idea  of  imposing 
on  the  west,  as  a  compromise,  that  to  which  western 
gentlemen  were  decidedly  and  unanimously  opposed. 
And  until  we  saw  this  report  of  the  committee  of  eight, 
some  of  us,  perhaps,  were  simple  enough  to  suppose 
that  a  compromise  was  one  thing,  a  surrender  another. 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  proper  to  express  an  opin- 
ion with  respect  to  the  propositions  submitted  by  the 
western  committee  because  it  was  not  certain  that 
they  might  not  prove  acceptable  to  a  portion  of  that 
eastern  meeting,  and  if  so,  they  might  form  a  ground 
of  compromise;  and  accordingly  when  the  question 
was  about  to  be  propounded  to  the  meeting,  with  re- 
spect to  the  report  of  the  commmittee  of  conference, 
and  before  it  was  propounded,  my  colleague,  who  sits 
before  me,  (Mr.  Scott,)  rose  and  inquired  whether  he 
was  to  understand  that  question  as  confined  exclusively 
to  the  action  of  the  eastern  committee  in  rejecting  the 
proposition  submitted  by  the  western  committee? 
This  inquiry  was  answered  in  the  affirmative.  The 
question  was  then  jDUt,  the  vote  was  taken,  and  the 
rr^eting  unanimously  concurred  in  the  course  pursued 
by  their  committee  in  rejecting  the  propositions  which 
were  submitted  to  them  by  the  western  committee. 
That  was  our  course  and  our  whole  course  of  action. 
I  leave  it  to  any  candid  man  to  say  whether  it  in  any 
respect  justifies  and  excuses  the  comments  that  have 
been  indulged  in  on  this  floor.  I  have  made  this  state- 
ment (I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood)  as  matter 
of  history  merely,  in  order  that  as  the  proceedings  of 
these  meetings  have  been  referred  to  (not  by  myself 
but  by  others)  the  facts,  and  all  the  facts  connected 
with  them,  should  appear.  I  repeat  then,  that  we 
took  no  action  in  our  meeting  upon  the  propositions 
submitted  by  the  committee  of  conference,  simply  be- 
cause we  did  not  consider  it  necessary  or  proper  to  do 
so,  after  those  propositions  had  been  unanimously  re- 
jected by  western  committee  and  the  western  meeting, 
and  no  one,  therefore,  is  authorized  to  say,  from  any- 
thing that  transpired  on  that  occasion,  whether  any, 
or  how^  many  of  the  eastern  members  would  have  con- 
curred in  the  propositions  made  by  the  committee  of 
conference  on  the  part  of  the  east,  and  so  made  on 
their  own  responsibility  alone,  as  they  expressly  de- 
clared at  the  time,  to  the  committee  of  conference  on 
the  part  of  the  west.  This  much  I  have  deemed  it  pro- 
per to  state  as  due  to  the  truth  of  history — but  let  me 
tell  gentlemen  that  when  they  venture  to  institute  a 
comparison  between  these  propositions  and  this  thing 
miscalled  a  compromise,  and  to  assert  that  the  latter  is  as 
good  or  better  for  the  east,  they  present  an  issue  which 
I  haye  not  'the  slightest  disposition  to  shrink  from  or  to 
evade,  but  on  which  I  am  prepared  to  meet  them,  now 
and  at  all  times,  here  or  elsewhere,  before  the  Conven- 
tion or  before  the  country.  Sir,  I  maintain  with  con- 
fidence, that  whether  you  look  to  the  principle  involv- 
ed or  to  the  great  interest  at  stake,  regarding  it  as  a 
question  of  principle,  or  a  question  of  power — con- 
sider it  in  what  light  you  will — and  I  maintain  there 
is  no  fair,  candid  and  impartial  man  that  can  for  a 
moment  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  the  eastern  committee,  and  each  and  all 
of  them,  are  not  infinitely  preferable  to  this  scheme  of 
the  committee  of  eight,  which  may  be  a  compromise 
in  name,  but  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  utter  and 
an  absolute  surrender  in  fact. 

Nay,  sir,  I  will  go  further  and  say — and  before  I  get 
through  I  trust  I  will  show — that  there  is  at  least  one 
ifnottwoof  the  propositions  submitted  by  the  west 
and  rejected  by  the  east,  that  is  decidedly  preferable  to 
this  scheme  of  compromise  (forsooth)  that  is  now  about 
to  be  made  part  and  parcel  of  our  organic  law. 

These  propositions  have  been  published,  and  I  am 
glad  that  they  have  been  and  have  gone  to  the  coun- 
try. I  shall  not  detain  the  Convention  by  reading  them, 
but  I  shall  comment  upon  them  in  their  order,  and  shall 


append  them  to  my  remarks.    I  wish  the  people,  and 

especially  the  eastern  pe  >ple,  to  see  what  was  proposed 
to  chewest.  what  was  offered  by  the  west,  and  then  to 
say  what  they  think  of  this  sclieoie  waich,  reported  by 
an  eastern  committee  elected  by  western  votes,  is  now 
about  to  be  forced  upon  them  in  the  name  of  compro- 
mise, by  the  united  western,  aidid  by  a  fragment  of 
thy  eastern  delegation  on  this  floor  But  to  proceed 
with  the  examination  of  these  propositions. 

What  was  the  first  proposition  submitted  by  the 
eastern  to  the  western  committee  ?  It  proposed  a 
house  of  delegates  of  one  hundred  aud  fifty-six  members 
on  the  suffrage  ba^is,  giviug  to  the  west  a  majority  of 
not  more  than  fourteen,  if  that.  The  senate  to  consist 
of  fifty  members,  was  to  be  based  on  taxation  alone, 
giving  to  the  east  a  majority  of  fourteen — thus  making 
a  tie  on  joint  ballot,  and  with  the  provision  that  all  fu 
ture  apportionments  of  rep  -esentation  in  the  two  houses 
should  be  ma  le  ou  the  same  principles.  That  was  the 
first  proposition  submitted  by  the  eastern  com  nittee. 
and  how  does  it  compare  with  the  one  that  we  are  called 
upon  here  to  adopt,  and  to  say  is  preferable  so  far  as 
the  east  is  concerned  I  Look  at  it  in  the  first  place  a^ 
regards  the  question  of  principle.  What  are  the  pro- 
positions upon  which  we  have  been  standing  here  in  de 
bate  for  weeks  and  months  i  On  the  one.  side  you  have 
been  invoked  to  look  to  population  alone  as  the  sole 
element  to  be  consulted  in  respect  to  representation 
On  the  one  side  it  has  been  maintained  that  you  should 
look  to  taxation  a9  an  element  of  representation.  Plant- 
ing ourselves  on  a  principle  consecrated,  as  we  believe, 
by  the  blood  of  the  revolution,  we  have  insisted  that 
representation  and  taxation  should  go  hand  in  hand, 
and  we  hive  endeavored  to  show,  and  I  think  have 
shown,  by  reference  to  the  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  that  formed  tne  federal  constitution, 
that  this  principle  is  recoguized  to  its  fullest  extent  in 
that  sacred  instrument,  and  that  in  the  house  of  repre 
sentatives  representation  is,  in  truth,  based  on  taxation 
alone. 

Now.  what  is  the  first  proposition  of  the  east  ?  and  the 
committee,  in  submitting  it,  what  did  they  say  to  the 
west?  Simply  this  :  We  will  recognize  your  principle 
in  the  house  of  delegates,  if  you  will  recognize  our  prin 
eiple  in  the  senate.  We  will  give  you  a  majority  of 
fourteen  in  the  house  of  delegates  on  population,  if 
you  will  give  us  a  like  majority  of  fourteen  in  the  sen- 
ate on  taxation,  and  thus  make  a  tie  upon  joint  ballot, 
and  give  to  neither  party  the  power  to  elect  senators 
of  the  United  States,  and  all  other  officers  that  are  to 
be  elected  by  the  legislature. 

They  did  this  with  a  further  declaration  that  this 
state  of  things  shall  hereafter  continue,  without  change, 
either  through  the  form  of  a  submission  of  the  question 
of  representation  to  the  people  or  otherwise.  And  is 
it  pretended  that  that  proposition  is  worse  for  the  east 
than  the  scheme  reported  by  the  committee  of  eight, 
according  to  which  the  west  are  to  have  now  the  pop 
ular  branch — to  have  now  the  majority  on  joint  ballot 
— to  have  now  a  majority  of  two  more  than  they  are 
entitled  to  in  the  house  of  delegates,  even  upon 
their  own  favorite  principle  of  the  suffrage  basis,  while 
the  east  has  a  majority  of  four  less  than  they  are  enti- 
tled to  in  the  senate  %  An  1  besides  all  this,  even  the 
shadow  of  protection  thus  afforded  us,  is  but  tempora- 
ry— even  this  state  of  things  is  to  last  but  a  little  while, 
and  then  the  west  is  to  have  both  houses,  and  absolute 
sway  in  the  legislative  as  in  the  executive  department 
of  the  government.  This,  then,  is  the  first  proposition 
of  the  committee  of  conference  aud  this  the  better  scheme 
devised  by  your  compromise  committee.  Let  eastern 
Virginia  decide  between  them. 

And  what  is  the  second  proposrtion  submitted  by  the 
eastern  committee  ?  It  is  identical  with  the  first  with 
this  single  exception  that  instead  of  a  majority  of  four- 
teen for  the  west  in  the  house  of  delegates,  there  was  a 
majority  of  twenty.    In  point  of  principle  then,  there 


was  no  difference  between  the  propositions.  In  both, 
suffrage  basis  was  recognized  in  the  hou-*e,  and  the  tax- 
ation basis  in  the  seuate — for  I  do  not  profess  to  under- 
stand that  sort  of  special  pleading  bv  which  we  are 
told  that  when  you  give  to  a  party  all,  and  more  than 
all,  they  are  entitled,  to  on  a  given  principle,  still  jou 
do  not  recognize  the  principle.  I  confess  I  had  always 
supposed,  that  in  political  as  in  mathematical  science, 
the  whole  was  greater  than  a  part — and  I  cannot  well 
imagine  a  more  distinct  and  practical  recognition  of  any 
principle  than  in  yielding  to  the  party  that  asserts  it, 
all  aud  more  than  all,  that  the  principle  itself  would 
then  give  them.  The  difference  between  these  propo- 
sitions was  a  difference  not  of  principle  but  of  degree. 
Identical  in  other  respects  with  the  first,  the  second 
proposition  gave  to  the  west  a  majority  instead  of  a  tie, 
on  joint  ballot ;  and  this  additional  power  was  tendered 
to  you,  as  I  know  from  the  declaration  of  the  gentlemen 
who  made  that  proposition,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  they  were  prepared,  if  you  would  recognize  their 
elemeut  of  taxation  in  one  house,  to  give  you  the  full 
benefit,  and  more  than  the  full  benefit,  of  your  element 
of  population  in  the  other  house. 

In  other  words,  these  gentlemen  said  to  the  west  by 
this  proposition,  recognize  our  principle  in  one  branch  of 
the  legislature,  so  as  to  give  an  efficient  protection  for 
our  property  ;  give  us  the  majority  to  which  on  that 
principle  we  are  entitled,  to  a  practical  efficient  major- 
ty  of  fourteen,  instead  of  an  arbitrary  majority  of  ten, 
based  on  no  principle,  inefficient  and  unreliable;  make 
this  arrangement  permanent,  instead  of  adopting  a  mere 
temporary  and  sh  fting  expedient ;  do  this  on  your  part, 
and  to  show  you  that  on  ours  we  not  are  engaged  in  a 
mere  struggle  for  power  for  power's  sake,  we  will  not 
only  recognize  your  principle  in  the  other  branch  of  the 
legislature,(and  that,  too,  the  popular  branch,)  but  we 
will  give  you  more  power,  than  even  upon  your  own 
principles  you  yourselves  can  claim.  Sir,  was  not  this 
proposition  fair?  Was  it  not  more  than  fair — was  it  not 
"liberal  ?  Will  any  candid  and  impartial  man  say  that 
it  did  not  go  to  the  utmost  verge'of  concession,  if  not  be- 
yond it  ?  And  yet,  sir,  I  pray  you  to  remark  that  while 
some  eastern  gentlemen  were  prepared  in  a  spirit  of 
compromise,  aye,  in  a  spirit  of  large  ana  liberal  corces- 
sion,  to  go  thus  far,  yet  at  the  same  time  they  express- 
ly declared  to  their  western  brethren  that  they  would 
neither  directly  nor  indirectly  give  their  sanction  to  any 
scheme  by  which,  at  any  time,  now  or  hereafter,  repre- 
sentation in  both  houses  should  be  apportioned  on  the 
suffrage  basis.  To  that  they  expressly  declared  they 
would  never  consent  either  in  the  form  of  a  direct  man- 
datory clause  in  the  constitution,  or  under  the  thin  dis- 
guise, the  transparent  veil  of  submission  of  the  ques* 
tion  to  the  decision  of  the  numerical  majority.  It  was 
reserved  for  the  committee  of  eight,  this  compromise 
committee  as  it  has  been  styled,  composed  of  eastern 
gentlemen  elected  by  western  votes — for  them,  I  say, 
sir,  has  been  reserved  the  honor  of  devising  a  scheme  by 
which  the  suffrage  basis  is  recogn:zed  to  its  full  and 
more  than  its  full  extent  in  the  house,  while  no  princi- 
ple whatever  is  applied  to  the  senate,  by  which  the  west 
with  a  majority  on  joint  ballot,  has  two  more  in  the 
house  than  it  is  entitled  on  the  suffrage  basis,  while 
the  east  has  four  less  in  the  senate  than  it  is  entitled  on 
the  taxation  basis — an  arbitrary  majority  to  be  marked 
out  by  an  arbitrary  apportionment  so  as  to  form,  it  may 
be,  two  or  more  white  basis  districts  east  of  the  Blue 
Ridge  ;  and  lest  even  this  state  of  things  should  prove 
too  favorable  to  the  east,  lest  even  such  a  government 
as  this  should  furnish  some  semblance  of  protection  to 
eastern  rights  and  eastern  interests,  provision  is  care- 
fully made  by  which  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  the 
whole  legislative  power  in  both  houses  shall  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  west.  Yes,  sir,  in  the  year  1865,  or  short- 
ly thereafter,  the  west  is  to  have  all — all,  sir,  of  legis- 
lative power,  that  we  can  give  or  they  can  take.  This, 
then  is  the  second  proposition  of  the  conference  commit- 
tee, and  this  your  compromise  scheme.  You  have  them 


28 


here  side  by  side,  and  again  I  say  to  the  people  of  east- 
ern Virginia,  choose  ye  between  them. 

I  do  not  mean  to  go  into  any  calculation  as  to  the  re- 
lative power  of  the  eastern  and  western  sections  of  the 
State  under  future  apportionments  of  representation, 
supposing  those  apportionments  to  be  made  on  the  suff- 
rage basis  in  the  house  and  the  taxation  basis  in  the 
senate.    That  has  been  already  sufficiently  done  by  my 
friend  from  Essex,  (Mr.  M.  R.  H.  Garnett,)  and  I  should  be 
wholly  inexcusable,  after  what  he  has  said,  in  detain 
ing  the  Convention  a  single  moment  on  this  point.  But 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  so  far  from  the  rela 
tive  power  of  the  east  diminishing  hereafter  on  the 
taxation  basis,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  obliged  to  increase. 
I  have  no  idea  at  all  that  in  the  next  ten  years  the 
difference  in  the  ratio  of  increase  between  t  e  different 
sections  of  the  Commonwsalth  either  in  respect  to  pop 
ulation  or  in  respect  to  the  elements  of  wealth,  will  be 
so  much  in  favor  of  the  west  as  it  has  been  during  the 
last  ten  years.   I  have  never  believed,  and  I  do  not  now 
believe,  that  upon  the  mixed  basis  the  west  could  ever 
get  the  power ;  and  I  have  said  so  from  the  beginning. 
1  have  never  made  any  concealment  of  my  opinions  on 
this  or  any  other  point.    I  have  always  believed  that, 
upon  the  mixed  basis,  the  west  never  would  get  pow- 
er, because  while  their  population  would  never  increase 
hereafter  in  the  same  relative  proportion  over  the  pop 
ulation  of  the  east  that  it  has  done  for  the  last  ten 
years,  the  taxation  of  the  east  would  preserve  and  aug- 
ment its  relative  proportion  over  that  of  the  west. 
Look,  sir,  to  the  very  means  by  which  alone  the  pop 
ulation  and  taxation  of  the  west  can  materially  increase, 
that  system  of  internal  improvements  which  is  destined. 
I  trust,  at  no  distant  day,  to  convert  that  whole  coun- 
try into  a  very  garden  sj.ot,  and  you  will  see  that  those 
improvements  themselves  cannot  be  constructed  with- 
out building  up  here,  in  the  tide-water  district,  cities, 
not   of  10,000,  15,000,  or  20,000,  but  of  100,000  and 
200,000  inhabitants,  and  making  this  whole  section  of 
the  State  to  bloom  and  blossom  as  the  rose,  and  thus 
the  very  sources  of  wealth  and  population  to  the  west 
must  impart,  in  a  still  greater  ratio,  wealth  and  popu- 
lation to  the  east.    Such,  I  have  always  believed,  must 
be  the  result  of  a  wise  and  judicious  system  of  internal 
improvement. 

I  pass  now  to  the  third  and  last  proposition  of  the 
committee  of  conference,  and  what  is  it?  It  gives  the 
west  the  senate,  on  the  suffrage  basis,  with  a  majority 
of  two  in  a  senate  of  36,  while  the  east  was  to  have 
the  house  of  delegates  on  the  mixed  basis,  with  a  ma- 
jority of  14  in  a  house  of  150,  with  re-apportionments 
on  the  same  principle,  and  a  further  provision  that  it 
should  require  three-fifths  of  each  house  to  call  an- 
other convention.  By  this  proposition  the  question  of 
principle  was  not  surrendered  on  either  side.  We  gave 
you  your  basis  in  the  senate,  and  we  took  our  basis  in 
the  house  of  delegate*,  giving  thus  to  the  east  the  po- 
pular branch  and  the  majority  on  joint  ballot,  and  de- 
claring at  the  same  time  that  such  should  continue  to  be 
the  organic  law  of  the  State,  until  by  a  vote  of  three- 
fifths  of  the  legislature,  another  convention  shall  be 
called.  Now,  no  man,  I  apprehend,  will  be  bold  enough 
to  maintain  that  thi6  proposition  is  not  infinitely  bet- 
ter for  the  east  than  the  scheme  of  the  committee  of 
eight. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  for  I  maintain,  and  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  show,  that  not  only  were  the  propositions  sug- 
gested by  the  committee  of  conference  on  the  part  of 
the  east  infinitely  preferable  to  the  scheme  that  is  now 
about  to  be  forced  upon  us,  but  that  this  latter  is  de- 
cidedly worse  than  one  at  least,  if  not  two.  of  the  pro- 
positions submitted  by  the  western  committee  them 
selves. 

What  were  those  propositions  ?  By  one  of  these  the 
west  proposed  to  take  the  senate  of  36  members  on 
the  suffrage  basis  and  give  us  the  house  of  160  mem 
bers  upon  the  mixed  basis,  and  that  was  to  continue  un- 
til 1862,  when  the  question  was  to  be  submitted  to  the 


people  to  say  whether  this  state  of  things  should  con- 
tinue.  or  the  suffrage  basis  should  be  applied  to  both 
houses.  Now,  look  at  this  proposition  and  contrast  it 
for  a  single  moment  with  the  scheme  embodied  in  the 
report  now  before  us.  Here  the  western  men  were 
willing  to  give  us  one  house,  and  that  the  house  of 
delegates,  the  popular  branch,  with  a  majority  of  at 
least  12,  and  take  themselves  the  senate,  with  a  majori- 
ty of  but  two,  thus  giving  us  a  majority  of  10  on  joint 
ballot ;  to  allow  this  state  of  things  to  continue  until 
1862,  and  then  submit  the  question  to  the  peeple.  And 
yet,  with  this  proposition  made  to  us  by  the  west,  by 
which  we  were  to  have  the  controlling  power  in  that 
branch  of  the  legislature  that  comes  directly  from  the 
people,  with  a  majority  of  10  on  joint  ballot  until  1862, 
and  then  a  submission  of  the  question  to  the  people, 
without  any  mandatory  apportionment  whatsoever — ■ 
with  this  offer,  I  say,  made  to  us,  by  the  west,  we  are 
called  forsooth  to  compromise — aye,  sir.  that  is  the  word 
— to  compromise  upon  a  scheme  by  which  we  are  to  give 
to  the  west  the  popular  branch  now,  give  them  now  the 
majority  on  joint  ballot,  let  this  state  of  things  continue 
until  1865,  and  then  give  them  both  houses  and  all 
power.  True,  the  transfer  is  not  made  in  express  terms 
by  a  deed  of  conveyance  now  signed,  sealed  and  deliv- 
ered— truj,  a  certain  form  is  to  be  gone  through,  but, 
sir,  it  is  a  mere  form,  and  it  can  be  a  matter  of  but  lit- 
tle moment  to  practical  men  whether  the  thing  is  ac- 
complished by  an  express  mandator)  clause  of  appor- 
tionment, or  through  the  flimsy  and  transparent  di.-guise 
of  the  submission  to  the  people  of  a  question  which  every 
ody  knows  will  be  decided  against  us,  and  which  this 
report  of  the  committee  of  eight  takes  care  to  submit 
in  such  a  form  that  they  are  obliged  so  to  decide  it. 
For  what  is  the  question  as  submitted  by  that  report  ? 
Sir,  it  is  not  the  question  that  would  have  been  submit- 
ted under  the  proposition  made  to  us  by  the  west,  but  a 
very  different  question. 

Under  the  proposition  made  to  us  by  the  west,  the 
mixed  basis  was  to  be  adopted  and  to  continue  in  ope- 
ration till  1862,  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature,  and  the 
suffrage  basis  in  the  other.  The  government  was  to  be 
organized  on  principle.  Both  houses  were  to  be  based 
on  principle,  and  no  arbitrary  patch- work — no  mere 
device  to  give  power  east  or  west  without  regard  to 
principle  was  to  be  resorted  to  in  the  organization  of 
either — and  when  such  a  government  should  have  con- 
tinued in  operation  for  ten  or  twelve  years,  and  should 
have  fulfilled  the  great  purposes  of  its  institution  in 
protecting  the  rights  and  promoting  the  interests  of  all? 
who  can  undertake  to  say  that  the  people  would  have 
been  prepared  to  change  it?  Who  can  undertake  to 
affirm  that  a  portion  even  of  the  people  of  the  west, 
especially  of  the  people  of  the  valley  and  the  south- 
west, whose  interests  are  becoming  day  by  day  and 
year  by  year,  more  and  more  identified  with  those  of 
their  eastern  brethren,  satLfied  with  the  recognition  of 
their  favorite  principle  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature, 
content  with  the  practical  working  of  the  government 
under  which  they  lived,  would  not  be  disposed  to  '  let 
well  enough  alone,'  rather  than  Introduce  fresh  changes 
and  enter  again  upon  new  and  untried  experiments. 
In  such  a  state  of  things,  no  one,  I  apprehend,  not  en- 
dowed with  the  gift  of  prophecy,  could  undertake  to 
predict  what  would  be  the  aecision  of  the  people  on 
the  issues  that  would  have  been  presented  to  them? 
But  in  lieu  of  that  issue,  this  eastern  committee  ap- 
pointed by  western  votes  has  brought  in  (and  that  too 
in  the  name  of  compromise,)  a  srheme  by  which  the 
west  is  now  to  have  the  popular  branch  and  a  majority 
upon  joint  ballot,  and  in  1865  you  are  to  submit  to  the 
people  for  the  first  time,  the  question  whether  they  will 
have  the  legislature  organized  on  the  mixed  basis  ;  that 
is  to  say:  whether  they  will  have  both  branches  of  the 
legislature  organized  upon  a  principle  which,  up  to  that 
moment,  had  never  been  applied  to  either,  and  of  the 
practical  working  and  operation  of  which  they  know  and 
can  l^ow  nothing  whatsoever.    For  be  it  observed  that 


9 


by  this  compromise  scheme  you  do  not  apply  the  mixed 
basis  to  either  branch  of  the  legislature.  The  suffrage 
basis,  or  something  beyond  the  suffrage  basis,  is  applied 
in  one  branch,  and  an  arbitrary  principle  in  the  other 
branch,  and  under  this  scheme,  therefore,  the  question 
is  not  whether  the  people  shall  adhere  to  a  principle 
that  had  been  tried  and  found  to  work  well,  but  whether 
they  shall  in  1865,  adopt  for  the  first  time,  a  princi- 
ple till  then  unknown  and  untried.  That,  sir.  is  the 
question  submitted  in  1865,  by  your  compromise  scheme, 
and  that  man  must  be  sanguine  indeed,  who,  under  such 
circumstances,  can  look  forward  to  any  other  result 
than  the  establishment  of  the  suffrage  basis  in  both 
houses,  just  as  certainly  as  if  you  had  made  it  mandato- 
ry in  the  constitution. 

Sir,  the  gentleman  from  Accomae  may  dismiss  all  ap- 
prehensions on  this  score.  Under  the  propositions  made 
by  the  west,  we  did  stand  some  chance,  under  the  com- 
promise we  have  none.  By  that  scheme,  the  advocates 
of  the  suffrage  basis  have  indeed,  made  "  assurance 
doubly  sure,  and  taken  a  bond  of  fate." 

This,  then,  was  one  of  the  propositions  made  by  the 
western  committee — but  not  the  only  one.  By  another 
proposition  they  offered  to  give  us  both  houses  on  the 
mixed  basis  till  1862,  with  a  mandatory  apportionment 
then  on  the  suffrage  basis — and  I  leave  it  to  any  candid 
man,  with  the  facts  before  him,  to  say  whether  either 
of  these  propositions  is  not  decidedly  better  for  the 
east  than  this  thing  miscalled  a  compromise.  Sir,  I 
am  glad  that  these  matters  have  been  adverted  to,  and 
that  facts  connected  with  them  have  been  brought  out 
and  have  gone  to  the  country.  I  wish  the  people  to  see 
and  to  know  these  things,  and  I  invoke  their  judgment 
upon  them.  I  rejoice  that  an  opportunity  has  been  af 
forded  me  to  meet  the  issue  that  gentlemen  have  ven- 
tured to  make  on  this  floor,  and  I  leave  it  to  the  coun- 
try to  say  whether,  upon  an  exhibition  of  these  various 
propositions  as  contrasted  with  this  miscalled  compro- 
mise, I  am  not  fully  ?orne  out  in  the  declaration  that 
so  far  from  its  being  true  that  eastern  men  who  voted 
for  the  compromise  can  shield  themselves  under  the  ac- 
tion of  the  committee  of  conference  upon  the  part  of 
the  east,  the  record,  (aye,  the  very  record  to  which 
they  themselves  have  appealed)  shows  that  they  have 
gone  beyond  what  was  offered  by  the  committee  of  con- 
ference on  the  part  of  the  west,  and  have  fixed  upon 
their  own  constituents  and  the  whole  of  eastern  Virgiuia 
about  the  very  worst  system  that  could  well  have  been 
devised. 

Why,  sir,  you  talk  about  this  scheme  as  a  protection 
to  property — I  do  not  mean  to  go  into  a  discussion 
upon  this  subject.  ]  have  had  occasion  at  another  time 
to  make  some  remarks  on  the  constitution  of  this  sen- 
ate, and  I  do  not  intend  to  repeat  them  here.  I  will 
only  observe  that  with  a  white  basis  house  of  delegates 
and  a  white  basis  executive,  a  senate  with  an  arbitrary 
majority  of  ten,  (to  be  reduced,  it  may  be,  by  an  arbi- 
trary apportionment,  which  shall  give  some  two  or  more 
white  basis  districts  east  ot  the  Blue  Ridge — to  six,  or 
less  than  six)  would  seem  likely  to  afford  but  slender 
protection  to  property  or  anything  else.  And  even  sup- 
posing the  east  to  get  the  full  majority  of  ten,  it  would 
require  a  change  of  but  six  votes  to  reach  any  result? 
and  is  a  change  of  six  votes  so  difficult  a  matter  ?  Let 
the  experience  of  this  convention  answer  th  t  question 
bir.  we  started  in  this  body  with  a  majority  of  nine, 
and  where  are  we  now  ?  But,  as  I  said,  I  do  not  mean 
to  go  into  any  discussion  upon  this  question — my  sole 
object  at  this  time  is  to  beg  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention for  a  few  moments,  while  I  bring  to  their  notice 
the  opinions  upon  this  very  subject,  of  one  whose  po 
litical  sagacity  no  man  will  question  ;  I  refer  to  the 
opinions  of  John  Randolph  under  similar  circumstances 
when  a  similar  proposition  to  this  was  under  conside- 
ration in  the  Convention  of  '29- '30.  It  was  then  pro- 
posed to  organize  the  house  of  delegates  upon  the  white 
population  and  the  senate  on  federal  numbers.  That 
scheme  I  say  was  proposed  at  that  time.    It  was  one  of 


the  last  propositions  of  compromise  offered  by  western 
gentlemen  in  the  convention  of  '29.  And  how  was 
that  proposition  which  was  certainly  far  better  for  the 
east  than  this  report  of  the  committee  of  eight,  can 
be  pretended  to  be — how,  I  say,  was  this  proposition 
met  by  that  man  who  stood  confessedly  in  the  front 
rank  of  those  who,  in  that  convention,  were  regarded 
as  the  especial  champions  of  the  principle  of  protection 
to  property  ? 

I  will  tell  you  how — it  was  met  by  him  with  the  de- 
claration, tha  he  should  prefer  the  white  basis  in  both 
houses  and  should  vote  for  it.  Here  are  the  reasons  he 
assigned  for  his  course.  I  commend  them  to  the  special 
attention  of  those  gentlemen  who  talk  about  this  sen- 
ate as  a  protection  to  property. 

"  He  would  add  one  word  (said  Mr.  Randolph,)  as  to 
the  ultimatum  for  which  the  ge-'tleman  contended,  viz: 
the  basis  of  white  population,  exclusively  in  on«  branch 
of  the  legislature  and  the  federal  number  in  the  other. 
He  declared  with  a  sincerity,  which  his  vote  would  be 
found  to  vouch  for,  that  if  the  grntleman  should  suc- 
ceed in  imposing  on  them  the  hard  and  stern  condition  of 
submitting  to  so  intolerable  a  yoke  in  the  lower  house, 
he  would  yield  to  him  the  same  principle  in  the  other, 
and  let  both  branche  be  based  on  the  white  population 
alone.  He  should  do  so  by  preference.  He  would  pre- 
fer having  both  branches  on  the  white  basis,  to  the 
Manichcean  plan  of  a  good  and  an  evil  principle,  in 
which,  as  in  the  Manichiosan,  system,  the  evil  princ.ple 
was  the  stronger,  and  was  always  in  the  end  sure  to  pre- 
vail. To  adopt  such  a  plan  could  be  doing  nothing  but 
sowing  the  seeds  of  interminable  discord,  which  must 
lead  to  consequences  that  all  could  see.  He  would  vote 
with  the  gentiemen  so  soon  as  he  should  have  vanquish- 
ed them.  He  would  then  go  for  the  whole  of  what  he 
contended  for  by  preference.  He  would  sooner  throw  him- 
self upon  the  generosity,  he  might  almost  say  the  char- 
ity of  the  west,  then  take  a  fallacious  security — not  the 
Balkin — but  a  mound  of  sand — something  with  which 
to  cheat  his  constituents,  crying  to  them  peace,  peace, 
when  there  was  no  peace,  and  never  could  be  any. 

"From  the  days  of  Aris'ole  till  that  day,  no  such 
government  had  ever  been  heard  of — it  was  a  monster. 
Two  branches  of  the  legislature  representing  the  same 
people,  elected  by  the  same  voters,  to  manage  the  same 
interests,  to  be  pitted  against  each  other  like  two  game 
cocks,  to  tear  and  wound  each  other  till  one  or  the  other 
should  be  forced  to  submit;  that  was  the  government 
proposed  for  Virginia,  for  all  time  to  come.  A  gov- 
ernment of  numbers  in  opposition  to  property  was  Jaco- 
binism, rank  Jacobinism,  he  was  about  to  say  pure 
Jacobinism — but  nothing  pure,  nothing  defecate  could 
belo  g  to  the  thing.  It  was  to  be  an  arraying  of  num- 
bers against  property,  and  that  then  we  would  .-oon  hear 
the  old  cry,  "  peace  to  the  cottage,  war  to  the  palace,' T 
and  when  the  Convention  should  have  established  this 
Jacobinal  principle,  it  was  not  a  few  despised  nobles — 
not  a  few  hated  priests — odious  at  once  for  their  hy- 
pocrisy and  their  rapacity — no,  it  was  the  body  of  free- 
holders, the  sub-tantial  yeomanry  of  the  common- 
wealth, into  w  ose  mouth  they  were  to  put  that  bridle, 
and  into  whose  nose  they  would  put  that  hook.  But 
they  never  could  do  it — by  him  and  his  friends  they 
never  should  do  it — they  ought  not,  they  could  not  con- 
sent to  it.  And  as  he  had  said  once  before,  to  make 
the  attempt  would  only  be  to  sound  the  trumpet  of  civil- 
war.  It  might,  at  first,  be  a  weaponless  warfare,  a  war 
of  words,  but  it  would  pour  into  the  cup  of  existence  an 
animosity  so  deep  and  deadly — it  would  fix  in  the  bo- 
soms of  the  injured  a  wound  so  wrankling  and  remedi- 
less, that  nothing  short  of  the  plenary  power  of  the 
federal  government  would  be  able  to  keep  Virginia  to- 
gether." 

1  have  read  this  extract  for  the  especial  benefit  of 
those  gentlemen  who  talk  about  this  senate  as  a  protec- 
tion to  property,  and  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  the 
notice  ot  the  Convention  and  the  country,  in  the  pecu- 
liar and  striking  language  of  that  remarkable  man,  the 


30 


views  entertained  and  expressed  by  him  more  than 
twenty  years  ago,  with  respect  to  a  scheme  which  differs 
irom  that  now  under  consideration  in  those  particulars, 
and  in  those  particulars  only,  in  which  it  was  more  favor- 
able to  the  east.  On  another  occasion  Mr.  Randolph 
speaking  of  representation  in  the  house  of  delegates 
thus  expresses  himself: 

"  We  will  not  give  up  this  question  for  the  certainty, 
and  far  less  for  the  hope  that  the  evil  will  be  rectified 
in  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature.  We  know,  eve 
ry  body  knows  that  it  is  impossible.  Why,  sir,  the 
British  House  of  Peers,  which  contains  four  hundred 
me  bers,  holding  a  vast  property,  much  more  now,  it 
is  true,  than  when  Chatham  said  they  were  but  as  a 
drop  in  the  ocean,  compared  with  the  wealth  of  the 
Commons — if  they,  holding  their  seats  for  life,  and  re- 
ceiving and  transmitting  them  by  hereditary  descent 
have  never  been  able  to  resist  the  House  of  Commons, 
in  any  measure  on  which  that  house  choose  to  insist,  do 
you  believe,  that  twenty-four  gentlemen  up  stairs  can 
resist  one  hundred  and  twenty  below — especially  when 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  represent  their  own  dis- 
tricts, and  are  to  go  home  with  them  to  their  common 
constituents  ?  Sir.  the  case  has  never  yet  happened,  I 
believe,  when  a  senator  has  been  able  to  resist  the  united 
delegation  from  this  district  in  the  lower  house." 

I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  bring  these  matters  to  the 
attention  of  the  Convention,  and  through  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  country,  in  order  that  the  people,  and  espe- 
cially the  people  of  eastern  Virginia,  may  see  and 
know  what  has  been  the  course  pursued  by  their  dele- 
gates on  this  floor.  I  wish  the  country  to  see  what 
were  the  propositions  that  the  eastern  committee  were 
piepared  to  submit — what  were  the  propositions  that 
western  gentlemen  were  willing  to  go  for,  and  what 
is  the  proposition  that  is  now,  by  the  means,  in  the 
manner,  under  the  circumstances,  and  through  the  influ- 
ences to  which  I  have  adverted,  about  to  be  inserted  in 
the  constitution  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  organic  law. 
With  the  history  of  these  proceedings  before  us,  is  it, 
I  ask,  at  all  surprising  that  when  this  report  of  the  com- 
mittee of  eight  was  first  presented  to  the  consideration 
of  this  body,  it  received  but  one  single  eastern  vote  in  ad 
dition  to  those  of  the  three  eastern  members  of  the  com- 
mittee that  reported?  Yes,  sir,  out  of  69  eastern  mem- 
bers on  this  floor,  it  could  command  but  the  single  vote 
of  the  member  from  Williamsburg  (Mr.  Bowden.)  And 
how  was  it  again  brought  forward  after  it  had  been 
thus  signally  repudiated  and  rejected  by  the  almost 
unanimous  voice  of  the  eastern  delegation  in  this  hall  ? 
How  was  vitality  again  breathed  into  this  scheme,  af- 
ter it  had  thus  been  killed  by  a  solemn  vote  of  the  house  ? 
Sir,  I  will  tell  how.  The  mixed  basis,  as  contained  in 
proposition  A — that  very  proposition  which  less  than  a 
week  before,  the  Convention  had  refused  to  strike  out 
by  a  majority  of  four  upon  a  test  vote  in  a  full  house — 
was  now  stricken  out,  in  the  first  place,  by  the  votes  of 
gentlemen,  one  of  whom  had  declared  himself  instruct- 
ed to  vote  for  it ;  another  had  actually  made  a  speech 
in  favor  of  the  mixed  basis  principle,  and  all,  or  nearly 
all,  were  understood  when  they  came  here  to  be  pledg- 
ed to  its  support ;  and  finally,  after  the  vote  had  been 
taken,  and  the  result  known,  but  before  it  was  announc- 
ed, by  a  change  of  his  vote  on  the  part  of  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  of  eight  himself,  (Mr.  Martin,  of  Henry.) 

Sir,  the  facts  I  have  stated  are  within  the  recollec- 
tion of  every  gentleman  present;  they  occurred  before 
our  own  eyes,  and  there  can  be  no  mistake  or  question 
about  them.  Upon  the  vote  as  originally  taken  upon 
the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  the  entire  western  dele- 
gation voted  to  strike  out,  and  with  them  voted  the 
following  gentlemen  from  the  east,  viz :  Mr.  Botts,  of 
Henrico;  Mr.  Bowden,  of  WiUiamsourg ;  Mr.  Chilton, 
of  Fauquier  ;  and  Dr.  Saunders,  of  Ljnchburg.  The 
vote  then  stood  56  yeas  to  57  nays — the  absentees  on 
both  sides  having  paired  off — and  then  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  of  eight,  (Mr.  Martin,  of  Henry.)  by 
changing  his  vote,  made  it  57  ayes  to  56  nays,  and  thus 


struck  out  and  struck  down  the  principle  of  the  mixed 
basis.  It  was  thus  that  room  was  made  for  the  renewal 
of  this  repudiated  and  rejected  scheme,  miscalled  a 
compromise,  and  by  these  means  and  under  these  cir- 
cumstances that  it  was  again  brought  forward.  I  know 
it  has  been  said  (with  a  view,  I  presume,  of  avoiding 
or  at  least  of  diminishing  the  responsibility  that  gen- 
tlemen have  incurred  in  the  vote  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred) that  the  gentleman  from  Accomac,  (Mr.  Finney,) 
who  voted  for  proposition  A  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
had  indicated  a  purpose  to  vote  against  it  in  the  house. 
Be  it  so. 

The  gendeman  from  Campbell,  (Dr.  Saunders,)  who 
voted  in  committee  of  the  whole  for  striking  out  pro- 
position A,  has  indicated  a  corre  ponding  change  of 
purpose  on  his  part,  for  he  has  actually  voted  in  the 
house  against  concurring  with  the  committee  of  the 
whole,  in  the  vote  by  which  A  was  stricken  out.  These 
two  votes,  therefore,  balance  each  other;  and  gentle- 
men cannot  escape  the  responsibility  resulting  from  the 
course  they  have  thought  proper  to  pursue.  The  tact 
stands  before  the  country  uncontested  and  incontesti- 
ble,  that  after  this  compromise  scheme  had  been  killed 
by  a  fair  vote,  in  a  full  house  ;  after  it  had  been  so  ut- 
terly repudiated  by  the  entire  eastern  delegation  m  this 
halL,  that  out  of  59  votes  it  could  command  but  one — • 
when  it  was  thus  dead  and  burie  ,  it  was  necessary  to 
reanimate  it  by  defeating  the  mixed  basis;  and  to  ac- 
complish this  result — and  that,  too,  even  by  a  majority 
of  one— it  was  not  enough  for  gentlemen  to  vote  against 
proposition  A,  who  were,  confessedly,  instructed  to 
vote  for  it,  but,  after  the  vote  had  been  taken,  and  the 
result  ascertained — though  before  it  was  announced — ■ 
the  chairman  of  the  committee,  who  had  reported  this 
precious  scheme  of  compromise  himself,  found  it  ne- 
cessary to  change  his  vote  and  thus  to  defeat  the  mixed 
basis  by  a  majority  of  one. 

Now,  sir,  I  do  not  inquire  into  the  motives  of  gentle- 
men—I have  nothing  to  do  with  their  motives — but  I 
state,  as  I  have  a  perfect  right  to  state,  the  facts  that 
have  occurred  before  our  eyes.  1  give  as  it  is  my 
right  to  give,  a  history  of  this  transaction,  and  I  leave 
it  to  those  who  are  entitled  to  pass  judgment  on  the 
conduct  of  gentlemen  on  this  floor,  to  make  their  own 
deductions,  and  to  come  to  their  own  conclusions  there- 
on. 

Sir,  it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact  that 
the  mixed  basis  has  been  defeated,  and  this  thing,  mis- 
called a  compromise,  put  upon  us  by  the  course  pursued 
by  a  portion  of  the  professed  adv<  cates  of  the  mixed  basis 
on  this  floor.  We  have  always  been  able  to  carry  the 
mixed  basis — we  can  carry  it  now  if  those  who  were 
understood  to  be  its  friends  will  stand  up  to  the  princi- 
ples they  were  sent  here  to  maintain.  But  it  is  idle  to 
expect  to  carry  any  principle  when  its  professed  advo- 
cates tell  you  beforehand  they  are  willing  to  compro- 
mise it.  Sir,  I  have  had  occasion  once  before  to  say, 
and  I  now  repeat,  that  under  such  circumstances  it  will 
generally  be  found  that  those  who  begin  with  compro- 
mise end  with  surrender.  And  I  leave  it  to  eastern 
Virginia  to  say  whether  our  experience,  in  the  present 
ease,  furnishes  any  exception  to  the  general  rule. 

I  desire  now,  sir,  to  make  a  single  remark  as  to  what 
some  gentlemen  seem  to  regard  as  the  inconsistency  of 
my  position  in  submitting  the  motion  1  made  yesterday 
to  amend  this  report,  after  objecting  to  it  on  the  grounds 
stated  in  the  few  remarks  made  on  Monday  last.  And 
I  think  it  will  appear  that  there  is  about  as  much  found- 
ation for  this  idea  as  for  some  other  positions  I  have 
had  occasion  to  consider,  and  no  more.  On  what  ground 
was  it  that  I  objected  to  the  report  last  Monday,  in  the 
few  remarks  then  made?  Simply  because  it  gave  to 
the  west,  in  a  house  of  but  one  hundred  and  fifty  mem- 
bers, the  same  majority  that  the  west  claimed  by  its 
extreme  proposition  in  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
six,  and  1  am  to  be  told  that  because  you  give  the  west  by 
this  scheme  more  than  it  is  entitled  to  upon  the  suffrage 
basis,  even  according  to  its  own  extreme  demand,  you 


81 


do  not,  therefore,  recognise  the  principle  of  the  suffrage 
basis  ?  Or  is  it  to  be  argued  that  because  you  thus  put 
upon  the  eastern  people  that  very  inequality  of  repre- 
sentation and  degradation,  about  which  our  western 
friends  have  discoursed  so  eloquently,  you  thereby  ren- 
der the  scheme  more  palatable  to  the  east  ?  This  cer- 
tainly does  not  obviate  the  objection  I  made.  It  in- 
creases the  objection.  You  not  only  take  the  principle 
to  the  full  extent  to  which  it  will  carry  you,  but  you 
go  beyond  that  principle,  and  you  give  to  the  west 
more  than  they  are  entitled  to  on  their  own  principles. 
Thus,  by  this  compromise  scheme,  it  requires  a  greater 
number  of  qualified  voters  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  to 
send  a  delegate  to  the  legislature  than  it  does  west  of 
the  Blue  Ridge  ;  and  this  degradation,  which  has  been 
the  theme  of  so  much  eloquent  invective  and  bitter 
denunciation  on  the  part  of  our  western  brethren,  has, 
by  the  action  of  eastern  men,  been  visited  upon  the 
eastern  people. 

Mr.  CHILTON".  Will  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
mond allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question  ?  Did  he  not 
contend  that  the  western  people  would  not  be  degra- 
ded? 

Mr.  STANARD.  Unquestionably,  I  do  so  contend, 
but  in  doing  so  I  had  to  encounter  the  united  voice  of 
the  western  delegation  on  this  floor;  and  if  there  be 
anything  in  the  views  so  eloquently  urged  by  them,  they 
apply  in  their  full  force  to  the  people  of  eastern  Vir- 
ginia under  this  compromise  scheme.  But,  sir,  whether 
this  inequality  of  representation  in  the  popular  branch 
be  degrading  or  not,  the  fact  is  undeniable  that  under 
this  scheme  more  poicer  is  given  to  the  west  than  they 
are  entitled  to,  even  upon  the  suffrage  basis  itself. 
Upon  what  grounds  this  is  done,  and  whether  or  not 
it  should  be  done,  I  leave  it  to  the  eastern  people  to  de- 
cide. 

But,  sir,  we  are  told  all  this  is  the  result  of  ultraism 
— and  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  has  in- 
formed us  that  the  compromise  itself  has  been  brought 
about  by  ultraism.  Yes,  it  has  been  the  effect  of  ultra- 
ism, but  it  has  been  the  ultraism  of  the  west,  concurring 
with  the — submissionism,  shall  1  say  ?  or,  sir,  for  I  would 
fain  adopt  the  politest  phrase  I  cau  think  of  to  express  the 
idea,  the  compromising  spirit,  let  me  call  it,  of  certain 
gentlemen  of  the  east.  That,  sir,  is  the  sort  of  ultraism 
whicli  has  produced  this  result  Here  have  been  these 
western  gentlemen,  day  after  day,  week  after  week, 
and  month  after  month,  battling  for  the  principles  they 
were  sent  here  to  maintain,  with  an  energy  untiring  and 
a  zeal  that  knew  no  flagging.  Sir,  I  honor  them  for 
it — every  man  of  them — and,  I  wish  to  Cod  we  could 
have  had  men  of  like  spirit  on  our  side.  They  never 
talked  about  compromise,  and  s'ill  less  did  they  ever 
think  about  surrender.  They  stood  as  they  profes  ed 
to  stand,  upon  principle,  and  that  principle  they  meant 
to  carry  out  by  any  and  all  the  means  in  their  power. 
Why,  sir,  have  we  forgotten  the  efforts  that  were  made 
for  days  and  weeks,  not  to  say  for  months,  to  control 
the  action  of  the  delegation  from  this  district?  Have 
we  forgotten  how  the  halls  of  this  Convention  have 
echoed  and  re-echoed  with  appeals,  in  every  form,  to 
the  people  of  Richmond  to  instruct  their  delegates  to 
vote  for  the  suffrage  basis  ?  How  for  days  and  days  to- 
gether the  discussion  was  carried  on  here  undisguisedly 
— I  had  almost  said  avowedly — wiih  a  view  to  effect 
this  result  ?  And  had  these  efforts  proved  successful, 
and  the  suffrage  basis  could  thus  have  been  carried, 
even  with  a  single  vote,  does  any  man  believe  that  the 
advocates  of  that  principle  would  have  hesitated  for  a 
moment  so  to  have  carried  it?  Does  any  man  believe 
that  under  such  circumstances  western  gentlemen 
would  have  come  forward  to  compromise  this  question? 
No  sir,  no  !  They  have  never  disguised  their  purpose 
of  carrying  their  principle  by  any  majority  by  which  it 
could  be  carried  ;  and  they  would  have  put  it  in  the  con- 
stitution (if  they  could)  just  as  certainly  by  one  vote  as 
by  twenty  or  by  fiity.  But  while  this  was  the  spirit  that 
prevailed  on  one  side,  how  was  it  on  the  other  ?  Had  we 


no  principles  to  maintain — principles  cherished  by  the 
people  who  sent  us  here,  and  consecrated  by  the  names 
and  embalmed  by  the  genius  of  men  to  whom  Virginia 
will  poiot  with  pride  so  long  as  a  throb  of  patriotic  emo- 
tion shall  continue  to  beat  in  the  bosoms  of  her  sons  ? 
And  how  were  principles  like  these  to  be  vindicated 
and  sustained  by  declaring  in  the  same  breath  in  which 
you  avowed  them,  that  you  were  willing  to  compromise 
them  ?  _  We  have  principles,  say  gentlemen,  principles  of 
the  justice,  propriety  and  sound  republicanism  of  which 
we  are  fully  convinced— principles  which  some  of  us 
have  main  ained  even  in  argument,  on  this  floor — prin- 
ciples, that  are  dear  to  us,  and,  it  might  be  added,  still 
dearer  to  those  who  sent  us  here.  But  be  not  alarmed, 
gentlemen  of  the  west,  we  have  no  idea  of  carrying 
out  these  principles.  You  will  not  fail,  if  you  can,  to 
put  your  principles  into  the  constitution  by  any  ma- 
jority that  will  effect  that  result;  but  we  have  not  the 
remotest  idea  of  adopting  the  same  course  as  respects 
our  principle.  Oh  !  no.  God  forbid  we  should  think  of 
doing  that.  It  might  produce  excitement— it  might 
lead  to  revolution — and  possibly  to  a  division  of  the 
State.  Sir,  for  one,  I  have  indulged  in  no  apprehen- 
sions of  this  kind,  nor  have  I  permitted  considerations 
like  these  to  cause  me  to  swerve  from  what  was,  ac- 
cording to  my  poor  judgment,  the  plain  path  of  princi- 
ple and  of  duty.  I  have  said,  and  I  repea  it,  that  I 
never  entertained  the  slightest  apprehensions  of  any 
revolutionary  movement  or  division  of  the  State  pro- 
duced through  the  instrumentality  of  such  men  as  I 
saw  around  me  here,  or  of  the  law-loving  and  law- 
abiding  people  from  whom  they  came.  Whatever  mio-ht 
have  been  the  feelings  of  temporary  excitement,  Re- 
sulting from  the  failure  to  carry  a  favorite  measure, 
(feelings  in  which  I  can  fully  sympathise,)  I  had  too 
much  confidence  in  their  good  sense,  their  true  Virginian 
feeling— their  loyalty  to  the  State  as  -well  as  to  the 
Union — (heir  law-loving  and  Jaw-abiding  spirit,  ever  to 
doubt  the  influence  or  the  effects  of  their  sober  second 
thoughts,  when  those  feelings  of  momentary  excite- 
ment should  have  passed  away.  But  what  reliance 
can  be  placed — what  calculation  can  oe  made  as  to  the 
coarse  of  that  man  whose  conduct  is  regulated  not  by 
his  convictions,  but  by  his  fears?  who<e  cwurse  is 
moulded  and  whose  action  conti  oiled,  not  by  his  con- 
viction of  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  by  his  fears  of 
what  somebody  else  may  do  ?  No  great  principle  of 
any  kind,  nothing  worth  struggling  for,  either  in  public 
or  in  private  lite  was  ever  accomplished  by  means  like 
these.  A  contest  carried  on  as  this  has  been,  with  such 
unyielding  energy  and  determination  on  the  one  side, 
and  such  a  "compromising  spirit,'  [I  trust  I  use  a 
phrase  to  the  poli;eness  of  which  at  least  no  exception 
can  be  taken,  and  which  will  not  shock  the  ears  of 
any  gentleman.]  so  compromising  a  spirit"  I  say  then  on 
the  other  could  have  but  oue  result — and  that  is  precise- 
ly the  result  that  has  taken  place,  and  which  I  fear 
eastern  Virginia,  at  least  for  all  time  to  come,  will  have 
but  too  much  reason  to  deplore.  A  great  deal  has  been 
said  in  the  course  of  this  discussion  about  the  feelings 
of  western  Virginia.  I  think,  sir,  1  have  all  due  respect, 
as  much  respect  as  any  man  can  have,  for  the  op  uions 
and  feelings  of  our  western  brethren.  I  have  always 
respected  them,  and  that  respect  has  not  been  dimin- 
ished, but  enhanced  by  the  course  they  have  pursued 
in  their  firm,  manly  and  unyielding  devotion  to  the  prin- 
ciples they  believed  to  be  right — but  I  must  be  pardoned 
for  asking  whether  no  consideration  is  due  the  princi- 
ples and  feeling  of  eastern  Virginia  ?  That  is  a  view 
of  the  subject  which  really  would  scarcely  seem  to  have 
occurred  to  gentlemen.  And  yet  no  one  I  presume  is 
prepared  to  affirm  that  the  people  of  eastern  Virginia 
have  no  principles  to  be  violated — no  feeling  to  be  out- 
raged, or  that  they  are  prepared  to  acquiesce  in  any 
abandonment  of  principle,  however  glaring— to  submit 
without  a  murmur  to  any  form  of  government,  however 
certain  to  be  weak  aud  almost  certain  to  be  corrupt — 
and,  finally,  to  swallow  any  scheme,  however  obnoxious, 


provi  led  only  you  christen  it,  "  a  compromise."  Sir,  I 
tr  ist  they  will  take  this  matter  into  their  own  hands 
and  expiess  their  opinions  wirh  respect  to  this  thing  mis- 
called a  compromise ;  and  if  the  fire  that  once  burned 
in  the  bosoms  of  our  sires  is  not  utterly  extinct  in  those 
of  her  sons,  1  believe  they  will  speak  to  their  delegates 
on  this  floor,  and  that  too,  in  tones  that  can  neither  be 
misunderstood,  misrepresented,  nor  evaded. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  tells 
us  that  we  may  be  thankful  for  what  we  have  got.  If 
so,  our  spirit  of  thankfulness  would  indeed  be  great. 
We  should  certainly  be  thankful  for  very  small  favors. 
But  if  the  gentleman  means  that  had  the  west  held 
out  a  little  longer,  they  would  have  got.  the  suffrage 
basis  out  and  out,  perhaps  he  is  right.  At  all  events, 
I  shall  not  take  issue  with  him  on  that  point.  How  far 
this  "  spirit  of  compromise'''  has  gone,  we  all  see  and 
feel,  and  for  aught  I  know,  gentlemen  may  have  been 
prepared,  in  the  same  spirit,  to  go  yet  further,  if  that 
thing  be  possible.    I  do  not  profess  to  be  able  to  fix 

the  limits  to  which  western  ultraism  and  eastern  

Mr.  WISE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  say, 
that  by  the  ultraism  which  I  referred  to  yesterday,  this 
compromise  was  brought  about ;  and  if  this  ultraism 
was  presisted  in,  I  shall  not  lose  the  hopes  of  getting 
the  pure  unmitigated  suffrage  basis  in  presenti. 

Mr.  STANARD.  Precisely  so,  sir.  And  if  the  gen- 
tleman does  get  it,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  be 
fore,  he  will  get  that  between  which  and  this  so-called 
compromise,  there  is,  in  my  humble  judgment,  nothing 
t )  choose.  But  let  me  again  tell  that  gentleman  that 
it  is  not  ultraism,  but  the  absence  of  ultraism  on  the 
part  of  the  east,  c  imbined  with  ultraism  on  the  west, 
that  has  produced  this  result.  If,  sir,  the  same  spirit 
(or  anything  like  it)  that  rrevades  and  animates  the 
action  of  our  western  friends,  had  directed  the  course 
of  eastern  gentlemen  on  this  floor — if  the  same  spirit 
had  animated  them  that  the  gentleman  from  Loudoun 
(Mr.  Janney)  has  manifested  throughout  this  debate — 
and  never  more  strikingly  than  as  evinced  in  his  elo 
quent  speech  of  yesterday — "  the  flag  of  the  east  would 
not  (iO  borrow  his  glowing  language)  now  have  been 
trailing  in  the  dust." 

No  sir,  no  !  We  should  never  have  found  ourselves 
in  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  now  placed. 
Either  the  principle  contended  for  by  the  east  would 
have  been  engrafted  on  the  constitution,  or  there  would 
have  been  a  victo'-y  on  neither  side,  but  a  fair  and  hon- 
orable adjustment  of  this,  controversy  between  the  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  State  upon  terms  satisfactory  to 
both  parties — a  compromise  of  this  question  in  fact  as 
well  as  in  name — not  a  scheme  devised  by  an  eastern 
committee  appointed  by  western  votes,  but  a  compro- 
mise in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  emanating  from 
a  committee  in  which  the  east  as  well  as  the  west  should 
be  represented  by  men  selected  by  themselves,  and  car- 
rying with  it  all  the  weight  due  to  the  recommenda- 
tions of  such  a  body — a  compromise  by  which,  while 
each  party  would  feel  that  it  had  abated  something  of 
its  extreme  demands,  yet  neither  would  have  been  com- 
pelled to  yield  to  the  terms  or  to  submit  to  the  ultimatum 
propounded  by  the  other — a  compromise,  in  fine,  by 
which  the  losing  party  would  at  least  have  enjoyed 
the  poor  satisfaction  of  believing  that  if  they  were 
compelled  to  submit  to  the  ultimatum  of  the  other 
side,  they  at  least  did  not  do  worse  than  that — they, 
at  least,  did  not  take  less  than  their  adversaries  them- 
selves (adversaries,  I  mean,  on  this  question,  and  I 
trust  in  no  other  sense)  were  willing  to  give  them. 
And  yet,  sir,  by  this  scheme  of  the  Committee  of  Eight, 
even  this  poor  privilege  is  denied  to  the  east,  for  I 
think  it  has  been  shown,  and  shown  conclusively,  that 
one,  at  least,  if  not  two  of  the  propositions  offered  us  by 
the  west,  was  decidedly  preferable  to  what  is  now  about 
to  be  put  upon  us  by  way  of  compromise. 

It  is  in  vain  to  talk  about  this  result  as  anything  but 
a  victory  of  the  west  over  the  east.  On  Saturday  night 
week,  the  west  tojd  us  that  they  would  agree  to  nothing 


but  a  surrender  of  the  whole  question  in  both  houses, 
either  now  or  at  some  short  period — and  they  have 
got  it.  We  have  not  only  come  up  to  their  ultimatum, 
but  have  gone  beyond  it,  and  have  compromised  for  less' 
decidedly  less  than  they  themselves  were  willing  to' 
give  us.  And  this,  we  are  told,  is  no  victory.  Sir.it  is  a 
victory—a  victory  on  one  side,  and  a  total  route  on  the 
other — a  victory  on  the  part  of  the  west,  and  an  utter  and 
absolute  surrender,  both  of  the  question  of  principle, 
and  the  question  of  power,  on  the  part  of  the  east.  To 
borrow  again  thf  expressive  language  of  my  friend  from 
Loudoun,  (Mr.  Janney,)  "  We  have  not  been  allowed 
even  to  retain  our  side  arms,  or  to  march  out  with 
something  of  the  honors  of  war."  We  have  not  capitu- 
lated, but  have  surrendered,  or  rather,  have  been  sur- 
rendered at  discretion. 

How  different,  how  widely  different  was  the  course 

pursued  by  our  fathers  in  the  Convention  of  1829-30  > 

and  how  humiliating  the  contrast  between  the  conduct 
of  eastern  representatives  in  this  Convention  and  in 
that  i  The  east  came  into  the  Convention  of  1829-30 
with  a  majority  against  them.  Upon  the  first  trial  of 
strength,  the  white  basis  party  had  a  majority  of  two 
in  the  committee  of  the  whole.  Did  eastern  repre- 
sentatives then  talk  about  compromise,  about  surrender, 
no  matter  what  the  majority  was  against  them  on  the 
first  trial?  No  sir,  they  fought  for  their  principles, 
they  appealed  to  the  country,  they  sent  forth  those  ap- 
peals, those  arguments,  those  illustrations  that  com- 
manded the  public  attention,  and  finally  directed  and 
controlled  the  public  voiee.  They  put  forth  those 
speeches  on  this  very  basis  question,  which  form  a  col- 
lection of  deliberative  eloquence  that  has  rarely,  if  ever 
been  surpassed,  and  which  caused  the  eyes  of  the  whole 
country  to  be  turned  towards  the  body  from  which 
they  emanated.  The  public  attention  was  aroused— 
the  public  feeling  was  excited — the  public  mind  re- 
acted, and  though  that  reaction  operated,  in  the  first 
instance,  so  far  only  as  to  change  a  single  vote,  even 
that  change  was  productive  of  the  most  decisive  re- 
sults. You  will  find  that  in  1829  the  representatives 
of  eastern  Virginia  stood  day  and  day,  and  week  alter 
week,  upon  a  tie  vote — once,  twice,  thrice,  did  the  vote 
upon  this  question  stand  48  to  48.  Not  a  man  faltered 
or  gave  way.  Armed  in  conscious  rectitude,  they  were 
content  to  stand  or  fall  by  the  principles  they  professed. 
That  is  the  way  our  fathers  fought  this  question,  rep- 
resenting the  same  interests,  embarked  in  the  same 
cause,  coming  from  the  same  people,  advocating  the 
same  principles,  to  the  support  of  whih  nearly  every 
man  of  us  was  pledged  before  he  took  his  seat  in  this 
hall. 

I  have  said,  sir,  and  I  here  repeat  it,  that  conscious 
as  I  have  always  been  that  the  east  had  not  in  this  Con- 
vention the  representation  she  enjoyed  in  that — yet,  I 
confess  I  had  hoped  that  some  of  our  fathers'  fire  still 
burned  in  the  bos»ms  of  their  sons.  I  did  hope  that, 
though  we  could  not  originate  such  arguments  as  they 
brought  forward,  or  enforce  them  with  such  eloquence 
and  power  as  to  convert  a  minority  into  a  majority,  as 
they  had,  done  yet  with  these  arguments  before  t  he  peo- 
ple, making,  as  they  had  made,  a  deep  and  abiding  im- 
pression on  the  public  mind,  and  with  a  decided  n.ajority 
in  favor  of  the  east  here  at  the  commencement  of  the 
conflict,  I  confess,  I  say,  that  under  these  circumstances, 
I  did  indulge  the  hope  that  we  could  so  far  hold  our 
own  as  not  to  let  this  Convention  terminate  in  an  ut- 
ter, absolute,  and  I  was  about  to  use  a  term  -which  I 
will  not  use — I  was  about  to  say  shameful  surrender  on 
the  part  of  the  east.  But,  sir  if  the  deed  is  to  be  done, 
if  the  principles  we  were  sent  here  to  maintain  are  to 
be  stricken  down,  and  injury,  perhaps  irreparable,  in- 
flicted upon  those  whose  rights  and  interests  have  been 
confided  to  our  care,  I  shall,  at  least,  have  the  consola- 
tion of  feeling,  that  not  by  my  arm,  or  the  arms  of  those 
who  have  acted  with  me  on  this  question,  has  the  par- 
icidal  blow  been  dealt.  If  the  flag  of  the  east  is  indeed 
"trailing  in  the  dust, "  it  is  not  our  hands  that  have  drag- 


33 


ged  it  down — if  others  have  seen  the  star  in  the  west, 
we  at  least  have  not  gone  forth  to  worship  it.  But,  sir, 
the  deed  is  not  yet  done,  the  act  of  surrender  is  not  yet 
consummated,  and  now  the  question  is  :  shall  this  thing, 
that  is  a  compromise  only  in  name,  be  permitted  to 
stand  ?  Shall  it  be  finally  consummated  and  carried  out 
by  being  made  part  and  parcel  of  the  organic  law — by 
being  emblazoned  upon  the  folds  of  your  constitution, 
there  to  remain  so  long  as  the  constitution  itself  shall 
endure  ?  I  have  no  doubt  how  this  question  will  be 
decided  now  and  here.  I  have  no  doubt  as  to  what  will 
be  the  decision  of  this  body  at  this  time.  But,  sir,  there 
is  another  tribunal  to  which  we  are  all  responsible,  and 
to  that  I  appeal.  I  hope  and  trust  that  before  this  act 
is  finally  consummated,  an  opportunity  will  be  afforded 
to  the  people  of  considering  this  most  vital  question,  i 
and  of  expressing  their  sentiments  with  respect  to  it. 
I  hope  they  will  have  an  opportunity  of  examining  this 
scheme  in  all  its  parts,  in  its  origin,  its  progress,  its  de- 
tails, its  consummation,  and  its  probable,  nay,  its  al- 
most certain  effects  in  the  establishment  of  a  govern- 
ment as  devoid  of  efficiency  in  its  operation  as  of  prin- 
ciple in  its  organization — a  government  alike  weak, 
corrupt,  and  corrupting  in  its  tendencies — a  ricketty  and 
unstable  machine,  under  which  the  great  interests  of  the 
State,  instead  of  being  fostered  and  promoted,  will  lan- 
guish and  decay.  Let  the  people  examine  into  these 
matters  for  themselves,  and  when  they  shall  have  done 
so,  let  their  voice  be  heard — and  it  is  a  voice,  sir,  which 
if  heard,  must  and  will  be  heeded  in  this  hall ;  and  I 
do  not  despair ;  no,  sir,  I  am  very,  very  far  from  de- 
spairing, that  one  or  two  results  will  follow,  and  either 
the  principle  for  which  the  east  has  contended — the 
principle  on  which  this  Convention  itself  is  organized — 
will  be  embodied  in  the  constitution  it  is  to  send  forth, 
or,  at  all  events,  that  some  plan  may  be  devised  and 
agreed  upon  that  is  free  from  the  insuperable  objections 
that  exist  to  this  most  pernicious  scheme;  some  plan 
that  is  fair,  and  just,  and  equal  for  the  east  and  for  the 
westj  and  which,  if  adopted,  may  have  the  benign  ef- 
fect, so  devoutly  to  be  wished  for  by  us  all,  of  enabling 
this  Convention  to  close  its  labors  under  feelings  on  both 
sides  very,  very  different  from  those  which  I  believe 
will  pervade  the  breasts  of  a  large  portion  of  this  body 
if  a  scheme  so  justly  obnoxious  m  every  point  of  view, 
as  this  has  been  shown  to  be,  shall,  by  a  meagre  majori- 
ty of  some  four  or  five  vote?,  (and  those,  too,  the  votes 
of  the  gentlemen  who  originated  it.)  be  now  forced  upon 
the  Convention  and  upon  the  country. 

I  may,  perhaps,  be  asked  what  course  I  shall  pursue 
if  this  scheme  be  finally  adopted  and  engrafted  on  the 
constitution.  I  have  no  difficulty,  sir,  in  answering  that 
question  - 1  shall  pursue  precisely  that  course  which  I 
have  little  doubt  the  great  body  of  our  western  friends, 
if  not  the  whole  of  them,  would  have  pursued,  and 
which  I  have  still  less  doubt  that  the  great  body,  if  not 
the  whole  of  the  western  people  would  have  sustained 
them  in,  if  the  principle  of  the  mixed  basis  (which 
cannot  be  more  obnoxious  t©  them  than  this  thing,  mis- 
called a  compromise,  is  to  me)  had  been  adopted  and 
put  on  them  as  this  is  about  to  be  put  upon  us — I  will 
submit  to  the  law  of  the  land.  I  will  abide  by  the  will 
of  the  people,  declared  by  their  constituted  authorities. 
I.  am  no  secessionist,  no  disunionist,  no  disorganize^  no 
Dcrrite,  and  if  it  be  the  will  of  the  people  that  this 
shall  be  their  government,  they  have  a  right  so  to  or- 
dain, and  I,  as  a  citizen,  have  no  alternative  but  to  sub- 
mit. There  is,  or  ought  to  be,  but  one  sovereign  in  a 
free  country,  and  that  sovereign  is  the  law  of  the  land, 
as  declared  by  the  constituted  authorities  to  whom  the 
people  have  delegated  the  power  of  declaring  what  that 
law,  organic  or  oth^r,  shall  be.  To  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple thus  expressed,  I  am  and  trust  I  shall  always  be 
ready  to  bow.  But,  sir,  I  say  again,  that  before  the  act 
is  consummated,  1  trust  the  people  will  be  heard.  I 
trust  their  voice  will  come  up  to  this  hall,  and  if  it  shall, 
I  do  not  believe  that  a  scheme  like  this  will  ever  become 
part  and  parcel  of  the  constitution  of  Virginia.  I  do 
5 


not  believe  when  this  scheme  comes  to  be  seen  and  un- 
derstood as  it  really  is,  when  it  comes  to  be  stripped  of 
the  garb  of  compromise  and  viewed  as  it  is  in  its  naked 
deformity,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  will  command  the 
approbation  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  east  or  west, 
north  or  south.  The  east,  almost  with  one  voice,  has 
already  condemned  it,  and  I  know  from  their  own  de- 
clarations, that  it  is  far  from  being  satisfactory  even  to 
some  of  the  gentlemen  from  the  west. 

I  had  no  idea,  when  I  commenced  speaking,  of  occu- 
pying so  much  of  the  time  of  the  Convention  as  I  have 
done.  I  am  aware  of  the  tedium  which  any  gentleman 
inflicts  on  the  Convention,  and  the  great  disadvantages 
under  which  he  labors,  who  attempts  to  make  any  re- 
marks upon  this  subject  at  this  time,  but  I  trust  the 
Convention  will  hold  me  excused  when  they  see  that  it 
is  a  course  of  remark  brought  about  by  nothing  which 
I  have  said  or  done,  or  meant  to  say  or  do,  but  rendered 
necessary  as  an  act  of  self-defence — to  defend  myself 
and  those  eastern  members  who  have  acted  with  me 
against  statements  and  charges  which  I  regard  as,  and 
trust  I  have  shown,  to  be  utterly  unfounded  in  fact. 
-  And  now,  speaking,  as  I  trust,  for  the  last  time  on 
this  question.  I  take  occasion  to  say  to  western  gentle- 
men that  if  at  any  time  in  the  course  of  this  discussion, 
under  the  influence  of  what  they  must  perceive,  and 
what  I  most  sensibly  feel,  to  be  a  perhaps  too  impulsive 
nature,  I  have  said  or  done  any  thing  in  language  or  in 
manner  calculated  in  the  slightest  degree  to  wound  the 
feelings  of  gentlemen,  I  hope  they  will  believe  that 
nothing  was  further  from  my  intention.  Feeling  strong- 
ly, I  have  spoken  freely ;  but  without  the  slightest 
design  in  so  doing  to  transcend  the  just  limits  of  free 
debate,  or  to  do  more  than  express  in  such  language  as 
I  could  command,  the  strong  and  decided  convictions  of 
my  own  mind  on  this  most  vital  question. 

PROPOSITIONS    SUBMITTED    BY   THE   EASTERN  COMMITTEE* 

[A.] 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  house  of  delegates  shall  consist 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  members,  and  that  repre- 
sentation therein  shall  be  based  upon  the  qualified  vot- 
ers of  the  State. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  senate  shall  consist  of  fifty 
members,  and  that  representation  therein  shall  be  based 
upon  taxation,  exclusive  of  the  license  tax,  the  tax 
on  law  process,  and  the  capitation  tax  on  free  ne- 
groes. 

3.  Resolved,  That  all  laws  may  originate  in  either 
of  the  two  houses  of  the  general  aesembly,  to  be  ap- 
proved or  rejected  by  the  other,  and  all  laws  may  be 
amended  by  either  house,  'With  the  consent  of  the 
other. 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  legislature  shall,  in  the  year 
1862,  and  in  every  ten  years  thereafter,  re-apportien 
representation  in  the  house  of  delegates  and  in  the  sen 
ate,  upon  the  principles  stated  in  the  first  and  second 
resolutions. 

LB.] 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  house  of  delegates  shall  con- 
sist of  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  and  that  eighty- 
five  members  thereof  shall  be  apportioned  among  those 
counties,  districts,  and  cities  lying  west  of  the  Blue 
Ridge  of  mountains,  and  sixty-five  among  those  coun- 
ties, districts,  and  cities  lying  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  of 
mountains. 

2.  Resohed,  That  the  senate  shall  consist  of  fifty 
members,  and  that  representation  therein  shall  be 
based  upon  taxation,  exclusive  of  the  taxes  levied  on 
licenses,  law  process,  and  the  capitation  tax  on  free 
negroes. 

3.  Resolved,  That  all  laws  may  originate  in  either 
of  the  two  houses  of  the  general  assembly,  to  be  ap- 
proved or  rejected  by  the  other,  and  all  laws  may 
be  amended  by  either  house,  with  the  consent  of  the 
other. 

4.  Resolved \  That  the  legislature  shall,  in  the  year 


34 


1862,  and  in  every  tenth  year  thereafter,  re-apportion 
representation  in  the  house  of  delegates,  equally  among 
the  qualified  voters  of  the  State  ;  and  in  the  senate, 
equally  upon  taxation,  excluding  taxes  on  licenses,  law 
process,  and  capitation  taxes  on  free  negroes. 

[C.] 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  house  of  delegates  shall  consist 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  seventy-five  of  which 
shall  be  apportioned  on  the  suffrage  basis,  and  seventy- 
five  on  taxes,  exclusive  of  taxes  on  licenses,  law  process, 
and  the  capitation  tax  on  free  negroes. 

2.  Resolved,  The  senate  shall  consist  of  fifty  members, 
and  representation  therein  shall  be  based  upon  the 
qualified  voters  of  the  State. 

3.  Resolved,  That  all  laws  may  originate  in  either 
house,  and  be  amended  or  rejected  in  the  other. 

4.  Resolved,  The  legislature  shall,  in  the  year  1862, 
and  in  every  tsnth  year  thereafter,  re-apportion  repre- 
gention  in  each  house,  upon  the  prineiples  stated  in  the 
first  and  second  resolutions. 

5.  Resolved,  No  Convention  to  alter  or  amend  this 
constitution  shall  be  held,  unless  in  pursuance  of  a  law 
passed  by  a  vote  of  three-fifths  of  all  the  members  elect- 
ed to  each  house  of  the  legislature,  and  upon  the  final 
passage  of  such  law,  the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be  entered 
upon  the  journal  of  each  house. 

PROPOSITIONS   SUBMITTED  BY  THE  WESTERN  COMMITTEE. 

1st.  That  the  house  of  delegates  shall  be  apportioned 
on  the  mixed  basis,  as  in  proposition  A,  excluding  the 
capitation  tax  on  free  negroes,  giving  to  the  counties, 
&c,  lying  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  a  majority  of  thirteen 
in  a  house  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  members. 

That  the  senate  be  apportioned  according  to  the 
qualified  voters,  giving  to  the  western  division  of  the 
State  a  majority  of  two  in  a  senate  of  thirty -six  mem- 
bers. 

That  in  the  year  1862  both  houses  of  the  general  as- 
sembly be  apportioned  according  to  the  number  of 
the  qualified  voters  of  the  Commonwealth. 

2d.  The  same  as  the  preceding,  except  that  instead 
of  a  mandatory  provision  in  the  Constitution  for  the 
apportionment  of  both  houses  upon  the  suffrage  basis  in 


the  year  1862,  a  provision  be  inserted  requiring  the 
general  assembly,  in  the  year  1862,  to  submit  the  ques- 
tion to  the  qualified  voters  of  the  State,  whether  the 
same  plan  of  representation  shall  be"  continued,  or 
whether  both  houses  of  the  general  assembly  shall  be 
apportioned  according  to  the  qualified  voters. 

3d.  So  to  modify  the  first  proposition  submitted  by 
the  eastern  committee,  as  to  provide  that  the  house  of 
delegates  shall  consist  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six 
members,  apportioned  according  to  the  qualified  voters, 
and  the  senate  of  fifty  members  apportioned  upon  tax- 
ation, exclusive  of  taxes  on  licenses,  law  process,  and 
free  negroes,  giving  in  the  house  of  delegates  a  majori- 
ty of  fourteen  to  the  west,  and  in  the  senate  a  majori- 
ty of  fourteen  to  the  east,  with  a  provision  that  in  the 
year  1862  both  houses  be  re-apportioned  according  to 
the  qualified  voters. 

4th.  That  both  houses  be  apportioned  on  the  mixed 
basis,  as  in  proposition  A,  excluding  the  capitation  tax 
on  free  negroes,  and  so  continue  until  the  year  1862, 
when  each  house  shall  be  re-apportioned  according  to 
the  number  of  the  qualified  voters. 

The  above  propositions  were  successively  made  ac- 
cording to  the  order  in  which  they  are  here  given,  and 
were  each  accompanied  by  the  declaration  of  the  west- 
ern committee  of  the  entire  readiness  on  thei  r  part  and 
on  the  part  of  those  for  whom  they  acted  to  unite  in 
any  and  every  proper  limitation  upon  the  legislative 
power  in  regard  to  taxation  and  appropriation,  and  the 
protection  and  security  of  property. 

ULTIMATUM   OF   THE  WEST. 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  to 
inform  the  eastern  committee  that  this  meeting  ha3 
unanimously  approved  and  adopted  the  report  of  their 
committee  of  conference,  and  to  confer  further,  if  re- 
quested, with  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  eastern 
meeting  ;  and  to  inform  that  meeting,  through  its  com- 
mittee, that  this  meeting  can  accept  of  no  plan  of  com- 
promise which  does  not  ultimately,  in  a  reasonable 
time,  recognize  re-apportionment  on  the  suffrage  basis, 
or  the  submission  of  the  question  of  re-apportionment 
to  the  decision  of  the  qualified  voters  at  the  polls. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  HENRY  A.  WISE,  OF  ACCOIAC, 


IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE 


ON 


THE  BASIS  QUESTION 


DELIVERED   IN  THE 


VIRGINIA  REFORM  CONVENTION, 


WEDNESDAY,    THURSDAY,    FRIDAY,    SATURDAY,  MONDAY, 
April  23,  24,  25,  26,  and  28,  1851. 


RICHMOND,  Y A . 

[WILLIAM  G.  BISHOP,  OFFICIAL  REPORTER.] 

PRINTED  BY  R.  H.  GALLAHER— REPUBLICAN  OFFICE. 
1851. 


SPEECH. 


WEDNESDAY,  April  23,  1851. 

Mr.  President — For  myself,  personally,  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  have  not  one  word  to  say.  All  personal  consi- 
derations are  overshadowed  by  the  coliseum  of  the 
State  !  What  man — what  mere  man,  now  living,  is  wor- 
thy— what  matter  touching  self  is  worthy  to  be  consid- 
ered ?  to  be  weighed  in  the  balance  at  this  moment,  when 
"the  crisis  of  our  fate  has  come,"  and  Tirginia — 
Virginia  is  in  the  scales  ?  When  the  question — the 
big,  the  ominous  question  is  here — shall  Virginia  be 
herself  again,  or  shall  she  lie  sick — aye,  sic,  sic,  sic 
semper  tyrannis?  Shall  she  be  sick  semper,  or  shall 
she  be  re-invigorated  and  made  herself  again  ?  What 
are  local  considerations,  what  is  trans- Alleghany,  what 
is  the  Valley,  what  is  Piedmont,  what  is  Tidewater, 
what  are  these  mere  sectional  conflicts  compared  with 
the  entire,  immeasurable  interests  of  the  State,  as  a 
whole  State — a  State  measured  by  herself  in  the  past, 
a  State  that  cannot  be  measured  for  the  future  ?  Now, 
the  question  is,  whether  in  this  moment  of  general  ri 
valry  among  States,  Virginia  shall  remain  supine 
and  dormant,  or  whether  Virginia  shall  not  reach  out 
her  hands  to  take  an  empire  more  magnificent  than 
that  of  the  Caesars?  Does  any  one  suppose  that 
at  such  a  time  as  this,  in  the  hour  when  we  are  delibe- 
rating for  the  general  good,  for  the  destiny  of  posterity, 
to  vindicate  ourselves,  too,  as  worthy  of  the  glory  of  the 
past — does  any  one  suppose  that  I  can  be  tempted  to 
debate  with  my  friend,  (Mr.  Lyons,)  whether  to  prefer  a 
division  of  the  State  under  any  circumstances,  or  whe- 
ther I  would  permit  others  to  accept  it,  or  to  drive  me 
to  that  dread  alternative  ?  Avaunt !  all  these  minor 
and  mischievous  considerations.  Down  with  all  these 
sectional  discriminations  !  Anathema  maranatha  be  the 
idea  of  Virginia  divided  !  Virginia  divided !  She  has  had 
that  question  twice  before  her.  She  has  parted  with  emi- 
nent domain  enough.  Have  gentlemen  forgotten  that 
this  mother  commonwealth  gave  to  the  Union  quite 
five  empires — one  of  which  is  now  larger  than  herself? 
Have  you  forgotten  that  out  of  her  limits  were  carved 
not  many  years  ago,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, 
and  that  she  herself  had  ceded  to  her  own  children, 
the  State  of  Kentucky  ?  And  now,  it  is  pointed  to, 
as  one  of  the  acts  of  her  folly,  that  she  ever  divided 
her  domain.  Is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  there  is  a 
head  so  mad  or  a  heart  so  bad  now,  as  under  any  con- 
tingency to  contemplate  another  dismemberment  ?  Sir, 
there  is  too  much  at  stake,  there  is  too  great  a  trust  put 
in  our  hands,  too  grand,  too  sublime  for  subjects  of 
debate  like  that  of  dividing  the  State  again  to  have 
a  resting  place  for  one  moment  on  our  minds  in  con- 
sidering this  great  question. 

Sir,  do  not  be  alarmed  when  I  tell  you  that  I  have  a 
great  deal  to  say.  I  am  ready  to  speak  day  and  night 
until  it  is  all  said,  but  I  must  say  it  all. 

This  question  involves  so  much — so  much  hangs  upon 
our  decision  at  this  moment,  that  we  are  compelled — no 
matter  whether  you  have  one  basis  or  another — no 
matter  how  you  decide  this  question  of  representation — 
to  take  a  view  of  all  the  interests  that  are  dependent 


upon  our  decision.  As  I  said  upon  a  former  occasion, 
I  cannot  say,  in  the  language  of  an  illustrious  man,  (Mr. 
Randolph,)  that  I "  am  perfectly  aware  that  on  entering 
upon  this  subject,  we  go  into  it  manacled,  hand-cuffed 
and  tongue-tied."  Handcuffed  we  may  be,  but  not 
tongue-tied.  Some  of  you  gentlemen,  may  be,  but  I 
am  not  tongue  tied.  Debate  it,  sir  !  I  would  not  be 
happy  if  I  did  not  debate  this  question.  My  children 
would  never  forgive  me,  they  would  always  remember 
me  with  regret  when  they  came  to  their  manhood  or 
womanhood,  if  I  neglected  my  duty  upon  the  present 
occasion,  to  debate  this  question.  Debate  it  ?  Yes  sir, 
debate  it  for  eastern  Virginia,  where  it  has  never 
been  generally  debated.  I  say,  debate  it ;  debate  it 
fully,  because  appeals  have  been  made  to  the  pledges 
of  gentlemen,  and  made  against  all  reason  and  con- 
science. Gentlemen  have  been  pointed  to  their  mana- 
cles, they  have  been  reminded  that  they  have  made 
pledges,  and  pledges  to  whom  ?  That  they  are  manacled, 
and  manacled  by  whom  ?  Pledges  to  the  people  !  We 
are  told  you  are  manacled  by  the  people.  Ah,  you 
gentlemen  who  curl  your  lips  and  cock  your  noses  at 
the  "  dear  people" — you  too,  it  seems,  have  made  pledges 
to  the  "dear  people  !"  You  are  manacled  by  the  dear 
people !  I  am  glad  that,  at  least,  gentlemen  acknow- 
ledge some  power  in  the  people;  that  this  much  ho- 
mage at  least,  is  paid  to  the  "  dear  people."  They  are 
the  masters,  and  pledges  to  them  must  be  executed  • 
yet  we  are  told  by  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr. 
Lyons,)  that  we,  "we,  we"  will  submit  to  these  same 
"  dear  people"  what  "  we"  think  right  for  them  to  elect ; 
sir,  that  is  the  language  of  monarchs,  is  the  language 
of  kings.  Who  are  "  we  ?"  We,  we,  [laughter,]  we  will 
give  the  people  what  we  think  right,  but  they  shall  not 
judge  of  it !  Will  the  gentleman  from  Richmond,  (Mr. 
Lyons,)  tell  us  which  are  the  majesties  who  say  to  the 
people,  "we  will  give  you  what  we  please?"  Is  the 
autocrat  of  Russia  that  same  we?  Is  that  a  mark  of 
a  republican  representative?  Who  says  " we?"  Is  it 
little  Vic.  of  England — who  is  "we?"  What  does  the 
gentleman  mean  ? 

Mr.  LYONS,  (in  his  seat.)    The  people  themselves. 

Mr.  WISE.  And  yet  the  gentleman  says  "toe"  will 
not  allow  the  people  to  decide  this  question  for  themselves. 
[Laughter.]  "We  are  not*  so  green  as  that."  "  We 
will  dictate  to  the  people  what  they,  the  people,  ought 
to  have !"  ^Who  are  "we?"  The  property  holders,  the 
governmental  majority,  the  real  sovereign  minority — 
that's  we  !  [Laughter.]  Now,  sir,  I  bow  to  their  ma- 
jesty, [renewed  laughter,]  very  awkwardly,  very  yeo- 
man like,  but  I  bow  to  their  majesty  when  they  set  up 
the  pretentions  that  the  minority  of  government  shall 
undertake  to  say  what  is  right  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people.  They  must  take  what  is  given  them  by  "  we" 
or  they  shall  have  nothing !  Well  done  for  these  little 
kings  !  Magnifique !  Write  that  upon  the  throne  !  I 
should  like  to  see  it  enacted  in  the  Richmond  theatre — 
this  "  we"  play !  [Laughter.]  I  should  like  to  see  the 
costume  of  the  court.  I  should  like  to  see  the  diadem 
and  sceptre  of  the  we.  I  will  remember  who  is  king. 
King  money  in  the  State  of  Virginia  is  the  royal  dignity,, 


4 


and  the  child  is  christened  "we."  [Great  laughter.] 
We — gentlemen  don't  mean  the  sovereigns  at  the  polls — 
but  they  mean  "we,"  our  little  selves,  the  minority 
of  the  property-holders  in  the  State  who  hold  the 
power  in  the  municipal  government,  and  the  power 
in  this  Convention !  You  have  the  power  to  say  whe- 
ther the  people  shall  have  the  right  of  election,  or 
whether  you,  the  mere  agents  of  the  people,  shall 
substitute  your  election  for  the  election  of  the  sove- 
reigns. "Wef  "we!"  with  a  sneer — with  a  most 
aristocratic  sneer. — [Laughter.]  What!  "We,"  en- 
tertain such  an  idea  ?  "Out!  Pooh!"  [Great  laugh- 
ter.] That  the  people  shall  not  have  the  right — that 
the  masters  of  the  people  shall  have  the  right  to  say 
to  the  people  :  "  You  are  no  judges  of  what  is  for  your 
own  good;  you  thall  not  elect,  but,  "t«e"  will  judge 
for  you — "  we"  will  elect  for  you,  and  you  shall  take 
our  election  or  nothing  ! "  Is  not  that  a  serious  principle 
to  be  adopted  here  ?  that  here,  the  servants  shall  become 
greater  than  their  masters  ?  whether  the  mere  agents  of 
the  people  shall  set  themselves  up  above  the  people  ? 
whether  de  facto,  without  any  pretence  de  jure,  these 
little  "  wees"  shall  really  wield  the  power  of  the  people 
against  their  own  will  ? 

But,  sir,  I  don't  debate  for  the  moral  use  only 
of  torturing  consciences  pledged  to  error.  No,  I 
debate  this  question,  in  the  second  place,  because 
the  people  are  to  vote  upon  our  work;  and  I 
wish  to  show  that,  conceding  the  principle  of  the  mixed 
basis,  that  property  shall  be  an  element  of  representa- 
tion, yet  I  do  not  yield  that  it  carries  us  to  the  extreme 
conclusion  that  property  shall  have  the  preponderance 
over  the  white  population.  Gentlemen  may,  if  they 
please,  take  their  principle  for  granted — they  may  force 
us  to  endure  their  pretensions  to  be  "  ice" — I  will  grant 
their  principles  for  the  sake  of  argument — though  I 
deny  their  proposition,  that  property  shall  be  an  ele- 
ment in  the  organization  of  government — yet  there  is 
a  large  margin  left,  in  which  to  show  that  property 
shall  not  only  not  preponderate  over,  but  shall  not  be 
anything  like  on  an  equality  even  with  white  population. 

I  debate  the  question,  in  the  third  place,  because,  al- 
though J  may  have  nothing  new  to  present,  yet,  as  it  is 
in  painting,  so  it  is  in  life.  Every  artist  will  present 
the  same  object  in  his  own  style,  and  in  a  different  style 
from  any  other.  From  the  work  of  one  pencil  upon 
the  cauvass,  the  perspective  may  not  catch  the  eye  of 
some ;  each  mind  has  its  own  grouping,  and  the  perspec- 
tive of  truth,  may  at  last  be  caught  by  a  change  of  the 
canvass  to  the  unpractised  eye,  so  as  to  strike  the  gaze 
of  those  who  are  spectators,  even  though — 

"To  nicest  judgment  show  the  piece, 
"At  best,  'twould  only  not  displease." 

I  shall  debate  this  question,  in  the  fourth  place,  be- 
cause it  involves  the  whole  American  theory  of  human 
liberty,  and  we  are  laying  the  foundation  of  freedom, 
it  may  be,  not  for  another  twenty  years,  nor  for  half  a 
century,  nor  for  a  whole  century,  but  as  I  hope  and 
trust,  for  ages. 

I  shall  debate  the  question  in  the  fifth  place,  to  an- 
swer not  only  the  living  but  the  dead — the  mighty  dead. 
You  sir,  were  a  compeer  with  my  predecessors,  (Upshur 
and  Joynes,)  in  the  last  Convention.  You  remember 
them  both,  for  they  were,  both  men  like  Byron's  Lara, 
who  "  dared  you  to  forget."  One  has  his  niche  in 
Virginia's  temple  of  the  mighty  men  who  have  departed, 
one  is  still  living  in  all  his  vigor  and  strength,  and  is 
now  overlooking  this,  our  work.  Oh !  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
I  had  him  who  is  gone  here  this  day  by  my  side.  You 
remember  the  front  of  the  man,  you  remewaber  the  "  os 
homini  sublime,"  you  remember  that  intellectual  struc- 
ture ;  oh,  what  power  of  intellect  was  there  !  You  re- 
member the  words  that  flowed  from  lips  to?;ched  as  if 
with  live  coals  from  off  the  altar.  The  bare  allusion  re- 
calls him  to  my  mind  when  last  I  saw  him  in  his  shroud, 
with  the  iron  in  that  brow,  and  with  a  sweet  smile  upon 
his  face.    He  was  my  friend,  and  I  say  that  Virginia 


has  not  now  the  like  of  him  in  power  of  oratory. 
Randolph,  Randolph  said,  and  you  doubtless  heard  him 
say,  "  that  the  one  by  his  figures  of  arithmetic,  and  the 
other  by  his  figures  of  rhetoric,"  had  carried  the  vic- 
tory in  the  last  Convention,  for  the  property  principle." 
I  stand  here,  therefore,  not  only  to  answer  the  argu- 
ments of  the  living,  which  I  have  heard  in  this  Conven- 
tion, which,  if  they  have  added  nothing  new  to  the 
great  debate  upon  the  same  subject  in  the  last  Conven- 
tion, have  at  all  events  been  founded  upon  new  data, 
have  been  modified  by  time,  and  have  been  addressed  to 
the  men  of  another  day.  I  have  not  only  to  answer 
the  host  who  fight  the  battles  of  the  mixed  basis 
here,  but  I  have  also  to  answer  the  arguments  of  the 
dead,  who  have  left  sanctified  memories.  1  have  to 
answer  the  arguments  of  Abel  P.  Upshur,  which  have 
made  such  an  indelible  impression  upon  the  minds  of 
eastern  people.  I  have  to  grapple  with  that  subtle 
metaphysics  which  showed,  or  attempted  to  show,  that 
this  pretension  of  property  was  not  only  legitimate, 
but  expedient,  which  endeavored  to  establish  a  priori 
by  a  curiously  woven  web  of  sophistry,  that  upon  first 
principles  the  pretension  of  property  was  true  and  well- 
founded.  Then,  as  the  counties  of  Accomac  and  North- 
ampton sent  that  argument  forth  to  the  world — dis- 
claiming the  attempt  to  disparage  the  mightiest  of  the 
mighty  in  the  last  Convention,  I  say  that  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Upshur,  as  one  single  effort,  was  lithe  speech"  of 
that  Convention — so  it  has  been  generally  regarded — 
it  becomes  one  at  least  of  their  representatives  to  grap- 
ple with  that  effort  of  Mr.  Upshur,  and  it  shall  crush 
me  or  I  will  crush  it  before  1  am  done.  I  know  I  have 
the  work  of  a  giant  to  contend  with,  and  I  feel  how 
weak  and  feeble  I  am  to  undertake  such  an  encounter, 
but  I  am  armed  with  the  truth,  and  I  feel  it  in  me  that 
I  can  meet  and  conquer  the  error,  and  I  will  do  it,  and 
I  will  do  it  too  with  the  "  stone  and  sling"  of  that  de- 
spised sentiment  which  I  have  heretofore  uttered,  "  in- 
finite radicalism." 

Now,  what  is  the  question  ?  The  question  is 
not,  who  shall  be  represented,  nor  what  shall  be 
represented.  No,  sir,  without  hesitation  or  reserve 
I  not  only  concede  but  claim  that  all,  all  shall  be  repre- 
sented— all,  all  shall  be  protected.  Show  me  that  that 
principle  which  bases  the  government  upon  the  rights 
of  the  moral  kingdom,  that  bases  the  government  upon 
the  reason  and  conscience  and  will  of  men,  will  not  pro- 
tect property  as  well  as  persons — persons  as  well  as 
property — and  1  will  yield  the  question  in  one  moment. 
And  if  I  can  show  that  God  Almighty,  by  placing  man 
and  man  only  in  the  moral  kingdom  of  nature — by  giv- 
ing him,  and  him  only,  reason  and  conscience  and  will, 
has  given  him  and  him  only  the  right  to  decide  upon  the 
questions  of  human  government,  and  questions  of  moral 
conduct — I  claim  jure  divino  the  right  of  man  to  gov- 
ern property — his  right  not  to  be  governed  by  property 
nor  by  any  thing  that  is  in  the  physical  kingdom  only, 
and  that  is  not  in  the  moral  kingdom  of  the  Almighty. 
Some  gentlemen  say  for  themselves,  "  If  I  were  a 
western  man,  I  would  represent  and  protect  only  west- 
ern interests — if  I  were  an  eastern  man  I  would  repre- 
sent and  protect  only  eastern  interests."  It  has  been 
uttered  here  again  and  again  by  gentlemen  on  the 
eastern  side  of  this  question.  The  sentiment  is  so  far 
below  the  merits  of  this  question  that  I  will  not  deign 
to  discuss  it.  Is  such  selfishness,  such  a  groveling,  sor- 
did element  either  of  feeling  or  action  as  this,  worthy 
of  the  sons  of  men  who  pledged  all,  all — lives,  fortunes 
and  sacred  honor,  without  regarding  whether  Massa- 
chusetts paid  mere  than  Virginia  or  Virginia  more  than 
Massachusetts,  in  the  war  for  liberty?  and  what  is  this 
but  a  civil  contest  for  human  rights.  You  are  not  now 
acting  in  an  ordinary  legislature.  You  are  not  now 
passing  upon  bills  which  may  be  enacted  to-day  and 
repealed  to-morrow.  You  are  not  controlling  mere 
questioi  s  of  expediency,  except  so  far  as  expediency 
is  synonymous  with  justice,  but  you  are  a  conventional 
body.  You  are  an  assembly  of  great  organic  law  givers 
who  are  not  merely  dealing  with  the  out-works  of  ad 


5 


ministrative  policy,  but  you  are  laying  the  very  founda- 
tion of  government,  which  if  not  laid  solid,  the  super- 
structure will  not  be  safe.  Whatever  we  may  base 
representation  upon,  base  it  where  you  please,  the 
State  constitution,  I  contend,  must  be  based  upon  popu- 
lar virtue,  upon  moral  right,  upon  the  constitution  of 
man,  upon  the  laws  of  nature  and  upon  the  will  of  God, 
to  "do  unto  others  as  you  would  others  should  do  unto 
you,"  or  it  will  stand  like  that  house  of  which  we  are 
told  in  God's  holy  word,  which  was  founded  upon  the 
sand,  and  when  the  floods  came  and  beat  thereon  it 
fell,  "and  great,  was  the  fall  thereof." 

I  have  shown  now  what  is  not  the  question.  What 
is  the  que  stion  ? 

The  question  is,  shall  wealth  be  a  representative  ?  shall 
moral  interests  be  controlled  by  money?  shall  property 
have  'political  as  well  as  money  power  ?  shall  man  rule 
money  or  money  rule  man  ?  Cannot  persons  adequately 
protect  property  ?  Must  it  have  political  power  for  its 
owners  to  protect  itself?  can  political  power  be  given  to 
it  viithout  depriving  men  of  their  moral  rights?  The 
answers  to  these  questions  depend  upon  the  answer  to 
the  question,  who  or  tvhat,  primarily,  has  the  right  to 
forma  State?  These  are  the  questions  to  be  debated 
here — these  are  the  mighty  questions  that  you  are  to  de- 
cide here. 

Now,  before  we  can  debate  these  great  questions,  we 
must  look  at  the  condition  of  this  commonwealth.  I 
am  the  last  man  in  the  world  to  trouble  you  with  any- 
thing like  a  mere  detailed  statement,  or  tables  of 
figures  and  facts.  The  little  petty  arithmetical  facts 
that  may  be  hashed  up  ad  infinitum,  I  do  not  intend  to 
deal  with  in  this  discussion-  I  wish  to  deal  with  great, 
striking,  leading,  comprehensive,  incontrovertible  facts, 
in  order  to  ascertain  from  the  condition  of  this  com- 
monwealth the  true  issue  of  this  discussion.  And  what 
is  it  ?  You  find  that  the  total  white  population  of  the 
east  is  401,104,  and  that  the  east  pays  of  taxes 
$347,000  ;  while  the  west  has  a  white  population  of 
494,763,  and  pays  a  tax  of  $185,316.37.  The  whole 
population  of  whites  in  the  State  then,  is  895,867,  and 
the  total  tax  paid  is  1532.664.46.  The  proposition  upon 
your  table,  as  far  as  it  goes,  proposes  to  give  to  the 
401,104  of  white  population  in  the  east  33  58-100 
representatives,  and  to  the  $347,348.09  of  tax  of  the 
east  48  91-100th  representatives.  Or  in  round  num- 
bers, it  proposes  to  give  to  400,000  white  population 
33,  and  to  1347,000  of  tax  49  representatives — a  propor- 
tion of  33  to  49.  It  proposes  therefore,  to  give  to 
$347,000  east  of  the  mountains — to  say  nothing  of  the 
west — a  majority  of  fourteen  representatives,  over 
401,000  white  population  in  the  east,  without  any  sec- 
tional controversy  in  the  matter  whatever.  Throw  out 
the  western  portion  of  the  State — suppose  for  one  mo- 
ment that  western  Virginia  did  not  belong  to  us — and 
that  the  territory  east  of  the  mountains  alone  constitu- 
ted the  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  and  then  take  what 
the  gentleman  from  Fauquier  says  he  would  accept. 
I  ask  him  whether  in  eastern  Virginia  he  would  carry 
las  principle  to  the  extent  of  giving  to  401,104  white 
population  of  the  east,  but  thirty-four  representatives, 
while  he  gave  to  $347,000  of  taxes  forty-nine  represen- 
tatives ?  I  put  him  upon  the  issue  with  reference  to 
eastern  Virginia  alone,  and  what  says  my  friend? 
This  then  is  a  question  between  property  and  the  white 
population  of  the  east,  as  well  as  a  question  between 
east  and  west.  Shall  $347,000  of  a  factitious,  fluctua- 
ting, uncertain,  unpermanent  tax  be  counted  forty-nine 
east  of  the  mountains,  when  400,000  white  population 
are  to  be  counted  but  thirty-four  ?  If  you  throw  the 
gold  in  the  scale,  will  it  not  take  a  little  more  than 
$347,000  to  make  the  balance  kick  the  beam  against 
401,000  white  population  of  the  eCt  ? 

The  total  white  population  of  the  west  is  494,763, 
and  to  that  population  you  propose  to  give  41  42-100th 
representatives.  The  west  pays  but  $185,000  lax  and 
to  this  $185,000  tax  you  give  twenty-six  representa- 
tives— on  the  same  proportion  that  you  arrange  repre- 
sentation east  by  the  mixed  basis.    Gentlemen  of  the 


west  need  not  complain,  for  as  I  have  said  to  my  con- 
stituents, they  have  not  as  much  cause  of  complaint  as 
our  white  people  have,  of  the  tyranny  and  oppression 
that  will  be  produced  by  the  inequality  between  the 
property  holder  and  the  non-property  holder  of  the  east. 
Your  case  is  bad  enough,  gentlemen  of  the  west — the 
disparity  there  is  bad  enough — but  fortunately  for  you, 
you  do  not  pay  tax  enough  to  make  the  proportion  of 
representatives  assigned  to  taxes  exceed  that  assigned 
to  the  reasons  and  consciences  of  men,  as  will  be  the  case 
in  the  east.  We  have  a  preponderance  of  dollars  and 
cents  over  us.  With  a  number  of  population  greater  than 
the  number  of  dollars — with  a  greater  number  of  hu- 
man souls — yes  souls,  not  politically,  but  souls  in  the 
sense  of  grace — white  souls,  (I  beg  pardon,  there  are 
some  white  souls  that  are  black,  [laughter,]  and  I  be- 
lieve some  black  souls  are  white  too,)  with  a  popula- 
tion, I  say,  of  four  hundred  and  one  thousand  that  are 
human  beings,  out-counting  the  dollars  as  401,000  is  to 
347,000 — yet  in  distributing  seventy -five  representatives 
you  give  them  as  thirty-four  to  forty-nine  in  favor  of 
the  almighty  dollar  against  flesh  and  blood,  and  the 
reasons  and  consciences  and  wills  of  man  !  How  do 
these  people  of  Richmond  regard  it?  When  told  at 
home — when  it  is  laid  before  their  eyes — will  they  give 
their  voices  to  consent  that  the  lesser  sum  than  the 
number  of  the  population  shall  out-count  the  population 
by  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole  amount  of  repre- 
sentation? 

The  question  is  not  only  one  between  propeity  and 
white  population  in  the  east  and  property  and  white 
population  in  the  west,  but  it  is  a  question  also  between 
the  east  and  west.  And  how  is  it  so  ?  I  will  go  to 
another  table,  which  I  have  prepared,  and  which  shows 
that  the  east  has  of  white  population  401,104,  and  the 
west  494,763.  The  majority  then  of  white  population 
in  the  west  is  93,659.  The  east  has  of  slaves  412,738, 
and  the  west  63,232.  The  east  then  has  a  majority  of 
slaves  of  349,506.  The  east  pays  of  tax  $347,347.09, 
and  the  west  185,316.37 — the  east  paying  a  gross  ex- 
cess of  tax  of  $162,032.32.  The  west  has  an  excess  of 
white  population  of  93,659,  while  the  east  has  an  ex- 
cess of  slaves  of  349,506.  The  west  has  given  to  it 
sixty-eight  representatives,  while  to  the  east  is  given 
eighty-two.  But  from  the  tax  of  the  east  must  be  taken 
the  amount  expended  in  the  east,  amounting  to  $126,000, 
leaving  the  net  taxes  of  the  east  at  $220,802.36.  The 
tax  of  the  west  is  $185,000,  and  there  is  expended  in 
the  west  $97,092.41,  leaving  the  net  tax  of  the  west 
at  $88,223.96.  This  leaves  a  net  balance  in  favor  of 
the  east  of  $132,576.40. 

What  then  is  the  condition  of  the  commonwealth  ? 
Ninety-four  thousand  free  white  citizens  of  the  State 
upon  one  side,  and  349,000  slaves  and  $132,000  of  tax 
on  the  other.  Look  on  the  one  side  and  then  on  the 
other,  ye  free  masters  of  slaves,  and  tell  me,  as  states- 
men, which  has  the  right  to  rule?  Shall  349,000 
slaves — aye,  and  multiply  them  by  ten,  if  you  please, 
and  ten  added  to  that,  and  $132,000  of  tax  bagged  with 
them,  if  you  please — outweigh  94,000  free  white  popu- 
lation— not  of  Yankees — not  of  free-soilers — not  of  fo- 
reigners— but  of  our  own  Virginia  born  Virginians — 
men  to  the  manor  born — bone  of  our  bone,  flesh  of  our 
flesh,  feeling  as  we  feel,  acting  as  we  act,  and  abiding 
with  us  through  evil  and  through  good  report  ?  Shall 
these  94,000  free  white  citizens,  no  matter  where  they 
reside,  east  or  west,  or  these  349,000  slaves  and  $132,000, 
rule  in  this  commonwealth?  That  is  the  great  ques- 
tion now  presented  to  this  Convention  !  Masters !  mas- 
ters !  how  do  you  value  white  men,  your  own  brethren, 
as  compared  with  your  slaves?  That  is  the  question 
for  you  to  decide  !  It  is  not  the  arithmetical,  but  the 
moral  aspect  of  this  question.  You,  that  can  order 
your  slaves  to  be  taken  out  and  cowhided  at  any  mo- 
ment— will  you  attempt  to  out-weigh  with  them  in  the 
political  balance  nearly  100,000  free  white  citizens  ? 
Will  you  dare  to  say  that  you  will  balance  94,000  free 
white  population,  with  all  their  interests,  moral,  intel- 


6 


lectual  and  political,  and  -with  their  police  and  arms- 
bearing  responsibilities,  with  a  million  even  of  your 
black  serfs?  Western  men  might  be  misunderstood  if 
they  put  the  question  in  this  light.  But  I  am  of  the 
east — I  am  a  master — I  am  a  pro-slavery  man — and  I 
do  not  hesitate,  as  a  pro-slavery  man  and  as  a  slave- 
holder, to  say  that  I  would  not  give,  in  the  formation 
of  a  State,  100,000  free  white  citizens  in  the  State  of 
Virginia,  for  all  the  slaves  on  the  continent.  Nor  do  I 
presume  that  it  will  be  considered  bold,  even  in  this 
Convention  of  masters,  to  utter  such  a  sentiment. 

The  first  question  then  is,  shall  property  rule  white 
population  in  the  east,  as  well  as  have  disproportionate 
power  in  the  west?  Shall  347,000  of  dollars  in  the 
east  rule  401,000  of  free  white  population  in  the  east  ; 
and  then  shall  849,000  slaves  and  $132,000  of  tax  rule 
94,000  majority  of  free  white  citizens  in  the  State  ? 
That  is  the  great  question  for  us  to  decide. 

Here,  in  my  place,  in  the  discharge  of  my  duty;  here, 
with  the  fall  appreciation  of  what  that  duty  is  ;  here, 
looking  to  the  ends  to  which  a  proper  discharge  or  an 
improper  discharge  of  that  duty  may  tend ;  here,  an  ex- 
treme eastern  man,  I  defy  any  man  to  set  himself  up 
above  me,  or  to  go  further  than  I  will  in  defence  of  the 
institution  of  slavery.  And  I  defy  any  man  to  get'  far- 
ther east  than  I  am  sectionally,  keeping  himself  in  this 
commonwealth.  Figuratively  and  in  fact,  therefore,  I 
am  an  extreme  eastern  man.  Here,  then,  as  an  extreme 
eastern  man,  both  in  deed  and  in  fact,  I  stand  upon  the 
free  white  suffrage  basis — and  why?  Why?  Pretend- 
ing at  least  to  understand  this  subject  thoroughly — pre- 
tending to  have  studied  it  in  all  the  experience  of  my 
public  life — and  pretending  to  understand  the  tenden- 
cies in  the  United  States  in  respect  to  the  institution  of 
slavery,  I  plant  myself  upon  the  free  suffrage  basis.  I 
not  only  shall  go  for  free,  equal  and  universal  suffrage, 
but  for  free,  equal  and  universal  representation ;  be- 
cause it  is  morally  right ;  because  it  gives  the  best  pro- 
tection, not  only  to  persons  but  to  property ;  because  it 
involves  all  that  progress  which  I  hope  to  see  achieved 
before  I  die,  and  all  that  development  that  I  hope  my 
posterity  may  enjoy  in  the  future  after  I  have  gone ; 
and  because  it  alone  will  fulfil  the  mission  which  I  have 
every  reason  to  think  God  has  intended  this  common- 
wealth of  Virginia  to  accomplish,  at  this  time,  and  at 
this  day,  and  now — for  it  is  now  or  never.  The  insti- 
tution of  slavery  is  endangered  by  this  Bourbon,  "  we,!' 
property  pretension,  that  gentlemen  set  up  under  the 
name  of  the  mixed  basis.  I  believe  that  the  worst  ene- 
my of  slavery,  the  worst  foe  to  that  institution  that 
could  be  raised  up  at  this'day,  is  to  be  aroused  by  press- 
ing this  pretension  of  property,  and  of  slave  property 
too — this  claim,  that  it  shall  be  put  against  94,000  free 
white  population  in  western  Virginia,  and  against  15 
or  20,000  majority  of  the  voters  of  this  State. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.     If  my  friend  from  Accomac  will 
allow  me,  as  it  is  two  o'clock,  and  as  he  has  arrived  at 
a  very  convenient  point  in  his  argument  to  break  off,  I 
will  move  that  the  committee  rise. 
Mr.  WISE.    I  have  no  objection. 
Mr.  TAYLOR.    I  now  move  that  the  committee  rise. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  rose 
and  reported  progress. 

Mr.  FINNEY.  I  move  that  when  the  Convention  ad- 
journ, it  adjourn  to  meet  at  half  past  seven  o'clock. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY.    I  wish  to  inquire  whether  the  gen- 
tleman who  has  the  floor  himself  prefers  that  hour  ? 
Mr.  WISE.    Yes,  sir;  I  prefer  it. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  then 
rose. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  CHAMBERS,  the  Convention  then 
adjourned  to  half  past  seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 


EVENING  SESSION. 

When  the  Convention  again  re-assembled,  at  half  past 
seven  o'clock,  the  galleries  and  lobbies  and  even  the 
floor,  were  thronged  with  spectators,  a  large  number  of 


whom  were  ladies.  After  the  Convention  had  again 
resolved  itself  into  committee  of  the  whole, 

Mr.  WISE  resumed.  I  wish  that  I  were  only  worthy 
of  this  audience,  and  that  I  could  be  conscious  that  what 
I  have  to  say  will  be  worthy  of  this  great  subject.  But 
here  we  are  assembled  and  I  hope  I  may  say  that  if 
there  be  no  excitement,  and  I  would  have  no  excitement 
— that  at  all  events  there  is  a  commanding  interest  on 
this  occasion.    What  occasion  is  it  \    Why  have  we 
been  assembled  for  four  months,  engaged  in  one  contin- 
ued debate,  the  end  of  the  commencement  of  which  we 
have  hardly  arrived  at  yet,  I  fear  ?    Why  are  we  near- 
ly equally  divided  this  day,  this  night,  this  hour,  in  this 
age,  and  upon  what  are  we  divided  ?  "  Tell  it  not  in  Gath, 
publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askalon,"  that  now,  this 
day,  this  hour,  here  present  this  night,  Virginia,  in  her 
capitol,  is  debating  whether  the  people  shall  be  free ! 
Is  that  so?  Pause,  pause,  gentlemen,  and  in  your  minds 
ask  yourselves  and  honestly  answer  yourselves  the 
question,  is  this  true  ?    This  debate  might  do  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe  ;  this  debate  would  excite  no  wonder 
m  France  ;  this  debate  might  rouse  but  little  wonder  in 
England,  but  tell  me  honestly,  ye  who  profess  to  be  re- 
publicans of  whatever  party,  of  whatever  hue,  of  what- 
ever shape,  whatever  may  be  your  federal  politics  or 
your  State  politics,  tell  me  is  it  not  a  wonder  that  in  this 
great  republic  of  the  confederated  States  of  the  United 
States  of  North  America,  this  day,  now,  you  are  stand- 
ing where  you  stood  at  the  end  of  the  American  revolu- 
tion ?  •  Have  you  made  a  step  in  the  progress  of  the 
emancipation  of  free  white  men  in  your  commonwealth  ? 
Have  you  made  one  step  which  England  has  not  made  ? 
You  have  abolished  the  old  rotten-borough  system — you 
have  abolished  the  old  property  qualifications  of  suffrage, 
but  Great  Britain  has  abolished  the  rotten-borough  sys- 
tem, too,  and  "  old  Sarem's  self"  is  no  more  even  in  Eng- 
land, and  she  made  the  step  nearly  as  soon  as  we  did. 
What !  here  in  North  America,  here  in  this  day,  in  this 
hour  of  progress,  in  this  day  of  free  schools,  in  this  day 
of  pulpits,  in  this  country  where  nothing  is  heard  and 
nothing  is  preached  politically  but  the  power  of  the  peo- 
ple, the  rights  of  the  people,  the   sovereignty  of  the 
people— where  the  dear  people  are  praised,  are  cajoled, 
are  nattered  even  by  the  conservatives  so  sweetly,  and 
where  their  sweet  voices  are  courted  as  graciously  as 
even  by  the  radicals— here  in  this  capitol,  in  this  me- 
tropolis, where  you,  Mr.  President,  are  sitting  in  that 
chair,  which  if  it  could  speak,  could  rebuke  us— are  we 
debating  whether  the  sovereign  voters  of  the  State  of 
Virginia  shall  be  equal,  man  with  man  !  * 

We  have  made  the  proposition,  that  they  shall  be 
equal.  We  have  submitted  it.  It  does  not  yet  "lie  like 
love  bleeding,"  but  I  know  not  how  soon— I  fear  it  will 
be  too  soon — it  will  be  found  to  have  too  few  friends  to 
sav,e  it. 

But  sir,  why  is  it  and  what  is  it  that  we  are  here  de- 
bating \  I  have  answered  myself  by  saying  that  the 
question  before  this  Convention  of  the  people  of  Virgi- 
nia, is  whether  the  people  of  Virginia  shall  be  free.  I 
am  told  they  are  free.  Social  freedom  they  have.  I 
admit  that  they  have  social  freedom  as  unlimited  as  any 


upon  earth.    But  are  they  politically  free  ?    Are  th 


equal  ?  Are  they  man  and  man,  equal  one  with  the  oth 
er  ?  No  !  and  it  is  because  they  are  not  equal,  because 
there  is  a  distinction  between  men,  because  there  is  a 
distinction  between  classes  of  men,  because  there  is  a 
distinction  between  sections  of  men,  that  we  are  debating 
now — seventy  odd  years  after  the  the  declaration  -of 
independence — the  first  elementary,  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  civil  liberty.  We  have  proposed  that  the  peo- 
ple, the  sovereign  people  at  the  polls,  shall  be  counted 
man  with  man,  and  we  are  told  that  they  shall  not 
stand  equal,  and  that  those  who  have  property  s.hall 
have  communicated  and  attributed  by  property,  politi- 
cal power  preponderating  over  those  who  have  not,  pro- 
perty!  What,  I  ask,  is  the  objection  that  is  urgeri  now, 
at  this  day,  in  this  State,  to  this  equality  of  the  people, 
this  political  freedom  of  the  people  as  well  as/  social 


7 


freedom  of  the  people?  It- is  denied  that  social  and 
political  liberty  are  not  put  upon  the  same  footing  here. 
I  tell  you  gentlemen  that  you  cannot  deny  that  this 
question  is  settled  every  where  else  on  this  continent. 
Why  not  settled  here — here  on  this  consecrated  ground? 
We,  the  people,  are  told  that  "  we,"  somebody  else,  will 
not  agree  to  be  governed  by  numbers;  that  "  we"  the 
property  holders,  "we"  who  set  up  the  pretensions  of 
property  to  political  power  will  not  consent  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  people,  by  numbers.  You  are  answered 
that  nobody  proposes  to  govern  you  by  numbers,  no- 
body proposes  now  to  control  this  State  by  the  masses 
of  the  people  en  masse,  no-body  proposes  an  exclusive 
white  population  basis  ?  What  is  it  that  is  pro2)osed  ? 
That  qualified  voters,  men  that  shall  be  adjudged  fit  to  ex- 
ercise the  reason  and  the  conscience  and,  the  free  human 
will  of  freemen,  shall  be  the  sovereigns  of  the  political 
power  of  the  State  of  Virginia. 

G-entlemen  from  the  east  have  throughout  debated 
this  question,  as  if  it  was  the  same  question  debated  in 
the  last  Convention,  as  if  it  was  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee which  reported  that  white  population  exclusive- 
ly should  be  the  source  and  basis  of  legislative  repre- 
sentation.   That  is  not  the  question  here.    You  have 
full  latitude,  you  have  full  margin  to  prescribe  the  quali- 
fication of  voters  as  you  please.  You,  not  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  at  the  polls,  but  you  whose  majority 
here  corresponds  with  the  governmental  majority — you 
have  power  to  prescribe  the  qualification  of  voters.  By 
the  same  power  that  you  decide  in  what  manner  the 
representation  of  the  State  shall  be  based,  you  have 
power  to  determine  how  the  voters  shall  be  qualified. 
What  then  is  it  that  you  deny  ?    I  deny  that  your  de- 
nial is  of  the  power  of  numbers.    That  is  not  your 
position.    Gentlemen  shall   not  deceive  the  people, 
they  shall  not  deceive  their  own  constituents  by  taking 
or  pretending  to  take  the  position  that  they  simply  de- 
ny the  right  of  numbers  to  rule.    You  deny  the  right  of 
qualified  voters  to  rule.    That  is  your  denial,  and  that 
is  the  question  here  this  night.    After  you  have  deter- 
mined who  shall  be  qualified  voters,  after  you  have 
ascertained  what  the  qualification  shall  be,  after  you 
have  fixed  by  your  constitution  who  shall  or  shall  not 
exercise  the  sovereign  power  at  the  polls,  with  that 
power  in  your  hands  you  say  that  the  people  shall  not 
rule  legislation  or  representation,  but  that  the  govern- 
mental power,  the  municipal  power  of  the  State,  shall 
rule  the  sovereign  qualified  voters  of  the  State.  No 
sir,  no.    I  am  as  much  opposed  to  the  mere  power  of 
unregulated  numbers  as  you  are.    Men,  women,  chil- 
dren, sane,  insane,  adults,  infants,  aliens  and  citizens 
shall  not  mingle  together  and  as  disjuncta  membra  exer- 
cise the  power  of  the  State.    But  what  the  west  claims 
and  what  I  here  from  the  east  claim  is,  that  when  you 
have  philosophically  defined  the  sovereign,  that  sover- 
eign shall  be  sovereign,  and  that  you  shall  not  put  the 
mere  agent  of  the  sovereign  over  the  master.  Great 
God  1  has  it  come  to  this  that  practically,  really — dis- 
guise it  as  you  may,  deny  it  as  you  may — now  in  this 
hour  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  and  consequently  the 
freedom  and  equality  of  the  people  is  denied  in  the 
State  of  Virginia,  the  mother  of  democracy!  "The' 
mother  of  democracy!"    What  a  legitimate  offspring] 
this,  from  such  a  mother !    Patrick  Henry  in  the  days! 
of  the  revolution  exclaimed  at  Williamsburg:  "  Giv< 
me  liberty  or  give  me  death." 

A  MEMBER.    It  was  at  Richmond. 
Mr.  WISE.    No  sir,  it  was  at  Williamsburg.  Rich 
mond  may  claim  every  thing  from  the  old  capital,  but) 
there  is  some  little  left  there  yet. 

It  is  the  democracy  of  the  Essex  junto,  which  you 
preach.  It  is  the  democracy  of  the  Adams  school. 
This  is  your  democracy  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  where 
we  are,  in  this  day,  and  this  hour,  denying  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  people  ! 

But,  I  did  not  come  here  this  day,  I  did  not  come  into 
this  Convention,  to  declaim  upon  mere  party  distinctions 
in  the  State.    They  are  light,  they  are  mere  trifles,  light 


as  air.  I  come  here  to  assert  and  to  discuss  a  proposi- 
tion which  I  would  assert  were  I  alone,  and  the  only  man 
in  this  broad  commonwealth,  to  assert  it.  If  the  people 
were  not  conscious  of  it  themselves,  if  they  were  so  de- 
generate as  to  have  forgotten  the  A.  B.  C.  principles  of 
human  liberty,  I  would  stand  up  here  alone,  this  night, 
and  proclaim  the  proposition  that  qualified  voters  are  the 
sovereign  people  and  have  the  right  to  rule. 

This  brings  me  to  the  discussion  of  the  question,  of 
who,  or  what  primarily,  have  the  right  to  form  a  State? 
I  repeat  the  question,  who  or  what  primarily  have  the 
right  to  form  a  State  ?  I  will  answer  the  question  by 
repeating  the  proposition  that  qualified  voters  are  the 
sovereign  people  and  have  the  right  to  form  the  State. 

Sir,  from  whence  is  this  right  of  the  people  derived  ? 
It  is  derived  from  the  law  of  nature.  This  is  especially 
a  doctrine  combatted  by  the  lamented  Upshur.  Opposi- 
tion to  it  is  an  Upshur  heresy — a  heresy  which  he  so  suc- 
cessfully contended  for  in  his  day.  Representing  now  the 
same  constituents  which  he  represented  then,  1  come  lure 
this  night  to  combat  his  (Upshur's)  doctrine  that  there 
are  no  principles  a  prioriin  government.  What  is  the  law 
of  nature  ?  Gentlemen  have  talked  about  the  law  of  na- 
ture, and  yet  have  denied  natural  rights,  and  have  vio- 
lated natural  rights.  Some  have  contended  for  them, 
and  others  have  denied  them  ;  yet  no  one  has  defined 
what  the  law  of  nature  is.  Sir,  we  are  a  christian  peo- 
ple ;  we  acknowledge,  not  only  the  being  of  nature, 
but  the  great  first  cause  of  nature. 

The  law  of  nature — there  is  no  other  christian  defi- 
nition— is  the  will  of  God,  natural  and  revealed.  Search 
in  your  own  mind,  and  tell  me  whether  you  can  give 
any  other  definition  than  that.  The  law  of  nature  is 
the  will  of  God,  natural  and  revealed.  It  is  divided — 
first,  into  the  law  of  moral  right ;  secondly,  into  the  law 
of  animal  and  physical  force,  and  thirdly,  into  the  law 
of  social  organization,  the  end  of  which  is  to  restrain 
all  force  from  invading  the  law  of  moral  right. 

Now,  upon  what  ground  do  I  make  my  first  onset 
upon  the  position  which  the  doctrines  of  Judge  Up- 
shur, in  support  of  the  mixed  basis,  were  founded  ? — 
The  very  first  principles  upon  which  he  grounds 
his  great  argument  in  favor  of  the  mixed  basis — the 
wbole  and  sole  ground  upon  which  it  is  in  fact 
based — is  an  argument  of  the  French  school  of  phi- 
losophy, which  denies  the  first  principles  of  the  nat- 
ural law,  of  the  moral  law,  and  of  the  social  organization, 
and  which  sets  up  alone  the  natural  law.  of  force.  The 
doctrine  of  the  mixed  basis  recognizes  no  other  law 
than  that  of  force.  This  doctrine  rejects  the  social 
aw  as  a  part  of  the  natural  law,  and,  above  all,  re- 
ects  the  moral  law,  and  attacks  the  throne  and  mon- 
irchy  of  God  himself.  I  denounce  it  as  an  atheistical 
doctrine,  as  an  unphilosophical  proposition,  denying  all 
;reat  first  principles,  all  justice,  and  all  rule  of  moral 
right,  as  I  will  show.  I  will  refer  to  Mr.  Upshur's 
speech,  pages  66,  69  and  70,  and  where  he  says  : 

"Let  me  not  be  misunderstood,  sir.  I  am  not  now 
inquiring  whether,  according  to  the  form  and  nature  of 
our  institutions,  a  majority  ought  or  ought  not  to  rule. 
That  inquiry  will  be  made  hereafter.  At  present  I 
propose  only  to  prove  that  there  is  no  original  a  priori 
principle  in  the  law  of  nature  which  gives  to  a  majori- 
ty a  right  to  control  a  minority  ;  and,  of  course,  that  we 
are  not  bound  by  any  obligation  prior  to  society  to  adopt 
that  principle  in  our  civil  institutions." 

This  is  a  doctrine  of  atheism ;  it  is  a  doctrine  of  Italy 
and  Germany ;  it  is  one  which  declares  that  the  law  of 
force  is  the  only  rule  of  right,  and  that  in  tL<  i^w  of  na- 
ture, which  the  God  of  justice,  the  God  of  truth,  the 
God  of  benevolence  established,  not  only  in  the  physi- 
cal kingdom,  but  in  the  moral  kingdom  of  man,  he 
established  no  other  rule  than  that  of  force.  Again, 
Mr.  Upshur  says : 

"In  truth,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  no  original  prin- 
ciples in  government  at  all.  Novel  and  strange  as  this 
idea  may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  strictly  true  in  the 
sense  in  which  1  announce  it.    There  are  no  original 


s 


principles  existing  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  indepen- 
dent of  agreement,  to  which  government  must  of  ne- 
cessity conform  in  order  to  be  either  legitimate  or 
philosophical.  The  principles  of  government  are  those 
principles  only  which  the  people  who  form  the  govern- 
ment choose  to  adopt  and  apply  to  themselves.  Prin- 
ciples do  not  precede,  but  spring  out  of  government. 

"I  have  thus,  Mr.  Chairman,  endeavored  to  prove  that 
there  is  not  in  nature,  nor  even  in  sound  political 
science,  any  fundamental  principle  applicable  to  this 
subject  which  is  mandatory  upon  us." 

]f  this  doctrine  be  proved  to  be  true,  what  is  our  con- 
dition as  a  people?  The  people,  in  this  sense,  who  may 
happen  to  be  in  the  minority,  holding  the  govermental 
power,  may  adopt  what  government  they  please,  with- 
out regard  to  first  principles,  and  without  regard  to  a 
priori  and  fundamental  truths.  That  minority  may  es- 
tablish something  else  than  what  they  call  a  representa- 
tive republican  government ;  in  a  word,  they  may  es- 
tablish what  they  please. 

This  brings  me  to  inquire,  are  there  any  first  princi- 
ples ?  Are  there  any  true  guaranties  or  guides  of  right  ? 
19  there  no  justice,  no  moderation  ?  Are  there  none  of 
the  principles  enumerated  in  your  bill  of  rights  which 
are  not  only  to  be  referred  to,  but  referred  to  often? 
I  ask  the  question  again:  Is  a  state  of  nature  a  wild 
unregulated  existence,  governed  by  no  God  ?  Has  God 
himseJf  no  attributes  of  eternal  right?  Has  man  no 
destiny  in  civil  government  but  what  he  himself  may 
make  ?  If  there  be  none  other,  then  wo,  wo,  unto  us. 
I — n©  preacher,  no  evangelist,  no  professor — assert  that 
there  is  a  standard,  an  Infinite  standard,  of  truth  in  gov- 
ernment as  well  as  in  the  pulpit  of  conscience.  I  assert 
that  there  is  a  standard  of"  moral  law,  an  Infinite  stand- 
ard— that  is  precisely  what  Mr.  Upshur  denied,  and 
what  the  mixed  basis  denies — that  reason  and  con- 
science were  given  to  men  to  discern  the  standard 
of  truth ;  that  reason  and  conscience  were  given  to 
men  to  be  exerted  in  all  their  force,  governmental  as 
well  as  individual  and  that  the  same  justice  thai 
acts  between  you  and  I  individually,  is  the  very 
same  justice,  or  any  other  virtue  is  the  same  that  acts 
between  you  and  I,  when  we  come  to  form  a  State. 
There  is  no  difference.  Private  and  public  virtue  is  tile 
same.  Moral  principle,  whether  it  be  applied, to  States 
or  individuals — I  care  not  what  Mr.  Madison  said,  I  hav|e 
higher  authority  than  Mr.  Madison — is  the  same  as  it 
is  between  man  and  man. 

And  this  brings  me  to  say,  that  the  doctrine  which 
refers  human  government  to  its  Infinite  source  is  Infi- 
nite Radicalism.  Now,  let  those  who  come  to  scoff  at  infi- 
nite radicalism  remain  to  pray.  You  have  got  a  defi- 
nition now  of  infinite  radicalism.  It  is  a  doctrine  that 
believes  in  a  God.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  believes  in  the 
moral  law.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  believes  in  the  divin- 
ity of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  takes  the  Bible 
as  the  standard  of  the  moral  law.  That  is  infinite  rad- 
icalism, and  I  claim  my  title  from  no  monarch  upon 
earth,  from  no  crowned  head,  from  no  grant  of  "us" 
or  « W  I  claim  my  rights ;  I  claim  them  for  my  con- 
stituents, for  this  people,  as  a  grant  direct  from  God, 
and  I  am  shielded  in  my  rights  by  the  eternal  moral 
truths  which  govern  the  universe.  [Great  applause.] 
Do  not  applaud  that  sentiment,  it  is  Heaven's  own, 
not  mine.  No,  I  do  not  go  to  Greece,  ancient  Greece, 
whose  temples  were  inscribed  to  the  "unknown  God." 
I  do  not  go  to  Rome  with  her  plebian  and  patrician 
orders.  I  do  not  go  to  Rome,  whose  imperial  spears 
pierced  my  Saviour's  sides  upon  the  cross.  I  do  not  go 
to  the  modern  republics  of  Italy  or  of  France,  as  I  said 
before,  whose  sans-culottes  and  fishwomen  tied  the 
Bible  to  the  tail  of  a  jackass,  and  dragged  it  through 
the  streets  of  Paris.  No  no.  I  do  not  go  to  the  magna 
charta  of  Great  Britain  itself,  which  recognises  majesty,1 
that  says,  as  the  gentleman  from  Richmond  (Mr.  Ly- 
ons) said  to  day,*  "we,"  the  aristocracy,  or  '«  we,"  the 


Burkes,  her  Humes,  her  Butlers,  her  Hampdens,  her 
Sidneys,  or  even  to  her  Miltons,  for  they  are  all' tinc- 
tured, more  or  less,  with  the  doctrine  of  inequality  of  man; 
and  they  all  teach  you  that  false  theory  for  American 
example,  which  is,  I  hope,  now  crushed  forever,  that  man 
when  he  forms  a  State  gives  up  any  of  his  natural  rights. 
The  last  of  the  authorities  which  I  would  quote  is  Black- 
stone,  who  has  made  more  blunderers  and  pettifoggers 
in  the  law,  and  more  blunderers  in  politics,  and  polit- 
ical philosophy,  especially  in  Virginia,  than  all  the 
other  books  put  together.    [Laughter.]    There  is  noth- 
ing in  all  his  doctrine  but  fawning  sycophancy  towards 
the  throne,  and  towards  the  prerogative  and  suprema- 
cy of  parliament.  I  do  not  go  there.  I  do  not  go  to  that 
poor  old  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia,  that  is  now  so  low 
that  none  will  do  it  reverence.    [Laughter.]    It  has 
got  into'the  hands  of  the  lawyers,  and  is  so  perverted, 
so  distorted,  so  misrepresented,  so  misapplied,  that  all 
its  unction  and  sanctity  of  republican  truth  are  gone, 
not  excepting  even  its  democracy  of  infinite  radicalism 
itself,  which  exhorts  you  to  return  to  first  principles,  and 
tells  you,  you  must  often  recur  to  them.    I  do  not 
go  to  that,  because  here,  by  almost  half  of  this  body, 
it  is  denied,  rejected,  scorned,  and  it  has  been  put  to 
the  rack  until  I  saw  I  could  not  save  it.    It  has  groan- 
ed and  expired,  and  I  never  wish  to  see  another 
bill  of  rights  put  to  a  constitution  to  suffer  such  torture 
as  long  as  I  live— never.  [Laughter.]  I  do  not  go  to  the 
apostles  of  American  liberty.    I  shall  not  even  go  to  Mr. 
Jefferson;  and  I  hope  I  maybe  pardoned  for  saying 
that  I  even  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Jefferson  would 
agree  with  me  in  my  infinite  radicalism.    I  do  not  go 
to  the  heathen  gods.    I  do  not  appeal  to  the  dii  ma- 
jorum  gentium,  nor  to  the  dii  minorum  gentium,  but 
I  go  to  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth  !    I  go  to  the  in- 
carnate God.    I  go  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the 
author  of  my  being  and  of  my  eternal  destiny.  Let 
no  one  imagine  that  I  say  this  impiously.    1  say  it  earn- 
estly and  reverently,  that  my  charter  for  human  liberty 
and  equality  among  men  is  from  on  high.    I  plead 
Heaven's  own  title  for  my  liberty.    I  go  to  Him  who 
was  cradled  in  the  manger  and  was  called  the  carpen- 
ter's son.    I  go  to  him  Avho  had  compassion  upon  the 
multitude.  I  go  to  him  who  caused  the  "  dumb  to  speak, 
the  lame  to  walk,  the  blind  to  see  ;  and  who  caused  the 
Gospel  to  be  preached  to  the  poor."    I  go  to  him  who 
tells  me  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the 
eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  go  to  Heaven. 
I  go  to  him  who  scourged  the  money  changers  from  the 
temple  of  the  living  God,  as  I  would  have  the  money 
changers  scourged  from  the  temple  of  human  liberty. 
I  go  to  him  who  regarded  the  widow's  mite  more  than 
He  did  what  the  rich  cast  in  from  their  abundance. 
Who  asked,  of  whom  do  the  kings  of  the  earth  take 
tribute  ?    Who  lest  He  should  offend  them  cast  a  hook 
into  the  sea.    I  go  to  him  who  said  to  Jerusalem,  as 
I  would  say  to  Virginia,  "  Oh !  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem , 
thou  who  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  sent 
unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thee  to- 
ge  ther  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wmg, 
and  ye  would  not.   Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you 
desolate."    I  am  serious  in  this.    I  would  appeal,  not 
)nly  to  the  author  of  my  being,  to  divine  example,  for 
authority  to  prove  equality  among  men,  but  I  would  ap- 
peal to  the  example  that  was  set  by  Him  who  selected 
."nonarchs,  instead  of  saying  we  the  people.  I  do  not  go  to 
:he  writers  of  England.    I  do  not  go  to  her  Lockes,  her 


*  An  old  copy  of  the  Great  Charter,  printed  in  London  in 


die  year  1680,  in  the  rude  quaint  looking  letter  press  of  tha* 
Deriod,  and  purporting  to  be  "faithfully  translated  for  the 
benefit  of  those  that  do  not  understand  the  Latine,  by  -Edw. 
Cooke,  of  the  Middle  Temple,  Esq.,  gi/es  the  first  clause  of 
the  instrument  in  these  words : — 

"  Imprimus,  (a)  We  have  granted  to  God,  and  by  this,  our 
present  charter  have  confirmed  for  us,  and  (b)  our  heirs  for- 
ever," &c. 

To  this  is  appended  the  following  explanatory  note : 
"  (a)  When  a  thing  is  granted  for  God,  the  law  says,  it  is 
granted  to  God ;  and  wnat  is  granted  to  His  Church,  for 
His  Honor,  &c.,  is  granted  for  and  to  God.   Quod  datum 
est  Ecclesia,  datum  est  Deo." 


